Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Still horrifically biased

I am still astonished at how POV the wording of this article is. Very little of it is about the film (unsurprisingly, since it hasn't been released yet); the vast majority reads like an essay written by someone dedicated to rebutting and discrediting intelligent design. One of the claims made in the film is described, for instance, as an "frequently-used and often-discredited creationist charge", and intelligent design itself is described as not being a "credible scientific alternative" to evolution.

For the record, I am not a supporter of intelligent design and I don't necessarily disagree with the anti-ID views expressed in the article. But it still shouldn't be there. Wikipedia is dedicated to the principle of NPOV. We are not here to take sides, or to determine that ID is not scientific. That is a matter of opinion, not of fact.

The article needs to be trimmed to about a quarter of its present size. The only criticism needed is criticism about the film (e.g. the controversy over lying to interviewees). Using other sources critical of intelligent design to source criticism of the film constitutes original research by synthesis.

Ironically, the only other place I've seen an encyclopedia article this biased is on Conservapedia (albeit in the opposite direction). However, I have been working on the Conservapedia counterpart to this article and I think it's actually more neutral than this one, for the time being at least. It can be found at [1], and demonstrates what I think this article should look like. WaltonOne 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to split the "this is an opinion" hair, we'd say that in the opinion of anyone who understands what science is, ID is not a credible scientific alternative to evolution. It's not wrong for the article to make this clear, but of course we have to be careful how. I do agree that the conservapedia article is decently balanced. I just re-read this one, and I don't see that it's astonishingly biased, but I do think it possibly gets a bit off topic. Some of what's here is more suited to (and, I'm sure, is already covered in) other articles. We should look for ways to make this article link to others for detailed explanations, and stay as tightly focused on the film as we can. Friday (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


  • I do not think you understand what NPOV means, at least on Wikipedia. It means that both sides have to be presented here, in proportion to the dominant view in the relevant field. This film is about a controversy in science, therefore the mainstream science view must be dominant according to NPOV.
  • There is plenty of material about the film here, and plenty that is positive. I did a quick check, and the article is about 88% pro-ID, including the part about the interviewees complaining, and ignoring the footnotes.
  • If you want an example of a highly rated NPOV article on wikipedia, compare this one to intelligent design. That is our model here and what were are trying to emulate.--Filll (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


I just read the Conservapedia article. It is not very informative and wildly biased. Sorry. It reads like a right wing anti-science piece of propaganda and hate literature. If that is your view of NPOV, dream on. However, this is not unusual since Conservapedia is a piece of trash by and large and completely unreliable and full of hatespeech and Christofascist nonnsense.--Filll (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. NPOV much, Filll? :) But seriously, this isn't an article about ID. It's an article about a movie that has something to do with ID, evolution, censorship, discrimination, humor, Ferris Buller, Ben Stein's money, academia, etc. "Both sides have to be presented here," but that would mean "both sides" of the movie (whatever that means). This article really needs to get away from all of the POV stuff within it, and focus on the film itself. Like Friday said, if there's additional info that some think is somehow relevant and ought to be included but it's not focused on the film itself, then link to it. That's the beauty of the tubes that make up the internets. Goo2you (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I wrote 3 additional long paragraphs, about Bohlin's column on the topic, and then Ruloff's interview and views, and Mathis' interview and views. However, this was felt to be too pro-ID. I am trying, but when people such as yourself argue with me and edit war, then the article gets mangled. I might try again to put in another huge block of pro-ID material that was removed, but I cannot guarantee that it will stay in because others feel the balance point should be somewhere else. I cannot dictate unilaterally what the article will say; this is a matter of consensus.--Filll (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole basis of the intelligent design movement is seeking out non-critical forums on which to spread their ideas. They do this because in a debate of the merits of their ideas, they lose every time, without exception. So instead, they seek to manufacture a controversy, generate news buzz, and then use that buzz to claim that the idea should be given equal time. People arguing that this article should present a non-critical exposition of their ideas are playing right into this strategy. Meanwhile, the people like Filll et al are committed to making this an accurate exposition of the movie and ID, and that certainly includes statements such as the ones Walton cited. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Raul654 has just proven the point that is being made here by saying that this article should be "an accurate exposition of the movie and ID" -- this article should be an accurate exposition of the movie, period. This isn't an article about ID -- we already HAVE one of those, to which we can link. Please focus here, folks. Goo2you (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
When the movie (or the promotional material thereof) makes patently false claims about ID and the surrounding issues, it is our responsiblity to debunk them. So when it claims that ID is legitimate science, was must say that no, it's not; when it says ID explains the evidence, we must explain that no, it doesn;'t when it says that Guillermo Gonzalez was persecuted for believing in ID, we need to explain that no, he wasn't - that he had raised no research money, and so fourth. For every canard the film trots out, we need to show in THIS article why it's false. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That, Raul, is the very definition of POV (or at least a good paraphrase). I have yet to see any WP policy that would make it a duty to debunk every claim made in a controversial documentary. Point out the claims, yes; direct readers to relevant opposing links, yes; but a duty to debunk every claim made in the movie? Come on. Seriously. Let's focus here, folks. Goo2you (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no, as I said above - non-critical media is exactly what ID's marketing strategy is based on. We will not be playing into it. They want to make a movie full of bullshit - we'll expose it for what it is. And you can say "focus people!" all you want, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Raul654 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "we'll expose it for what it is". Sadly, this is the definition of agenda driven POV. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor truth (WP:NOT). We can expose "Expelled" using sources about Expelled, as these are relevant. Sources that are about Intelligent design, particularly pre-"Expelled" sources, should be avoided. Any editor concerned with exposing "Expelled" as the fraud that is, more than they are about simply informing the public of the relevant information already available about "Expelled", should take a good long hard look at WP:COI and WP:POV. In detailing what "Expelled" is, its fraudulent nature will be obviously detailed; however if we simply detail its fradulent nature we will overlook other relevant information, and possibly lose focus.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's a balance to be found. As an educational resource, Wikipedia has no business letting the ID crowd spread their silliness here. But, I can see how Raul's statements might sound fishy. I suspect that you're probably both in agreement on any practical issues, and you're probably mostly disagreeing over how things are being said. It might be worth leaving this abstract disagreement alone, and focusing purely on practical issues of actual content. Friday (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul is correct in the following sense; for any major documentary if we have reliable sources saying that major parts of it are bullshit we should do so. It isn't any different from for example noting scientific and other problems with some details in An Inconvenient Truth for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not come close to debunking all the nonsense in this movie's promotional materials. All the talk about Newton and Einstein and Darwin is demonstrably false. All the stuff about Crocker and the other people allegedly the object of persection is false. We really do not have room here to debunk all the falsehoods in the movie or the movie's promotional materials. We pick 2 or 3 major points, and note briefly that this is contrary to other evidence. That is all. If you do not like it, see the Conservapedia article.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree here. Focus should be paramount. We do not need to debunk all claims, and the best way to slim the article is not to list every silly claim the film and/or its producers make. Any which gain sufficient media attention should be focused upon.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not at the expense of completeness, accuracy and NPOV. "Slimming down the article" is far too often an excuse giving one view undue weight. Let's keep in mind that ID stakes it's claim in the field of science, making the view of scientific community on ID the majority view. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the bias you allege, but I do see that you don't seem to understand how the core policy regarding bias at Wikipedia actually is applied; please take the time to read and better understand WP:POINT before raising any more complaints about bias please. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree

I must take issue with the statement above of ZayZayEM about "synthetic OR". He raises many points in his long post that I think require individual attention.

The use of "intelligent design creationism" outside of direct quotes has been discussed at intelligent design, and consensus for the time being is that it should be avoided. Intelligent design does feature this statement:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[4] The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[99][100][101][102] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".[103][104][105]

Which is sufficient to explain the connection.

I wrote that passage in the intelligent design article, and I did not write it that way to soothe any feelings about "intelligent design creationism" having quotes around it or not. It appeared in quotes because I was referring to it as a linguistic phrase that I wanted to identify.

It appeared in this article in quotes, at least a version or two ago, again not to soothe any feelings, but because it was a phrase used by the New York Times, and we were making it clear it was a direct quote of a phrase from the New York Times. It was not placed in quotes here to avoid trodding on any sensitive toes.

Here on "Expelled" I do not feel that the creationist aspect of ID is particularly important to the film,

This is completely incorrect, as far as I can tell. The entire premise of the film is based on a repudiation of the careful strategy constructed by the Discovery Institute and the return to the teleological foundations of the intelligent design argument.

The script, the claims, the promotion, all of it, says it is about not putting science in a box where it cannot touch God. The trailers use the word God over and over and over. God god god god. That is not intelligent design as envisaged by the Discovery Institute. That is creationism. Pure and simple. Bare naked. No fig leaf to protect intelligent design from the predations of the US constitution and legal system. It lays bare the true nature of intelligent design; a variety of creationism. And as I threatened before, maybe I need to put another 20 references in the article to this effect. See, if you fight me, I will just pound back, harder than ever. Because you cannot WP:OWN this article and you cannot dictate unilaterally to everyone else how it will read. We do things here by consensus, and it appears to me that you do not have the consensus to ignore what is in a WP:RS and WP:V source.

And if you do not like the redundancy, I apologize, but that is just too bad. It is a term that is coming into general use in American English, clearly (after all, the New York Times is using it now). And it is not up to Wikipedia to rewrite the English language now, is it?

I feel this is different. Expelled has a direct link to the Discovery Institute's brand of creationism and its Wedge strategy. It is not a generic to tie to all forms of creationism. The specific nature of the film to Intelligent design and both DI's wedge and umbrella strategies rather than ties to generic creationism, fundamentalism or religiousity has not gone ignored, see AiG's spokesperson.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

except in context of statements by the production equating ID with creationism (i.e. Stein and O'Reilly).

No, obviously not just there. Sorry. Every bit of promotion, every trailer, every press report and bit on the website screams "creationism".


It is not significant enough of a connection to require stating in the first paragraph of the lead, which will direct a reader to intelligent design where they can uncover all the juicy creationist connections of the ID movement.

Um I think you are missing the point. The film approaches this as just obvious. Look at the promotion materials. Look at the trailers. Look at the quotes. Look at what Stein has written on the blog. They are not revealing any juicy connections. They just take it as a fact and never question it or even consider that it might be in doubt. Not once. Ever.

This is exactly what i am saying Filll. The importance of creationism is not that ID= creationism, but that "Expelled" and its creators are over and over saying "ID=creationism/Ywh", much to the contrary of DI's Wedge policy. DI the leading (only?) authority (...) on intelligent design and has repeatedly insisted, and continues to insist, (against all reason, and sometimes their own spokespeople) that ID is not a form of creationism.
"Expelled" should be explained as yet a further piece of evidence that Di is full of crap, and ID has always been irredeemably based on religious faith.
However, this needs to be explained, and we still can't come right out and say "ID = creationism", we can say "Expelled" further provides evidence that ID = creationism and DI is full of crap, which is more accurate and holistically informative.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Introducing the exact phrase "intelligent design creationism" to the lead against the consensus determined at Talk:Intelligent design might be perceived as a ninja trick by certain editors.

What consensus at intelligent design? The phrase was introduced into the article and the consensus was that this was reasonable. We met the challenges to it by showing there were plenty of sources for it.

In this article, we are just quoting the New York Times. It does not get much better than that, in terms of American English usage. As I said before, since you want to fight this, I can bury you in references. If that is how it has to be, so be it. You know I can. I know I can. I do not understand why you want to go there. But fair enough, we will.

And what fork are you talking about? Huh?


The lead does reveal the religious nature of ID in the second paragraph:

Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.[4][5]

I thought this was adequate (not perfect) in the absence of the previous lead paragraph, but certainly would not object to more direct (but appropriately worded) links to creationism being amde in paragraphs after the first.

Except it does not use the word "creationism". And I have heard some discussion by others that this material should be moved or put in a footnote since it is a bit offtopic. I am not sure.


"Adequate" not ideal. It's a wiki. Improve it. dave gets it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And again I'll mention that I feel the only significance of the creationist angle is in the conflict between DI and Premise of ID's status.

But this is an article about the Premise movie, which is entirely founded on pushing ID as creationism, as near as we can tell from many interviews, and press releases, and the website and trailers.

Isn't that what I just said?--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm also going to raise my usual objections to long references with in detail explanations tying various sources together. If you have to explain to a reader how to get the necessary conclusion from the resources available, you are probably making links that not everyone can see.

We do not use these references for any synthesis or OR. We provided cited references which back up the statements in the text, and provide places where the reader can verify those statements and learn a bit more on those topics. And because this is a topic which comes under frequent attack, we provide more than one reference for many of these points. The thing is, if editors did not fight us every step of the way, we would not need to provide so many references. The more fighting there is, the more references there are. That is just how it is. --Filll (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again this is letting intellectual terrorists win. This sort of tactic gives them vilification. Not every problem can be solved by more references. Striking an appropriate and reasonable balance, rather than falling to the taunts of trolls and other sources of unproductivity is no way to run an informative website.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There have been genuine concerns such as how much we can rely on the expertise of the NYT journalist, and these do have to be backed up with sufficient references. In the longer term this is something we can always review, but it's better to give plenty of backing to statements. No doubt some will feel that gives them vilification and so a sort of vindification, but even if we think the terrorists are whining, we have to write for the enemy and present their case fairly in due proportion to the well cited majority expert view. .. dave souza, talk 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit much maybe?

The endnotes! And who will be our first volunteer to come to the blackboard and spell coatrack for the class? The film isn't even out yet, but there are sixty-four sources noted, referenced over one hundred twenty times? Something approaching half these sources don't talk about the film at all. One of the references is nearly one hundred years old--the Hollywood film industry didn't even exist yet! ACK! Another one is dated 1874!! Are these sources? Or exhibits entered into evidence?[2] Only a handful of sources admit to even seeing the film, but has each and every individual in the world opinionating about it been exhaustively covered here yet? Or did the article manage inadvertently to miss somebody. Overkill perhaps? "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not ..." Professor marginalia (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have several responses to this.

  • We are not some sort of advertising service, or some sort of press release service. We are providing some sort of academic documentation and presentation of sourced material. So it is long with lots of references. If one does not like it, one can read Conservapedia or any number of other articles about this film.
  • By the rules of NPOV etc, we are to provide balance for the claims made in the promotional material. Until we have more real reviews, this is all we have.
  • I have fought extremely hard to try to get more pro-ID material and material that takes the POV of the directors and producers etc. However, people have resisted this and deleted rafts of material I wrote and references, all pro-ID. People complain it is boring, or that they are not interested in the words of the director and the producer. This might be true, but it leads to a lack of balance and compaints like this. It just gets tiresome after a while to have people on both sides attacking my prose for being too pro-ID or not pro-ID enough.
  • Our goal should be to provide an encyclopedic discussion of the film, at a certain level of depth. And that is what I have tried to do, in spite of losing probably 40% of the text I wrote from the article.--Filll (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Filll, I didn't mean to beat up on you (didn't even know it was largely your text). I know how the text can start to grow on and on in some articles in order to satisfy everybody's pet whatever. But coming fresh to it as I just have, I just see an article with way too much tinsel hung over it. The Kitzmiller trial? "Darwin goes to church"? When the wikipedia article goes to WP:NOR to lay sway with studies and commentary about evolution, ID, and morality but not about this film, or to embellish beyond what that the sources speaking of the movie took time to detail blow by blow (as in case of Richard Sternberg), or digs content from someone completely unconnected to the topic who, (simply on the basis of what he's read in a newspaper article?), becomes a quotable "source" here by virtue writing a "letter to the editor"? Hey, it's time for a deep cuts. And I don't pretend this sketch to be a thorough list of the synthesis styled original research I found in the article, not by any means. WP:NOR is a very strict rule that applies everywhere in wikipedia. The article shouldn't promote the film either. So cut a goodly chunk of the self claims coming straight from the film's too clever by half promotional department, and let the producers pay to promote their ad copy the old fashioned way. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we want an article with material that will make it valuable as a reference or starting point for research 50 or 100 years from now.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort, but ... the film hasn't even been released yet. More directly to the point is that this article has gone beyond what its sources justify. There is good content, but new or synthesized claims needs a real publisher. We can't use wikipedia to do this, wp can't contain dimensions, connections or analysis that its editors have come up with, regardless of its quality. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we have engaged in WP:OR or gone beyond our sources. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • No rules against old references. I think its a good idea, if in context, looks okay here. And the arguments from these texts are not being repeated thay are merely being referred to. For my few misgivings about certain footnotes, these are not among them. The extreme dates of these references mean they give a good view of the lengthy history or repeated (and repeatedly shot down) creationist/anti-eviloution arguments. In a word they aren't redundant because of their dating.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the pertinent policy:
"Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:
"'Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.'
"That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:
"'If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.'
"This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." (All from wp:NOR)
Let's substitute, an example from this article:
"Contrary to charges that evolution is equivalent to atheism (or associated with atheism) by many promoters of intelligent design and creationism,[20] scientists commonly hold religious faiths,[1] while using the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which looks to nature to answer questions about nature and ignores supernatural explanations which are by definition "not within the scope or abilities of science."[1]"
The first reference [20] lists six references, none refer to any claim made in the movie about atheism. It's both original research, and a strawman setup to a point which isn't made in the other reference attached to the sentence. A WP:Coatrack there. Another one:
"Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[10][21] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God, but because it is not scientific[12] and instead is pseudoscience.[14] and therefore the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science,[22] but as creationism.[14]"
Only one reference in the list talked of the movie, the rest are about ID. Problem is, editors are making an argument beyond what the one source who talked of the film there made, which is simply, "scientists say ID isn't science". The rest of the argument is embellishment, original research, going into all kinds of esoterica about Kitzmiller and level of acceptance among scientist polls to do it. Again, a coatrack to talk about issues that, inconveniently, the source actually writing about the movie didn't go into. The zeal on this is what contributors at talk origins are invited to do, to roll up their sleeves and do "investigative" type multi-dimensional analysis. But wikipedia's OR rules strictly forbid this here. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt about it

"Stein stated that "There's no doubt about it. We have lots and lots of evidence of ***it*** in the movie. And you know Einstein worked within the framework of believing there was a God. Newton worked within the framework of believing there was a God. For gosh sakes Darwin worked within the framework of believing there was a God. And yet, somehow, today you're not allowed to believe it. Why can't we have as much freedom as Darwin had?"[6]"

I've marked the "it" in "We have lots of evidence of it". It really isn't clear what the "it" is. Does he mean evidence for Intelligent Design? evidence that scientists competently operate within a theistic framework? evidence of persecution/restriction of academic framework?--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs rewriting

This article needs rewriting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_%28film%29 . That's how it should be done, not an attack piece on the film or a glowing review. State what the film shows then describe the controversy, not rip up the film. Fairchoice (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate your aims in terms of layout, but the example you cite is of a film notable as a film – this film is notable solely as a controversial propaganda exercise promoting an ideology which has to be carefully described in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, and the article has to be summarised in the lead in accordance with WP:LEAD. Oh, and it's not "a documentary film about intelligent design", a subject apparently not described at all in the film, but rather a documentary presenting claims of persecution by creationists who happen to promote intelligent design. . .. dave souza, talk 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
"this film is notable solely as a controversial propaganda exercise promoting an ideology"

This comment sounds like POV. Let's be nice to each other and do a neutral piece on the film highlighting the controversy, not slamming the film. Note that some want to slam the film and others want to sugar coat it. I want neither. Fairchoice (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We have to abide by NPOV, which means including all relevant views. It does not mean "neutral" so I believe you are unfortunately misinformed and need to actually learn something about Wikipedia policies before preaching to us, with all due respect. And I will also note that large swaths of material on the views of the producers and directors that I wrote was removed by consensus because it was thought to be overly positive to the creationist and intelligent design viewpoint. We do things by consensus here, but I will still work to get more of that pro-creationist and pro-ID material back in the article. Thanks for your input however.--Filll (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV means that you present the case fairly and in neutral terms. With the Israeli situation, you don't just state the Palestinian claims only or the Israel claims only, you state that there is a dispute and summarize each side. This is what I intend to do. That's NPOV. I want NPOV. I don't want POV favoring either side. Fairchoice (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did a little calculation and found out that this article is 88% pro-creationist and about 12% anti-creationist, not counting the footnotes. So you are claiming we should put a lot more anti-creationist material in this article? Well I see. Interesting. I will see what I can do to find more negative things about this film and what sources I can find about how ignorant and stupid and dishonest the creationists and in particular those involved in this film are. I am sure that those sources will not be too hard to find. Want to help me? Let's find some stuff saying all creationists are dishonest creeps and jerks. I look forward to seeing your suggestions.--Filll (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also did a calculation and find the article 100% anti-film. This calculation is based on 3 negative captions of the sections and 2 neutral ones. I'm shocked at the anti-crowd who just undoes every change and doesn't offer compromise changes. My changes have been mostly to keep the wording, just rearrange it and re-title it for neutrality. Yet, fierce opposition. Fairchoice (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate to me how

The film states "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." The film shows that educators and scientists who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have been unfairly ridiculed, presenting cases such as an application to be granted tenure being refused and a biology teacher having to leave the university, and describes this as due to a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."[1][2]

is "anti-film".--Filll (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Prose is very accusatory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth In the slide show Gore reviews the scientific opinion on climate change, discusses the politics and economics of global warming, and describes the consequences he believes global climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases is not significantly reduced in the very near future.

It doesn't say:

In the slide show Gore claims there is scientific opinion on climate change, claims that there are politics and economics of global warming, and alleges that there are consequences he believes global climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases is not significantly reduced in the very near future.

So let's act fairly. Claims of the film has been re-titled "Topics presented in the film". All these slanted words like "claims to" and "alleges" should be removed and the film described in a neutral, not slanted way. Then you can have all the attack you want.

This is the fair way rather than to have paragraphs with subtle attack and then overt attack. Fairchoice (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With a little moving of paragraphs and minor rewording of the plot details, the article is better and less slanted. See, nothing to fuss about. It's not done but if we can agree on this temporary version then we have progress. I just want the article to be a fair and NPOV article, not every sentence ridiculing the film. Just state what the film says and THEN state why you hate it, not try to smear the film then state why you hate it. Fairchoice (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry this is against WP MOS and policies and practices. In addition, you have no consensus. Thanks!--Filll (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I follow WP MOS, if not please tell me what is in violation. We have consensus for NPOV. IF you violate NPOV, you violate consensus, even if you have a mob of POV warriors. Let's make sure we don't violate NPOV. What's the opposition to my edits as I have added nothing pro-film, just removed NPOV. I have kept paragraphs and just moved them around so the anti-film stuff is together.Fairchoice (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you follow WP MOS you should know that it is not permitted to lump material all of one viewpoint together. It is also not permitted to remove it from the LEAD. You are not permitted to remove well sourced material that you disagree with. As I told you before, there is in the history pro-ID and pro-creationist and pro-film material I had added that was removed. If you want to put more of that back in for balance, fair enough. So do I. But we do not remove the material we do not like and slowly whittle the article down to a nub. If you want to see a nub article, go to conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairchoice, you don't seem to have read the NPOV links I put on your user page, in particular Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity". No one seriously doubts that there is scientific opinion on climate change, politics and economics of global warming, and that Gore believes that global climate change will have consequences. Indeed, his presentation is close to majority expert opinion. In contrast, Expelled presents a misleading image of some cases which have been well analysed, notably the Sternberg case where the "victim" lost nothing but the esteem of his peers. Gonzales and Crocker were not granted tenure, but then most others in their job situation don't get tenure, regardless of beliefs. Presenting these as "persecution" is an extreme minority view amongst experts, and has to be shown as such. Under WP:LEAD the introductory paragraphs have to summarise the main points of the article, including the majority view of the claims made in the film. You evidently want to shorten that section, and in my opinion there's a possibility of summarising points more concisely, but your edits clearly fail to meet the NPOV and LEAD requirements. To make progress, please discuss your proposals instead of acting and edit warring, which constitutes disruptive editing and can lead to a block. Please study these policies carefully and come up with constructive proposals on this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Orlando Sentinel review, but in its movie critic's blog Adam Cuerden talk 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction required

Under Promotional interviews with producers, paragraph two.

"Stein asks questions of scientists who subscribe to evolution "Colombo-style""

should be

"Stein asks questions of scientists who subscribe to evolution "Columbo-style"

assuming the style is one of false naïveté rather than a Sri-Lankan manner. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs plot section

The articles needs to be NPOV. One way is to have a neutral description of the plot. Later sections can analyze the film.

Keeping all what was written but just rearranging the paragraphs, a plot section can be made. It could be:

This section can be re-written but these sentences (none of which I wrote) are factual statements with as little commentary as possible. This is what we need for the article. Analysis can be done in later sections. I am much more interested in presenting a section about facts (what the film's plot is) rather than others who are arguing for or against intelligent design.

I can't think of why anyone would be opposed to a neutral, factually written plot summary except if one is opposed to the film and wants completely negative commentary. If there is a reason why a neutral, facutually written plot summary is not allowed, please say so. Nearly all other films have such a section.

Plot (or summary of film)

The film states "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."[1][2]

Richard Sternberg is the prominent figure in the Sternberg peer review controversy which arose when, having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and submitting his resignation in the previous year, he arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.[1][3]

The astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, co-wrote the book The Privileged Planet promoting intelligent design claims.[1] After the normal review of aspects such as his record of scientific publications which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty, he was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure. The Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.[4][5]

Biologist Caroline Crocker was barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class over her introduction of intelligent design into it, and her contract at that university was not renewed.[2][6]

The film also includes interviews with scientists who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[1]

Fairchoice (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I suspect you do not understand WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD and iit might be valuable for you to review those, as well as what I posted on your talk page. In case you missed it, here is why we do not lump all criticism into a "criticism ghetto":
This is often frowned upon according to the policies and principles of Wikipedia.
For example, from [3]: Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Template:Criticism-section).
If you want to change WP policy, you are in the wrong place. If you want to change consensus, you are probably not going about it in a constructive way. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
See MOS:FILM. I only want to follow the Manual of Style. We NEED a plot section. Even if we waterdown the plot section and simply list the actors and the scenes and leave out what the actors advocate, we need a plot section.Fairchoice (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible watered down plot section

The film states "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." The film states that educators and scientists who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have been unfairly ridiculed, presenting cases such as an application to be granted tenure being refused and a biology teacher having to leave the university, and describes this as due to a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."[1][2]

Richard Sternberg having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.[1][7]

The astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, co-wrote the book The Privileged Planet promoting intelligent design claims.[1] He was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." The Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.[8][9]

Biologist Caroline Crocker was barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class over her introduction of intelligent design into it, and her contract at that university was not renewed.[2][10]

The film also includes interviews with scientists who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[1]

WP MOS:FILM

Reproduced below (shortened):
Article body The following are the standard article components of Wikipedia film articles.

Lead section

The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film.

Plot

The plot section is made self-contained

Background/Production

Included here should be a history of the film's background and development,

Cast and crew information

Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. I tried to put in the correct hyperlink for the writer of this film in the cast and crew section. But since then it has been removed. This clearly reflects bias, not a desire to provide others with information about this film.

This is not a storybook. It's a doco. A plot section would not necessarily be appropriate. Additionally it would be almost impossible as the film has not yet been released. Material covered in the film is appropriately divided into People and Claims presented in the film. These have been taken from press releases and reviews available regarding the film. Once full viewing or synopsis reviews are available to editors an overview of the film section may be appropriate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Distribution

The distribution section should detail any notable information about the film's releases in cinema, on video, and on TV.

Reception

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers. Fairchoice (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a "Claim presented in the film" as signified by the section?

The below appears in the section "Claims presented in the film." As much as I might agree with it, it sounds like a rebuttal to a claim made in the film, not an actual claim. Someone went to a lot of effort to footnote all this but it's getting away from the purpose of the article.

However, at this time, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Contrary to charges that evolution is equivalent to atheism (or associated with atheism) by many promoters of intelligent design and creationism,[25] scientists commonly hold religious faiths,[1] while using the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which looks to nature to answer questions about nature and ignores supernatural explanations which are by definition "not within the scope or abilities of science."[1] Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[13][26] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God, but because it is not scientific[15] and instead is pseudoscience.[17] and therefore the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science,[27] but as creationism.[17] This position was upheld by the outcome of the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, when a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",[28] and that claims by proponents have been "refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[29]

Kuk1640 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


This is required for WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This block is in response to the single sentence:

The press release for the film alleges that Stein discovers "an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma" and allows no dissent from what it calls "Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection."

My first note on this is that this statement does not mention intelligent design, but is followed up with the statement "However, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge ..." While I continue to support that NPOV requires rebuttal to the pseudoscience presented by "Expelled", I will aslo continue to reiterate that the rebuttal should be to the pseudoscience presented by "Expelled". That is unless we directly explain the pseudoscience and how it is presented, it should not be rebutted. Appropriate here following this single statement on expelled would be rebuttals to the single point - The scientific establishment has traded skepticism for dogma allowing no dissent from Darwin's theory. Eg. "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[13][26] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution."

Without presenting more information on what exactly "Expelled" presents (i.e. suggests ID is superior to evolution), points such as ID ≠ science; and ID ≈ creationism are not relevant at all and promote a coatrack-style attack on ID.

Two options: remove coatrack material; or further explain how "Expelled" attempts to promote ID as a credible (or superior) scientific alternative to evolution.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason we focus more on intelligent design than general creationism should be obvious:

  • All the people interviewed in the film and for which discrimination is claimed, as far as we know, have been part of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Some of these discrimination controversies appear to have been created out of whole cloth, on purpose
  • Several scientists associated with, working for or paid by the Discovery Institute are interviewed in the film
  • No "regular" creationists appear in the film
  • No scientists associated with other creationist organizations appear in the film
  • Much more publicity for the film has been produced by the Discovery Institute than other creationist organizations
  • The most recent creationist legal and political activity is by the intelligent design wing of creationism
  • By far the most active in terms of writing and interviews lately has been the intelligent design wing.--Filll (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I ever post anything on this talk page and get a non non sequitor response. I never said that focus on intelligent design as opposed to generic creationism was a bad idea. I've been a supporter of that from the start?--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


We've got a reliable source, the NYT, saying that it's promoting ID, and so sufficient context is needed for readers. Other sources relating to the ID promotion are coming in, and these should be considered – for a start, Jerry Pierce (January 28, 2008). Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Texan. Baptist professors featured in new film. Retrieved on 2008-02-15., Q&A: ‘Expelled’ producer Logan Craft and Q&A: ‘Expelled’s’ Robert Marks. .. dave souza, talk 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I put those new sources in there. It is clear that this film is at least roughly aligned with the intelligent design agenda, although they obviously have screwed it up in a few spots.--Filll (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I know we have a reliable source on this matter. The problem is this material is elsewhere in the article. It is not in this section under scrutiny by this complaint. Sections should be capable of standing alone and not rely on statements from teh introduction to just zip off and carry over from. As I pointed out this particular paragraph/section leaps from Stein discovering a scientific conspiracy of dogmatic Darwinism, to ID is not a credible theory without any linkers. This information is relevant, and I really don't see it going away (and would complain if it did) but if it not introduced with any context in the appropriate places, it needs reconsideration.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
From memory, one of these sources describes Dembski as featuring in the film to present ID, not as a martyr. Will come back to this as soon as poss, but rather tied up just now. ... dave souza, talk 11:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

link spam

There is no reason to link to people's blogs who participated in the film as evidence that they did in fact contribute. We already link to the Expelled website which clearly shows who wrote the film (Ben and Kevin Miller). There is no reason to link to Kevin Miller's personal blog. The article is about the movie and not the screenwriter. The fact he co=wrote the screen play is clearly evidenced on the Expelled website. To do otherwise means we'll have to link to every blog for every person who worked on the film. I don't think we want that. Angry Christian (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Another review

[4]. Interestingly, it discusses the dimuitive size of the Discovery Institute.--Filll (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, Tom Bethell in The American Spectator, February 19, 2008, as reviewed here with suitable responses, and a link to the original article. Yes, it's amazing how they manage to get all the ID research labs and organisation into a single office in what presumably is the disco building. ... dave souza, talk 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest Online Media Alert, for the Reviews section

We already had our first security breech [sic] and are asking YOU now for your support to stand up for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Hosted by Ben Stein, EXPELLED contains a critical message at a critical time. As an underdog in Hollywood right now, we need your support.
Recently Robert Moore, a film critic from The Orlando Sentinel pretending to be a minister, snuck into a private screening, did not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and criticized the film the next day in his article.
Moore compared Stein, who is Jewish, to Holocaust Deniers and charge [sic] that Stein's linking of Darwinism to the Holocaust was "despicable." Stein states, "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters."

As bizarre as it is for them to lambast a movie critic for criticising a movie (clue's in the name), their counterclaims really should be in there.137.195.68.169 (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Horrifying isn't it -- you carefully carpet-bomb a newspaper with invitations, and one of them actually turns out to be a free thinker (maybe even a, gasp, atheist). What is the world coming to? Stein is obviously a right-thinking individual who naturally expected that the only people writing for newspapers should be ministers. HrafnTalkStalk 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
They do seem to be having problems with their breeches. No doubt brown ones. Links here, together with the shocking threat that an atheist may attend the film wearing a fake clerical collar.. dave souza, talk 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the quote as given at that link seems to be from an email rather than being available at another source link. The issue is discussed on Moore's blog, under a post about this discussion where the writer Kevin Miller helpfully states that "Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself. Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we?" Well said, Kevin. Anyway, on February 26, 2008 at 09:57 PM, TRAT Media posted that "..What I think is appauling is that Robert Moore would use unethical tacticts to pose as a pastor, sneak into a private screening and purposely not sign an NDA just to air his own personal opinions. .. " The horror. A movie critic airing his own opinions. As for going in drag as a pastor, the next post states:

TRAT Media? Might this be the incompetent boob who "invited" me to the screening? Yes, I was invited. They tried to uninvite me. I didn't POSE as anything. Showed up, walked in, notebook in hand, and watched. Didn't sign the secret convenant, either. And the name is ROGER Moore.
Posted by: roger l February 27, 2008 at 09:37 AM

Where will it end? .. dave souza, talk 19:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Expelled from Science. Expelled from schools. Expelled from peer review. Now expelled from Hollywood. Where will these daring never-say die renegade cutting edge researchers get expelled from next. --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (Playing the world's smallest violin)
I rather think that the only one that would matter to them is "expelled from (Religious Right) funding" of their little crusade. HrafnTalkStalk 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead in

"The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of things the film portrays as societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design." Naturally, this isn't exactly a NPOV. Could someone take it out? 67.183.40.4 (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a summary of the point of view of the cite given. You'd need to take it up with the source Angry Christian (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybey we should change it to, "while, according to ______, failing to..." That would make it fit NPOV better. I do agree that the statement should probably stay in. Saksjn (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The film also blames nazism and the holocaust on evolution. Saksjn (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


This is accurate as near as we can tell. Some if not all of these claims are included in numerous sources. All of these claims are included in at least one source. So sorry, it stays.--Filll (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should stay, but we should add that it is according whoever reviewed it. Saksjn (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Attribution is normally given by the inline link to the citation. If the point is disputed we'd need an verifiable source making the alternative view. .. dave souza, talk 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I add the other things it blames on evolution, or do you guys think the current list covers it pretty well? Saksjn (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The other things are dealt with in more detail in the body of the article, where they can be examined in more depth. So, in my opinion, the current statement is reasonable. .. dave souza, talk 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is a criticism being portrayed as truth. Most film articles will not do that. If anything, it needs to mention that its either a general consensus among critics (which I'm sure there will be some dissidents on the matter as time progresses), or a viewpoint of a prominent critic. Otherwise, its not neutral. 134.39.60.35 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Citizen Kane says that Rosebud is his sled. Perhaps we should change that article so that it too says "Most critics believe Rosebud is his sled". Then we go move onto Star Wars and change it so that it says "Most critics believe that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No Mark - are you will learn once you have been around a little longer, you can't say "critics say"...you need to reference a specific critic who believes that, otherwise you will be accused of using weasel wording. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see. It is in the trailers (two or three of them). It is in the interviews with Stein that I have heard. It is in the reviews that I have heard and read (maybe about 5). It is in the interviews with the producers I have heard (about 4 interviews). It is in the New York Times article and a few other articles discussing the film. So is this material really in the film or not? Well gee, I do not know. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some rich irony here, someone complaining that something written about Crossroads Expelled is not true. Too funny! Angry Christian (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, Ben Stein himself says it fails to do so also?
And also, about the Rosebud sled example; that one's obviously less opinionated. On matters such as it failing to effectively communicate a particular message I think are quite a bit less cut and dry. Should we also include that the movie failed to give convincing arguments? Mabye, the critic just didn't get it. Maybe, the critic is biased. Unless, by clear definition they meant a dictionary type format, the only way this could work is if the movie itself explicitly states that it does not give a clear definition. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe you don't understand what Wiki is about in the first place? This is not a review of Crossroads Expelled. And quoting/summarizing verifiable sources who review the movie is quite appropriate. When Ben talks down "big science" (aka ToE) and fails to define what that is, and when Ben talks up IDC (and fails to define what that is) naturally many critics are going to scratch their head. Since this is a propaganda piece and not a documentary it's safe to say the critics are going to have Ben for a snack. I mean, Ben is advocating we teach creationism as science for crying out loud and based on his interviews he doesn't know the difference between biology and cosmology. So any critic who values rational discourse is not going to be fond of Ben's creationism piece. That is not the fault of Wiki. If you don't like what the critics say then take that up with them. Angry Christian (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I still don't understand. If a reviewer said that some movie had a horrible actor in it, or that the script was completely confusing, we certainely wouldn't take their word for it. We'd state that some reviewer(s) said this or that. If the film is a propoganda piece, it doesn't mean it won't contain ANYTHING truthful (or clear) in it. If the article simply quoted or summarized what the reviewer said, then that would be fine. But it goes beyond that and presents it as truth, and that's my contention, as it seems such a statement concerning mere definition (which an I.Dist isn't necessarily going to get wrong) is more of a matter of opinion then content. I think. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If a reviwer says a movie has bad acting, that's a value judgement - an opinion - a subjective criticism. If a reviewer points out that the movie blames evolution for naziism, the holocaust, and all that - that's a statement of fact - objective criticism. Since apparently you do not understand the difference between the two, we should probably just close this thread down as a waste of everyone's time. Raul654 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What is it precisely that you are disputing? The claim that the movie blames everything from Communism to Planned Parenthood on evolution? Or the claim that the movie does not define evolution? Or the claim that the movie does not define intelligent design? I and everyone else here fail to see what your problem actually is. --Filll (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified that. I'm disputing the assertion that it fails to clearly define, by it being not a NPOV. I won't go into the first half of the quoted sentence. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you cannot coherently and succinctly state your problem/complaint, I agree with Raul654. Waste of time for this to continue.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What? What was so unclear about what I just said? I do not think that the article should assume the critic's word for truth when the critic says the film does not clearly define certain terms, as it seems to imply. That's my problem. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:V – verifiability, not truth. Your problem is you're not providing a reliable source for your claim. .. dave souza, talk 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we source it. There is no indication by any others who have commented on this review and also saw the movie that he had that part incorrect. The promotional materials or trailers do not include any coherent discussion about what intelligent design is. And I have yet to find a single intelligent design promoter or creationist who knows what evolution is. In the trailers and interviews evolution is defined incorrectly. And Stein makes such a mess of describing intelligent design in an interview with O'Reilly the Discovery Institute issued a disclaimer. And when Stein and the producers are interviewed about the film, they constantly rant and rave about god, which is antithetical to the definition the Discovery Institute puts forward, since they do not want to identify the designer to have a big tent, and for legal reasons. And we have at least two reviews that discuss panspermia and a couple of interviews as well that discuss panspermia, and they all claim that the film and filmmakers dismiss panspermia, when panspermia is part of intelligent design. So from everything I can glean, it is quite clear that this reviewer is correct. Evolution is not defined correctly, and intelligent design is also maldefined if at all. So I think we are not going to bother with a bunch of explanation about how maybe the film really does define it and this reviewer just had it wrong, and all the other evidence we have that supports this reviewer's account is also incorrect or red herrings. Naw, I think we won't bother. But thanks for playing.--Filll (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, come on, I'm a newcomer, and I'm just trying my hand at Wikipedia here. I think I saw a problem, and I brought it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.40.4 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You might consider getting a named account. When your IP changes we have no way of knowing if we're still chatting with you or someone else. And you did what you're supoosed to, you brought something up. Part of the issue was your comments weren't always clear, at least at times, which makes communication that much more difficult. Angry Christian (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, O.K. Again, sorry about the confusion, I'll try to be more clear in the future. 67.183.40.4 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This information comes from both independent critics, Premise's own media releases and Stein's blog. Until any sources state "Expelled" does not do this, it is reliable information from multiple sources. It is not non-neutral to state "X blames Y for Z". It would be critical add an emotive or judgemental adjective (ie. X stupidly/inanely/risibly blames Y for Z) or a post-hoc judgement (ie. X blames Y for Z, a ridiculous assertion). Any criticism of the reliable *fact* should have in text attribution; Eg. X blames Y for Z, source A points out this "has no grounding in reality whatsoever".--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's both neutral and accurate. Neutrality in the context of WP:NPOV doesn't mean splitting the difference between two viewpoints at the expense of accurately representing either or both. WP:NPOV is far more nuanced than what you seem to think it is, you shouldn't be griping here about it if you don't have a good understanding of it. Odd nature (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

recruiting efforts

On the Crossroads Expelled website they claim "Our goal is to stage a series of nationwide student-led debates on Neo-Darwinism and intelligent design at high schools and universities" Have they scheduled any of these intelligent design creationism "debates" yet? I haven't seen anything so far. Angry Christian (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. They list that as a goal, the chances of it actually happening are rather low. Are you considering putting this in the article? Saksjn (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There is all kinds of stuff that we could put in the article. But at some point, you have to draw the line. Stuff that they plan to do, or meetings they tried to have with Baylor administration that did not happen, and so on, are probably not particularly worthwhile for an encyclopedia article. We do not need a 300 K article on this movie, which might be a complete dud and close as soon as it opens. Intelligent design crashed and burned badly as a strategy in the courts, and the subject of this movie might not quite grab the public's imagination; some academics that supposedly were discriminated against because of their views, but there is no evidence that there were discriminated against because of their views? Does not sound very exciting, to be honest.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I was curious if these so-called "debates" (tent revivals?) were taking place. That could be noteworthy but I agree with Filll that if it aint happening it's not yet noteworthy and the article is already getting stretched. We'll see if these Crossroads Expelled "debates" take the country by storm. Angry Christian (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If any happen we should mention them, but only if. Saksjn (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Where the previous discussion began to veer offtopic

It should be mentioned that the teaching of religous views is illegal in US public schools. But is it illegal to question the soundness of evolution? The movie attempts to show how those that question evolution are attacked. Not just ID believers. Whoever comments next: please keep this on topic, I'm not trying to support ID here or trying to incite a conversation about the 1'st ammendment like the thread that got off topic. I'm simply suggesting this: we should state that creationism is illegal to teach, but should also state at some point in the article something about those questioning evolution, not supporting ID, are also discriminated against. We would have to phrase it very carefully so it would be NPOV. Saksjn (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Do you have a WP:RS for this? And give an exact example of a sentence you want changed, with cites.--Filll (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the teaching of religious views is illegal in US public schools. - this is false. While you said that you don't want to talk about the Constition, it's rather hard to respond to what you say without pointing out that your argument is based on a complete and total misunderstanding of what the Constitution says.
Teaching religion in a theology class is fine. The Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion. To that end, teaching religion as if it were fact in a science class is unconstitutional. It's the difference between teaching about the existence of something, and advocating its beliefs. Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the legal background, as shown on the timeline of intelligent design. Legitimate scientific questioning of science is possible, but teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects is unconstitutional. Kitzmiller pointed up the illegitimacy of the "teach the controversy" trick. . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I too would like an RS for "[people] questioning evolution, not supporting ID, are also discriminated against". Otherwise you are going to be ignored. Additonally, you will have to explain the relevance to "Expelled" which focuses only on one crowd, ID. It doesn't sully itself with other creationists, nor other outspoken critics of evolution.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I would dispute the contention that "those that question evolution are attacked."

  • An obvious counterexample disproving this contention is Stephen Jay Gould, whose Punctuated equilibrium hypothesis "questioned" orthodox evolutionary theory. While his hypothesis was treated with healthy skepticism, he was not "attacked" for it.
  • I would rather characterise what is happening as follows:
  1. Science is built upon facts and logic, and so the scientific community tends to severely criticise those it views as misrepresenting facts or presenting fallacious logic.
  2. The scientific community widely views ID arguments as combining misrepresented facts and fallacious logic.
  3. Therefore the scientific community will generally severely criticises those who present these ID arguments.
It is not whether evolution is involved that is the determining factor, but whether the facts are fairly characterised, and the logic is rigorous.

HrafnTalkStalk 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I would note that epigenetics is not traditional evolution, nor is panspermia and those who subscribe to those are not shunned or outcast. Also post modernists dispute the application of evolution to many aspects of human behavior, but yet they are not only accepted in academia, but are the mainstream. So, the entire thesis does not hold up. In fact, it is a complete load of crap.--Filll (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community also tends to criticize advocate a flat earthism, healing magnets, crystal worship. These as well as creationism/intelligent design have nothing to do with science and are anti-science. Angry Christian (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that the IDists, as well as redefining science, also want to redefine "discrimination" and "attacked". The classic case being Sternberg, who kept his position and access to the Smithsonian, but suffered the shocking discrimination of having no more privileges than other unpaid research associates, and worse still some of his colleagues said things about him that weren't completely flattering. Poor wee soul. .. dave souza, talk 10:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, his colleagues were so cruel as to send private emails to each other, wondering who the hell he was (he had a habit of turning up to the Smithsonian irregularly and outside normal hours) and if he really was qualified to be hanging out with them. Naturally, Sternberg insisted on making a song and dance, which made these emails public -- after all, what's the point of making a martyr of yourself unless you can do so publicly? HrafnTalkStalk 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is something funny about the whole Sternberg situation. He only accepts the paper after he has quit as associate editor, clearly knowing he did something against the rules. He has repeatedly declared that he opposes intelligent design and then is involved with all kinds of intelligent design activities and organizations. He now is the main case presented in a movie in which he states he was regarded as an "intellectual terrorist". A lot of grandstanding, a lot of disingenuousness, a lot of blatant lies, etc.--Filll (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This disscusion has gotten off topic, WHICH WAS NOT MY INTENT. It was probably a good idea to put it in a new section, but not in a way that makes me seem like I'm intentionally throwing gas on a fire. I'm changing the name of the thread, which is my right becasue I started the thread. Anyways, I'll look for a source for my statement, which will be difficult because my school's computers block just about everything. How about we change the statement to this, "According to the movie, even those that simply question the theory of evolution face discrimination in the scientific community." If anyone else has an idea for how it should be stated, please state it. Saksjn (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it really make that distinction? Do you have a reference to support this? Or does it simply conflate the two ideas? (I don't know, I haven't seen the movie, but I don't recall offhand that this distinction is made anywhere). Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious, you need a source for this. "I heard someone say this" isn't a reliable source. You should have found a source first - if another editor removes your unsourced addition, you should not re-insert the material. There's no emergency here - find a source. Guettarda (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, somewhere on your talk page there is a link to the Wiki guide. Read up on "Original Research" - WP:OR. I have no doubt what you're saying is true, but a claim like in a Wiki article needs to be sourced otherwise it is considered original research which we're supposed to avoid. And Guettarda is right, it's uncool to revert an unsourced claim that another editor rightfully removed. That's what the [citation needed] tag (that you also deleted) was there for, to let the others know that sentence does not comply with Wiki rules and is subject to deletion. And he explained his reason. If your school's network is unhelpful have a friend do the research for you and have them contribute here. I think most anyone would agree that the claim is noteworthy and belongs in the article, you or someone needs to get a source. Angry Christian (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article should be based on third party reliable sources, and using primary sources to make a point could contravene WP:NOR and WP:NPOV without outside context. Ben Stein's Intelligent Design Movie at Jeremy Shere. Retrieved on 2008-03-05. discusses the issue quite well – RS? From memory, someone notable said this was spurious as it's OK to question "Darwinism", and they do it all the time, as do their colleagues, as a normal part of science, while of course creationism and ID "question" evolution on grounds of religion and not science, but I haven't managed to find it yet. It would also have to be noted that all the examples given in the film are ID proponentsists. ... dave souza, talk 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any place you think has a transcript or something of their presentations? I'm looking to see if I can find a way to source a presentation that, to my knowledge, is not recorded or written down. Saksjn (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Not on Wikipedia. That's the very definition of original research. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Referencing non-recorded presentations may violate WP:V. Other editors have to be conceivably able to verify these sources (it doesn't mean they have to actually verify it, you just can't include any sources that can't be verified). You have not actually even attempted to mention which presentations you are talking about, where they took place, and who gave them. You are saying "some guy said it once, i think", and that simply isn't good enough. Who said it? When? and to who? please. All sources indicate this focuses only on cdesign proponentists. See the AiG response.[5] --ZayZayEM (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Theres several people involved in marketing and production that have been traveling across the country in a bus with the expelled logo on it. They've been visiting schools and other meeting places and have been showing the preview for the movie and been talking about the various people presented in the film. There is information on the expelled website if I remember correctly. I can't access the sight right now but I will try to when I get home. (I love weekends!) Saksjn (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Your college blocks the Crossroads Expelled website? Angry Christian (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
please stop stalling. Either produce goods or wait until you can. This is pointless if all we get is vague "it's there somewhere" or "some guys in a bus with a logo". I know your high school student. And that isn't a score against you. But unless you meet the bar your commentary is likely to be disregarded as uninformed, or worse, ignorant and maliciously deceptive. (NB: not a personal attack, this is advice)--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No offence taken. Saksjn (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, my school is pretty ridiculous when it comes to filters. I'm googleing right now to see if I can find anything from the presentations to use as a source. Hopefully I can find something that the filter doesn't flag as, "entertainment". Saksjn (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing yet... I'll keep looking. Saksjn (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stein and Answers in Genesis' Ken Ham team up to hype Expelled

A Meeting of Minds -- may give some indication of the crowd Expelled is targeting. HrafnTalkStalk 05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Has any documentary on evolution been described as controversial? Be nice to take that "controversial" adjective in this article. Kookywolf (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, back in 1859 Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, was considered quite controversial. But after about 150 years of independent research by thousands of scientists around the world, it has been long and well confirmed. All evidence supports it, no evidence is against it. Thus, if you are a scientist and you are against evolution and you don’t have anything but the bible to back you up, you will be laughed at by your peers and rightly so. Science is about independently confirmable facts, not blind faith. Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like you to pull together a little of what you speak of. You're confusing the concepts of macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro evolution has been accepted like you say, but macro evolution is still a strong topic of debate in the scientific community. Please distinguish which one you are discussing in the future. Infonation101 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Infonation101, you may be setting a sprat to catch a macro, but your statement is both confused and off topic. Please confine discussion to ways to improve the article, and note that the "controversial documentary" statement is cited. .. dave souza, talk 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And I would ask you to read more carefully. The above opinion "if you are a scientist and you are against evolution and you don’t have anything but the bible to back you up, you will be laughed at by your peers and rightly so" is equally off topic, and borderline personal attack. The citation you speak of is nothing more than a news article that should hold no merit on WP. Though I won't dispute the article is controversial, but I feel the sources on this page are falling away from what should be used. Don't deal me improve the article. So far this article is anything but up to par with WP standards. It requires a cleanup, improved sources and disputed NPOV. Infonation101 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Kookywolf, what does "Be nice to take that "controversial" adjective in this article" mean? Angry Christian (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The film makers themselves describe their own film as controversial, so it should probably stay. Make sure its sourced. Saksjn (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how the controversy itself is the center of the film, it seems appropriate to denote the matter as controversial. It's not about ID theory in itself, distanced from prevailing evolutionary theory. Dolewhite —Preceding comment was added at 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

like it or not, intelligent design is in fact creationism

You can pretend otherwise and feel free to debate this fact elsewhere but we need to quit misleading people by saying otherwise in the article. Every science agency in north america recognizes ID as creationism and we have at least one federal court case that concluded the same. Angry Christian (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian, your over generalization make your arguments weak, and this specific section is based off your opinion. "scientific creationism is distinguished from biblical creationism in having 'no reliance upon biblical revelation'..." (Evidence for Scientific Creationism? Roger Lewin, Science, New Series, Vol. 228, No. 4701. (May 17, 1985), p. 837.) Here is made the distinction. Creationism in linguistic pop-culture is synonymous with biblical creationism while intelligent design is synonymous with scientific creationism. This page has allowed a few pros for Expelled, but for the most part has become destructive propaganda. The page needs to be taken back to a review of the movie, and needs dismiss the creationism argument. That argument needs to be reserved for a page on creationism. Infonation101 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Infonation101, you can say he is over generalizing and has weak arguments all you like but that doesn't change the fact that he is 100% correct. The only evidence needed is: Wedge strategy. Infonation101, you are just another wedge user. -Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I have been labeled, attacked and my my post denied proper translation. Your argument is easy to dissect. Nowhere above have I supported creationism, but sited a source to explain the difference between the two. A source independent of ICR. Your reliance on the wedge strategy is nothing related to the topic. Your opinion that "...he is 100% correct..." is not supported by anything but your own belief. I'll ask you to contemplate what you post before you post. WP is a highly navigated source of information,and as such we should take greater care in what is posted. Infonation101 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wedge strategy proves that intelligent design is creationism (biblical or otherwise). This was proven in a federal court of law. Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


All I can see is a confused mess and bad grammar and spelling here. ID is creationism, and we have numerous sources which state this. Including the ruling of a US federal court!! ID and creationism use the same arguments. They use the same terminology. They use the same references. How are they any different?--Filll (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a form of creationism. Even Ben Stein knows this. The article is about the movie and the movie is a propaganda piece for creationism. Ben is on record that he does not care if the movie makes money or not, all he wants is a change in policy. He wants to see IDC taught in high school. ALL of this is relevant for the article. Angry Christian (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to debate. Talk pages are for suggesting improvements to the main page, which should be verified through the use of reliable sources, and not based on original research. Regards Mr. Stein, be wary of violations of our policy on living persons. If a reliable source justifies your point, add it to the page. Otherwise, it may be removed without issue. WLU (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
On this note, I would like to suggest the removal of at least the following lines, "However, at this time, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth." (for having no citation) and "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community, it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution." for misquoting the source, and using a report that is date back to 1987. In the end I believe all disputes concerning creationism should be removed, and a link to creationism and intelligent design be posted in it's place. There, substantial research and participation has been collaborated to make excellent WP pages. Infonation101 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Um arent you the guy who just posted an article from 1985 supporting your mistaken notion that ID is not creationism?  :-) And read the cites and sources, ID is in fact creationism and the claims in the article are well supported. I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. What amazes me is the people here who know the very least about ID and creationism are also the ones who know the very least about Wikipedia policies, and they won't stop yapping about being persecuted. Telling someone they are flat wrong is not persecution. Asking someone to familiarize themselves with the subject matter and Wiki policies is not persecution. In fact one guy has been saying thbis talk page is violent. WTF? That might explain all the misguided shit (nothing else to call it) that keeps showing up on my talk page. I fully support you christian teenagers contributing to this article but you have to learn and abide by the freaking rules whether you like it or not. Angry Christian (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is a difference between posting an article showing linguistic definitions, and posting a survey that was used 11 years ago. Historical linguistic changes are different from using an 11 year old survey to define how the current scientific community feels. As for whether intelligent design is creationism, this cannot be determined by any State. State rulings should never be considered in science. Politics and policies have nothing to do with experiment and research. The paper written by Barbara Forrest was not published in any PR journal as far as I can see, and is not a reliable source. In any case, this should not be the place for such discussion. These things need to be reserved for the page on creationism. Infonation101 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Infonation101, a federal court ruling on intelligent design is highly relevant on an article about intelligent design. Every science organizarion in North America recognizes ID as creationism. This is not a secret. Barbara Forrest is probably the leading expert on ID in North America, she was an expert witness in Kitzmiller v Dover. She has published numerous articles, and books on the subject. Your belief that she is not a reliable source does not jive with reality and I cannot help you on that count. Your lack of accepting reality and the continuous claims of being persecuted are not going to work in your favor. There are policies here that we all have to abide by. This movie is about creationism so talking about it on the creationism page does not make much sense. Angry Christian (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
<reduce indent> Infonation101, as far as reliable sources go, here is a link to the Wiki policy on the subject - WP:Sources I hope this helps. Angry Christian (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Surveys of the scientific community and assorted proclamations by scientific bodies have not changed in about 80 years. So something 11 years old is not likely to be very far in error. How do you explain A Scientific Support for Darwinism or Project Steve which are both pretty current if somehow things changed drastically in the last 11 years?--Filll (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now be fair. Cdesign proponentsists is even better evidence of IDcreationism than the wedge. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"...third-party published... peer-reviewed journals..." As far as I can tell the paper written by Barbara Forrest hasn't been. As for not trusting government decisions in science I would relay you to this article and this article (just FYI, nothing more). Politics can make some stupid decisions when it comes to science. Filll, I haven't heard of those sources, and I'll look more into them. If anything then, they should be cited in place of what is currently up. Infonation101 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Young man, quote mining Wiki policy is not going to get you very far. You have now demonstrated either a capacity for dishonesty or you're reading onlyh the portions of the policy that you like while ignoring the rest. Now go back and read the entire policy and stop this inmature, time consuming nonsense. You want to participate, fine, and welcome. Or would you rather play quote mining games with your fellow editors here? Angry Christian (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Never again refer to me as "young man". The "quote-mining" was what I believed to be the simplest overview for the article, which I did read. Going further "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The article still has not been published by a third party. If this isn't straight forward enough, please give me your take on WP:Sources. Infonation101 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've given you my take, did you not read it? I've given you a link to the policy and you claim you read that. We are supposed to assume good faith, until proven otherwise. You'll need to ask someone else because I am now convinced you are a disruptive force on this talk page. The fact you think B Forrest is not a reliable source makes me question what exactly you do know about intelligent design, if anything. But no worries, I'm sure someone else will make time for you to explain in great detail why Barbara Forrest is a reliable source. Angry Christian (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, your question of my knowledge of intelligent design is really irrelevant. And as for your take, I did get: "Your belief that she is not a reliable source does not jive with reality and I cannot help you on that count." Really, my belief is irrelevant as well. I'm just calling into question the sources being used on this page. Sources from published third-party journals should be the most sourced, but they are not. Infonation101 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We have plenty of excellent sources, including Dr. Forrest, who is a world expert and notable and according to WP:SPS, a WP:RS. So please, save it for someone else.--Filll (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Resource

The NCSE has produced a web page for links to resources about Expelled. So far it gives sources we've used, plus The Screengrab: Screengrab Exclusive Preview: EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED which gives another review from someone who's seen it, Encyclopedia Britannica Blog: How Low Can Ben Stein Go? (To the Maligning of Charles Darwin) which gives the views of a respectable named writer on the publicity for the film, and The New University (University of California Irvine): I.D. Rakes it in and Gets Rake in Face which is essentially an essay by a second-year English major, so not a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Great resource. Angry Christian (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday's NYTimes has an article on the movie. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, a useful story. This mp3 includes an interview with Dawkins which discusses Expelled towards the end, and gives some details such as the point that he was expecting to be interviewed by Mathis, who'd presented himself as pro-science, but instead was interviewed by Stein. Perhaps excessively detailed for this article. .. dave souza, talk 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a tidbit from someone who attended one of these advanced screenings http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=540#entry100826 It's nothing that can be used in the article but the cop action and night vision surveillance is funny. Angry Christian (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

opening

Any news when this is finally coming out, my guidance councler said April, but I haven't seen that anywhere else. Saksjn (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad... I just checked the article and saw the date. Saksjn (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We have repeated announcements of April 18, 2008, as you can see from the article, but whether this actually happens or not we will have to see.--Filll (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Infonation101 doesn't seem to have grasped various aspects of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, both of which are policies. In particular, NPOV: Pseudoscience – "any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." A film promoting pseudoscience has to be described in that context For additional guidance see WP:FRINGE. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand. I do agree that the macro evolution of life is the dominating opinion in the scientific community, but it hasn't been indisputably accepted and lines like "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community..." makes it sound that way. These are the things I would like to have removed. Those do fall into WP:FRINGE. Infonation101 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How would you suggest we reword it, infonation101? What wording you suggest? Angry Christian (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the macroevolution of species has become widely accepted by the scientific community... Again I do think we have to define what type of evolution we are discussing. The arguments behind macro and micro-evolution are different, and we can't make the mistake of over generalization. Infonation101 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Unequivocal means clear. And there are over 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields that accept it. That is pretty clear.--Filll (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And by a remarkable coincidence, only creationist pseudoscience proponentsists seem to think that macroevolution and microevolution are different processes, or that one magically can't happen. .. dave souza, talk 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"Again I do think we have to define what type of evolution we are discussing. The arguments behind macro and micro-evolution are different, and we can't make the mistake of over generalizatio" Actually we have an obligation to NOT perpeturate that sort of thinking in the article. We're not here to advance the creationists/pseudoscience agenda. There are plently of creationism blogs out there for that. Angry Christian (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This was only proposed because of published articles like this:

Darwin realized that the fossil record fails to corroborate his theory, according to which evolution proceeds through the accumulation of endless series of minute changes, "micromutations" according to current terminology. The evidence available at the time rather suggested that evolution proceeds by extensive leaps... (Macroevolution and Punctuated Equilibria, Soren Lovtrup, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 30, No. 4. (Dec., 1981), pp. 498-500.)

From a completely scientific standpoint, I honestly believe the two have to be separated. Infonation101 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
From a completely scientific standpoint, that looks exactly like creationist quotemining, a very old reference which is completely off topic. This page is for proposing improvements to the article, and is not a forum. See also NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. ... dave souza, talk 23:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Science is not a democracy. 99.9% of scientists used to believe that there were less than a dozen elements. Then we discovered atoms and created the periodic table. This worship of scientists is fascinating, but misplaced.  —CobraA1 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Except that this hasn't been true for over two centuries. Applying of fallacious religious adjectives to science ("worship", "dogma", "fundamentalist", etc) is a sign of anti-intellectualism. HrafnTalkStalk 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Science hasn't changed in two centuries? Somehow, I doubt that.  —CobraA1 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

CobraA1, what is your point exactly? Do you have a suggestion to improve the article?--Filll (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This could be applied to many areas of the Wikipedia. Sometimes we forget to see the forest through the trees. Sometimes we get too caught up in the "science vs religion" discussion, and fail to see that we really know very little about the past. Educated, scientific, or otherwise, we can never achieve 100.0% certainty. If quantum mechanics is correct that our universe contains inherit randomness at a low level, then 100.0% knowledge about the past is not just impractical, but impossible. Yet we shun the occasional outlier. In addition, we often fail to see the trees through the forest as well. We attack large theories, but fail to see that no theory is completely scientific or unscientific. It is the details of the theory that are scientific or unscientific. "Evolution" is often used to describe a large set of theories, including biological and astronomical theories. "Creation" likewise also encompasses many smaller theories. Both of the larger sets have smaller sets that may succeed or fail within a scientific framework.  —CobraA1 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


CobraA1, what is your point exactly? Do you have a suggestion to improve the article?--Filll (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL would appear to apply here. We write on the basis of what science tells us now, not on the slim chance that some time in the future it might tell us something different (but even then most probably only slightly different). HrafnTalkStalk 18:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not merely about crystal balls - it is also about hasty generalizations and oversimplifications.  —CobraA1 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Kind of fascinating though as I have never seen anyone actually worship science. Sounds creepy. Angry Christian (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you've not come across IDproponentsists then! They appear to worship science as their faith needs to be propped up by empirical evidence :) .. dave souza, talk 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Not overtly, but I when find people who are putting the scientists on a higher pedestal than science itself, it's not uncommon for me to see religious elements appear. Do we believe in genetics because a group of people said genetics is true, or because we can see the genes through a microscope? It's easy for a skeptic to deny the words of others - but not so easy if they can see it for themselves.  —CobraA1 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, we have people "worshipping science" (whatever that is but it seems strange indeed and I suspect "science" hears no ones prayers in spite of what these so-called science worshippers might claim) and now we have people putting scientists higher than science itself (which begs the question, just how high is science in the first place and who the hell cares I suppose) and asking why people "believe" genetics. No offense but what the hell are we talking about? None of this makes a bit of sense to me and sounds like social commentary coming out sideways. Nothing wrong with that but I just need some clarity on what exactly are we talking about and how does it relate to the article. Sorry to be so dense but I am not tracking any of this conversation very well. I'm sure there's a point being made but so far it's going over my head. Angry Christian (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
All I'm trying to say is that science is not a democracy, and that sometimes people just follow the crowd.  —CobraA1 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


CobraA1, what is your point exactly? Do you have a suggestion to improve the article?--Filll (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the introduction

The opening of this article is inappropriate. I agree that the statement “What a reviewer describes as four or five examples of ordinary academic back-biting…” may be perfectly factual, but it does not, in any sense belong in an articles abstract (though it could be mentioned after). Similarly the lines “…the scientific community the theory of …but is viewed as creationism…” and “Promotion of religion … be presented in science classes” are too specific in scope, too detailed, and too indirectly connected to the article itself to be mentioned in the introduction, if in the article at all (There exists article fully dedicated to these subjects). On a personal note, I do agree with the article. I do think intelligent design is false and this movie does look silly. But I shouldn’t be able to tell that this article was written by someone who agrees with me. And frankly, it’s quite easy to deduce that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.200.56 (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the article. NCdave (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Establishment Clause

[Off-topic WP:SOAPboxing re-removed per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)."

Summarising:

The article says, "Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

The controlling decision on this issue, Edwards v. Aguillard states:

The [Louisiana Creationism] Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose.[6]

(My emphasis in both cases)

The article's language is thus directly reflective of SCOTUS's on this issue, and so is iron-clad legitimate. Everything else (including arguing about the stature of a 45yo lone dissent), is off-topic and WP:SOAP, and so has been userfied to User talk:NCdave. Barring compelling new evidence, I think it is reasonable to declare this topic closed, per WP:TALK & WP:FORUM. HrafnTalkStalk 04:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

New News report

[7]

Rather amusing, actually. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See this edit .. dave souza, talk 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Oh, well. Beaten to the punch again! =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Gordy Slack at Salon [8] Guettarda (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Video - Dawkins and Myers discuss the incident[9] Guettarda (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with their finger on the Pharyngula pulse will know there is plethora of blog buzz about this incident. We've seen some serious stuff ups from the ID crowd, but this seriously takes the cake. I am wondering with the availablity of salon, twin cities news and even a times report on this incident if we can subsectionise and expand this particular incident.[10] Anyone have any news from international sources yet? (I'm still expecting something likely small to come from The Guardian given Dawkins' presence and the magnamousity of this cock up).

Any expansion should mention the Mathis' version of events[11], and this odd individual-based reality version with appropriate rebuttals from Myers, eyewitnesses and reputable news sources.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Cornelia Dean. "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin", The New York Times, September 27, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-05-28. 
  2. ^ a b c d e Lesley Burbridge-Bates (2007-08-22). Expelled Press Release. Premise Media. Retrieved on 2007-09-29.
  3. ^ Council Statement. The Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.
  4. ^ Gregory Geoffrey (June 1, 2007). Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy. News Service: Iowa State University. Iowa State University. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.
  5. ^ Iowa Citizens for Science - Gonzalez, Discovery Institute seek to replace science with politics, religion. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.
  6. ^ Darwin Goes to Church, Henry G. Brinton, Washington Post, September 18, 2005
  7. ^ Council Statement. The Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.
  8. ^ Gregory Geoffrey (June 1, 2007). Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy. News Service: Iowa State University. Iowa State University. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.
  9. ^ Iowa Citizens for Science - Gonzalez, Discovery Institute seek to replace science with politics, religion. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.
  10. ^ Darwin Goes to Church, Henry G. Brinton, Washington Post, September 18, 2005
  11. ^ Mr. Mathis said in an interview that he had confronted Dr. Dawkins in the question and answer period after the screening and that Dr. Dawkins withered. “These people who own the academic establishment and who have great friends in the media — they are not accustomed to having a level, open playing field,” Mr. Mathis said. “I watched a man who has been a large figure, an imposing figure, I watched this man shrink in front of my eyes.” - NY Times


In progress. LeyteWolfer edited Screenings: additional refs and info, removed some extraneous info.[11] One reference, E.E. Flynn, "Atheist author draws impassioned crowd", Austin-American Statesman, Retrieved March 21, 2008, appears to have nothing to do with the film. The other two report claims that Myers "gategrashed" the showing, so I've expanded and clarified relevant points a bit, forming a new subsection as suggested above. Further relevant points and rebuttals can be added as ZayZayEM suggests. .. dave souza, talk 11:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. [12][13] not too useful, but fun if you know the background..... dave souza, talk 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Title - "PZ Myers expelled from screening" sounds a wee bit to blog-tastic and loaded. I know its hard to resist, but something more encyclopedic such as "Minnesota Mall of America screening" or the date. The issue isn't just the irony of Myers being expelled from "Expelled" but numerous other points such as Dawkins getting through the net, Mathis' dishonest reactions, dishonest follow-up and pre-emptively the ensuing damage control and smear campaign.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 March 2008

A fair point in principle, my only reservation it that readers are more likely to have heard about Myers being made to leave than about the location. Any others have views on this? ... dave souza, talk 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what to call the section. I am reasonably sure we will be getting some nice "Christian" media articles on the incident fairly soon. And maybe Mathis or Ruloff will issue some more statements or give some interviews and possibly say some more "interesting" things. This will be good to flesh this section out.--Filll (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. It appears that the online booking of free screenings ended abruptly yesterday.[14] I was wondering if the lack of future events was to do with where my browser was coming from, but a simpler answer. Looks like they didn't plan this episode ;) ... dave souza, talk 21:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


A few more accounts trickling in. Here is a very sneering article from the Discovery Institute: [15].--Filll (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


The identical article appears on Dembski's blog. Here is Myer's daughters review: [16], which is quite interesting.--Filll (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


An ever increasing list of news and blog accounts of this event appears here.--Filll (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

Hey folks, remember what it says at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." If someone veers off into general commentary on academic freedom and such, just ignore it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, the topic of the film is academic freedom (or its lack), at least according to the film's promotional web site.[17] The digressions into creationism, the U.S. Constitution, etc., are all off-topic for this article, but academic freedom is not. NCdave (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
NCDave: "Academic Freedom" has long been a creationist codeword for "permit illegitimate attacks on evolution" -- see Academic Freedom bills, the Santorum Amendment and even the purported rationale for the legislation struck down in Edwards v. Aguillard. Your claim that creationism is a "digression" is simply flogging another dead horse. HrafnTalkStalk 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Little piece of the movie

[18] Leaked? Pirated?--Filll (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are the juicy Nazi parts? Angry Christian (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Debates

I know this was disscussed earlier but I have a new update. I'm going to look into whether it was directly related to Expelled or not, but some of the seniors from my school went to UCF for a evolution ID debate. I was kinda ticked off I didn't get to go. Any ways, we now have an example of a debate that actually has happened in the time frame sorrounding the movie's controversy. Saksjn (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, trust you appreciate that we need verification from a reliable source for anything added to the article. .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an aside, these evolution-creationism debates have been going on for a long long time; well over 100 years at this point, with many famous ones over the years (maybe we should have an article listing some of the more famous ones?). But debates do not really settle anything or mean very much. For example, the Flat Earth Society had many debates with learned academics, and never ever lost a single debate. They also offered prize money to anyone who could prove the earth was not flat, and never paid out the prize money (something like Dr. Dino and his fake prize money). So although these debates are great theatre, they have almost zero relevance for anything aside from entertainment and propaganda for creationists.--Filll (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Saksjn, let us know what you find out. So far I have been unable to find any evidence of an Crossroads Expelled sponsored debate but they claim they're going organize them so eventually something should turn up. You would think they'd promote something like that from their website and email alerts. I visit the site fairly often and get the alerts but not a peep so far. Angry Christian (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I going to school tomorow and I am going to ask one of my friends that was there if it was related to the movie. I'll also look to see if any of the local papers had anything. Saksjn (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Coats and Original research/synthesis

(ec)I'm going to try this again, get on my hands and knees and beg you all to restore this article with editorial clear-sightedness. This article is not written as a description, it's written as a persuasive argument. There's great content in here, contributed by excellent editors, but wikipedia's fine editorial standards are taking a backseat while running it almost out-of-control into asserting, complete with piles of evidence, ie WP:synthesis, that ID=creationism and ID#science--for the trillionth time, in the hundredth article here. It's not an encyclopedia article at this point. It's more a fantasy football style rematch, Kitzmiller Redux, but the article is supposed to be about Expelled, the film.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But ID is creationism and ID is central to this movie. Have you not read anything about it? Angry Christian (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Examples: 40 Days and 40 Nights is about Kitzmiller, Monkey Girl is about Kitzmiller, neither 40 days nor Monkey Girl "promote" intelligent design. In this film, which I don't know because I haven't seen it and I can't easily determine from this article since it is so loaded with references to side issues, is ID "promoted"? If so, let's source it, okay? And save the Kitzmiller testimony for sourcing claims about the trial, or ID, but not claims about what this film does or does not promote. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But Expelled is about ID, and so are those sources. You've missed the boat here. Odd nature (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. The sources writing about this film are entitled to synthesize arguments from various sources to support their claims about this film. But we editors are limited in this respect. We can't line up references that do not even mention this film to source claims like postulates in a QED style syllogism. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice try, but um, no. There is no synthesis in the article, only simple statements of fact supported by very good sources. Try as you might to spin it as a synthesis, the plain fact that the film is about ID and its rejection by the scientific and academic communities, meaning their views on ID are central to the subject of the article. The denial of the obvious here is getting surreal. Odd nature (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you not read the article? We have several reviews by people who favor the movie and did not like the movie, and they have stated it seems to be promoting ID. We have several trailers for the movie, and they seem to suggest the movie is promoting ID. We have several interviews with various producers, and they suggest that the movie promotes ID. We have numerous interviews with people like Stein and he suggests the movie promotes ID. Until we get a single reasonable reliable source that states the movie does NOT promote ID, then it is a bit difficult to make your case, contrary to all the other evidence we have. Why do you think the movie does not promote ID? --Filll (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried, that's what I'm trying to get through here. The first time this claim is made, there are 4 references. Three of them do not support the claim (all relate to Kitzmiller v Dover), the 4th-written by someone who hasn't even seen the film, at least is borderline arguable - it says it "makes a case for intelligent design". So what? So did Flock of Dodos-which I have seen. Flock of Dodos also "makes a case for natural selection", a stronger case in my opinion, as if that counts for anything. But neither one of those "cases" made are the central point in Flock of Dodos-if anything, the film "promotes" the idea that scientists themselves share a lot of responsibility for the lack of acceptance to biological evolution. Contrast the two articles, this one and Flock of Dodos, both covering similar territory. The second could be improved, in my humble opinion. But it would be largely incomprehensible if it became another coatrack for the Kitzmiller, or whether or not ID is creationism. It's probably hard for editors who have worked so closely, and intensely, battling POV warriors and so forth, to see these problems. I think the back and forth over ID is distracting. Can't see the forest through the trees kind of thing. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Interrupted before finishing the question: Why do you think the movie does not promote ID? I don't know if it does or does not - why don't I know? Because the sources in the 4 inline references given to support the claim in the article don't say so So let's remove those and replace them with at least one good one that does so, k? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


There is something I am missing here. Which 4 sources do we claim document that the film promotes ID, and in fact do not support this?--Filll (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh now I see what is going on. Perhaps this is confusion, willfull or inadvertant. Those four sources are not to show the film promotes ID (that comes from the body of the article, not from the sources). Those four sources are to show ID is creationism. Now at one time I had several other sources here to demonstrate this. And of course, as people fought like madmen here, many of those sources were removed. But frankly, because of ridiculous claims that ID is not creationism, the only way to handle this is to pound people like this with 10 or 20 references. Because at least as far as most reliable sources go, ID is a form of creationism. To claim otherwise is just to buy into the DI's legal strategy, and general mendacity and perfidity. --Filll (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks Filll. This is what I've been trying to point out. By the second paragraph, claims about the film aren't being sourced, arguments about the ID are. This one issue is given substantial "ink" in this article, but thus far it's just a coat. The article in its current state fails to show this association between ID and creationism as one being challenged in the film itself! I don't want to go so far as to say the association to the film can't be made. It's just that the article is so heavily loaded with "defensive weaponry" against ID wedges it's turned into an argument, not a description. And in going the defensive route, it's like an EAster egg hunt in there trying to sort out claims about the film itself deeply buried inside all the "extras" that do go too far in many places into WP:SYNTH unfortunately. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Professor marginalia's objection is baseless: Expelled is about ID, meaning ID's acceptance within its supposed field is fair game. Odd nature (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're illustrating my problem exactly. But this isn't Speaker's Corner, it's an encyclopedia article. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons it is valuable to give some context about what ID is, and what creationism, and their relationship. First, several reviews and articles have mentioned this. In fact, one of our New York Times articles stated quite clearly that intelligent design is a type of creationism. This seems to have been removed, or I did not notice it, but it is clear. The New York Times stated it, and in an article about the film. They clearly thought it was relevant, didn't they? Next, there has been some controversy where the movie appears to have a mix of creationism and ID ideas in it, and it is being promoted that way, so even the DI issued a disclaimer about Stein's appearance on a Fox show, because supposedly Stein was mischaracterizing ID as creationism when he was promoting the movie. Also, some of the reviews from AiG and other sources are from standard creationist sources, and it helps to put this a bit in context. In addition, we have to describe what ID is, at least somewhat succinctly, since all the "scientists" who supposedly are discriminated against in the movie are ID promoters, not standard creationism scientists (the AiG review even bemoans this, because they feel left out of course) and the shortest easiest way to identify it is as a type of creationism. However, we know from long experience that whenever we mention ID=creationism, we have to armor ourselves for attack. And this article has proven no different. And so, the more you complain, the more of this boilerplate appears. Get it?--Filll (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, like you say, it would help to attribute to which type of creationism: young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism). Possibly there has been so much debate because by blanketing the statement ID is creationism creates confusion. Though each falls under the same category, the ideas presented in each are all very different. If ID is creationism, then what type of creationism is the movie promoting? Infonation101 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"8 ^ In her article about the film for the New York Times, environmental journalist Cornelia Dean describes intelligent design as "an ideological cousin of creationism" and later as a "creationist idea".[1]" It would probably clarify things a bit if that reference came first, there are several sources saying that the film promotes ID, and that particularly prestigious source about the film describes ID as a type of creationism. If you investigate a bit you'll find that intelligent design is intended to form a "big tent" embracing both young earth creationism and old earth creationism, in a form of creation science that officially omits description or the name of the creator. ... dave souza, talk 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I was having an issue with ID and creationism as one because I believe that some aspects of evolution and religion can coexist (please no comments how macro/micro evolution cannot be drawn apart, just my opinion), but now that I understand ID can cover all basis of creationism it makes more sense. That was my major problem in the above posts. Like you suggested, by presenting the information that there are more than one belief of creationism, and how ID addresses all of these, more prominently in the article future confusion can be prevented. Infonation101 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec again) Filll-I can agree there's value to including these issues. But the article in effect flattens the controversy over the film in order to concentrate on those issues at the expense of the story unique to this film. Take for example this claim. Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.[12][13] This is a fact. POV editors can quibble and complain till the cows come home, let them. It's a fact, there are numerous articles at wikipedia about this already. It's well covered. Does this film deny or refute either claim in this statement? Doesn't seem likely. So why is this mentioned here? Let's look at ref 13, okay-cool. It sources the claim, one that's stupid to dispute, but whatever-a WL is better, to an article about the trial is good enough. But 13 has nothing to do with this film. So let's look at ref 12-it goes to this opinion piece, a good source, yes, but to the claim it references? Not really. In what way does that reference discuss the trial? To offer his own conjecture about why this film does not define or describe ID in any way, a fact made later in the article here, which is good. But in the mainspace here, the Dover decision and "nondefinition of ID in the film" are completely divorced issues. In other words, the story about the film (the impact Dover may have had on its content) is ignored while readers are directed to read from Kitzmiller v Dover again and again.
Let's take the Stein, O'Reilly, and DI episode. What I recall reading from the source here is that Stein, while promoting this film, complained that "God is driven out of science". DI responded because they are selling a message that in ID, the "designer" is "not necessarily God". That is a controversy over and between how those involved are promoting it. That's part of the story, definitely. But those references don't speak to what the film itself says, which as I can see so far is said to have avoided defining what ID is. So it's important to describe this, but also important not to confuse what the movie says and what Stein says on Fox or what DI says in its own press releases. Keep each straight and get details in our report right. And second, it's important connect only those dots as the sources have done. It is much more interesting about how the promoters of the film are going at each other for slipping up, for blabbing a little too much off the the carefully charted PR script, and giving "ammunition" to the other side.
This article is now so overarching that I have trouble getting a hold on the important points myself. The important points in the controversy are something like this: a) critics view this film's thesis, that religious scientists are victims of censorship, as a "wedge" trick b) scientists the film claims have been "punished" in their jobs haven't been c) fallacy arguments run throughout, such as the false dichotomy between evolution and intelligent design, or that the theory of evolution results in abortion, etc d) scientists were "tricked" into interviews and e) the film's makers' ideological involvements make critics wary the film is "up to no good" even before they've seen it. Things like that are the story. Not re-running the whole evolution versus creationism debate or a re-enactment of Kitzmiller v Dover all over again.
Besides, I say tune out complaints that have no foundation, those that require us to repeat ad nauseum the 150 years long background story, and just get in the way of a putting together a focused, coherent story here about this particular film. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On the Kitzmiller subject...In several articles/interviews ben Stein is on record saying he wants a change in public policy and to see ID/creationism in public high school scince class. So Ben is advocating pseudoscience/creationism = science and also something that is unconstitutional. That fact alone warrants Kitzmiller being brought into the discussion. Angry Christian (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree but only insofar as we have sources that make these connections to the film. We can't put our own two and twos together on stuff like this. We need to find outside sources that have done so. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no "two and twos together." Expelled's topic is ID and it's lack if acceptance by the scientific community. Stating in the article how the scientific community views ID is completely relevant and on point. Give it a rest. Odd nature (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, ref 12 (whipple) does seem to be out of place. Not sure about that one but I think it can/should go. Angry Christian (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Whipple is good. What the article here has taken from him, in 12, misses the point Whipple was making. 13 is Kitzmiller again. Throw away all the refs to Kitzmiller v Dover trial documents and this whole article will be better off. Kitzmiller v Dover never makes any claims about this film. Ever. Ever never. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a question about (12). Are we "the high water mark for a bureaucratic pissing match"? Infonation101 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Yes, it's been verified. /g Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of confusion here. For one, the Kitzmiller decision is one of our strongest planks for the position that ID=creationism. So Kitzmiller is important if only for that reason and will appear in the article. Also, many of the claims of "discrimination" in the film, as near as I can tell from the reviews and promotion etc, are about how unfair it is that faculty are not being allowed to teach intelligent design as science in science classes. And that it is the fault of the big old ugly mean scientists. To understand this in context, it is important to remember that in many instances in the US, it is actually illegal to do this. And there are several other reasons that Kitzmiller is relevant here as well. --Filll (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Numerous points in the article are based on Whipple, and hence reference 12. Presumably the question above is related to its first inline reference, regarding Whipple making the point that ID in the science curriculum was defeated at Kitzmiller. The article is based on third party articles about the film and its promotion. Where points made in these articles have been disputed, or require detailed backup and explanation, appropriate sources discussing these points are used as additional citations. Thus, a source states that ID is a cousin of creationism, or a creationist idea. Editors demanded better sourcing backing up that point, and it was provided. Kitzmiller provides a well attested source for several issues, such as whether ID is creationism, or whether ID can be included in the curriculum for US public school science classes. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't really need a "plank", we just need a source that describes how or why this question/dispute/fact relates to the film. Ditto for the mean old Mr Scientist question. We need to put away Kitzmiller trial docs and rely on the sources who write about this film who make those associations themselves to be our sources. Using Kitzmiller v Dover docs is like trying to write an article about Fahrenheit 9/11 using 9/11 Commission Report--of course that's largely out-of-order at wikipedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of confusion, Whipple and ref 12 - I accidently clicked on the link to Whipple's bio in ref 12, thus I was "why the hell are we using this link to support anything?" Later I realized my mistake. Sorry for any confusion I no doubt caused. Pm - while I'll agree that the middle reference to Kitzmiller could be considered over-kill (and therefore probably removed), the first and last mention of Kitzmiller in the article are appropriate in my opinion. Angry Christian (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so. A large part of the confusion is nobody here's fault. Those like figures in the DI who are promoting the film are confusing (to me anyway) with their own arguments. This film tries to make the claim that science has walled itself against design theory, complaining that it doesn't allow in evidence of an intelligent designer. Well yeah, that's true. As cited in Kitzmiller, ID violates "centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation". Both scientists and IDers appear to me to agree science does not allow this, but IDers don't think there's any reason it shouldn't, and scientists say that it's no arbitrary constraint, it's simply an acknowledgment that science can't test, and therefore can't form any conclusions about, supernature. This isn't a dispute about whether ID is considered science by the definition of science held by scientific community--both agree it is not. It's just one side doesn't like the situation. However, volumes and volumes of complaints about this situation largely confuse the dispute. Take DI's Crowther who claims ID is science even while he's promoting a film which points out how by rules of science practiced today it isn't. A more consistent argument would be, ID would be science ... yes...if the definition of science that we all agree everybody's used for two hundred years were changed to allow it. Or take Demski, who objects to those who liken ID to creationism, attacking it as just a "rhetorical ploy" (in Pennock's words)--but it sure seems to me that by emphasizing that "created by an intelligent designer" (ID) is a world apart somehow from "designed by a sentient creator" (creationism), Demski has merely signposted one of his own "rhetorical ploys", not his opponents. Oh well. Those kinds of arguments seem confused to me, but if that's what they are, that's what they are. It's not editor's task here to try to improve upon them or criticize them, we just document them.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


When people ask for more sources, we give them to them if we have them. So your complaints are not going to go very far. This is a well established pattern over several years and tens of thousands of edits over hundreds of articles. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel you pain here, Professor. It seems like people are so riled up in the middle of some battle over ID/evolution that they're convinced any critic must necessarily be a proponent of the opposite, insidious view they oppose. I'd tried to make a similar point up above. I heard about this film, so I came to the Wiki page hoping I could read up on it. Unfortunately, we don't have a page about the film; we have a page where people are fighting tooth and nail for any possible wedge they can get in to declare that they've already won the war, the war is over, and they devote all their time to establishing that they've already won this fight. I already know about the controversy. I understand the debate, I understand both sides, and I understand the philosophic, scientific, and legal aspects relevant to the debate. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. This movie is NOT the debate, and this article about the movie sure as heck isn't the debate. We don't need yet another page debating the same old issues. If the film is a subject worthy of its own page, then MAKE THE PAGE ABOUT THE FILM. If the only thing that anyone seems to think is worth discussing is who wins in the ID/evolution article, you might as well scrap the page for this movie entirely, and just make some footnote on the ID page about Ben Stein having made a film on the subject. I'd expand on the Flock of Dodos line of reasoning and point to the article on Oliver Stone's JFK (film). You look at the opening paragraphs, and you have information about the FILM: a brief outline of the subject matter, who it stars, when it was made, its awards, its box office returns, controversy about the film, etc. All about *THE FILM*. What you do NOT see is a thousand links to the Warren Commission, the Zapruder film, discussion of the grassy knoll, details of the magic bullet theory, etc. The article about the film JFK (film) is about the film. It is NOT a treatise on how the Warren Commission has already decided thatLee Harvey Oswald acted alone so the case is closed and anyone questioning it is a coot that is trying to rewriet history and manipulate a national tragedy to further a short-sighted anti-American socialist agenda. Can anyone else see the difference here? Can anyone else see why this article needs to be about its subject matter, and not a pissing contest about the debate behind the story of the film? Dolewhite (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly see it, Dolewhite. My understanding is that the subject of the film is accademic freedom, and how religious people are too often deprived of it, by folks who oppose, not just religious points of view, but the very legitimacy of religious beliefs, and the right of fellow scholars to hold and express them. It is one thing to disagree with the correctness of a viewpoint; such disagreements can be congenial and stimulating. But it is another thing altogether to dispute the legitimacy of a viewpoint; that attitude makes conversation impossible. The unwillingness of most of the editors here to acknowledge even the legitimacy of the POV expressed by the film, even to the point of deleting Talk page comments, seems like a pretty good illustration of the point of the film. NCdave (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That is one viewpoint I am sure. We will have to wait for more reviews to get a better handle on it though.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Have you bothered to read WP:NPOV? If so, what part of "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources " is unclear? How about " The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly "? Odd nature (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


This is ludicrous. The article is about the film. In what way is it not? It is about who appears in the film. And controversies about the film. And reviews of the film. And publicity for the film. And interviews of the main people involved in the film. Lots of information. Minimal background information, most of which is in a few footnotes. We do not go into great detail about what ID is and its strengths and weaknesses. We do not discuss the ID movement. We do not discuss the players in ID. We do not clarify exactly the big tent strategy etc. We give a minimal amount of background information and leave the rest to wikilinks and links. So these complaints are frankly silly.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are 23 citations in the intro. (except the part of 8 referencing 1), 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.1 - 17.5 (excepting 17.6, which is, again, a reference to a reference above), 18.1 - 18.3, and 19.1 - 19.12 all make no reference to the film Expelled whatsoever. 9 makes mention, but is not cited to support any facts about the film. In other words, the bulk of all citations in the intro have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARTICLE and are included as "background." That's an obscene and unnecessary amount of "background." So again, I say, if you think all this ID/evolution background is needed to understand the scope of the article about the film, then why not just like the "ID vs Evolution controversy" page and be done with it? For two seconds, just LOOK at the page at the intro. Go ahead and let your eyes fall out of focus so you don't get distracted with the content. It's a total mess. It's ugly, it's illegible, it's mostly irrelevant, and any editor worth her salt would fire a person who put this mess on her desk. Dolewhite (talk) March 2008 (UTC)Dolewhite
You are certainly correct, Dolewhite. NCdave (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason for this - if you don't document basic background, or document it only to articles about the film, people start claiming - as they are above, even despite the referencing - thatr it's not true, their highly biased sources say otherwise, and we're being meeeeean. So articles on controversial subjects tend to be over-referenced, as they were forced to back up even the smallest comment with rock-solid sources. This may mean some of the sources are slightly tangental, this is only an artefact of all the challenging that goes on. Judge by content. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article might look over sourced and I think that could be a reasonable criticism. Except that on controversial articles on WP, we are driven to this. Look at the highly rated FA, intelligent design. Notice how many references it has? We didn't start out like this. We were pushed to it by massive attacks and complaints. Same is happening slowly on related articles like intelligent design movement and irreducible complexity. I tried some months back to blow off assorted malcontents lobbying for more sources and citations at irreducible complexity. I figured, they could make do with a wikilink to intelligent design, right? No way. A HUGE massive campaign and attack was mounted. It went on for days. One or two editors were permanently banned because of it. An administrator was yanked up on charges in front of Arbcomm because of it and desysopped. It was a War, all over exactly this issue. So guess what we do? When whiners and complainers attack us for not having enough sources, we put in sources. It might be ugly, but that is how it is. If you do not like it, there are many other wikis which do not have the same sorts of problems. Try Conservapedia for example. If you complain like that, they just ban you on sight. --Filll (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And we've already had misguided/mistaken complaints on this talk page that ID is not creationism and more about the mention of Kitzmiller. Kitzmiller is the most informed and neutral opinion on ID that exists. Angry Christian (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Try to take a step back and look at the article fresh. Paragraph 2, second sentence, Discover Institute says blahblah about science, id and creationism. A reader is asking, So??? You have to read further to find what DI has to do with this film; it isn't immediately apparent. It says they're promoting it, and using it for PR? Okay, cool. That's an interesting aspect to the film, or could be if the reader didn't have to labor over the article to learn what the heck DI's role really is in this film. Are they a partner in it? Remember, the film isn't even out yet, and an uninvolved, interested reader, one who doesn't know about the story from reading it someplace else, would be wondering about this stuff. I read the article as a reader, and tried to clear up confusions about this film as an editor, and run into dead end after dead end following footnotes to background documentation about ID theory and Kitzmiller and Church state court rulings etc. Paragraph 2 as a whole should toss the whole creationism thing flat out anyway. ID is not allowed in school because a court found it to be religious theory, not science. Simple. The whole creationism brouhaha just confuses that key point here, and unless the film tries to say something about creationism apart from ID, why chase that tail anyway? Why isn't ID welcomed in science labs? ID is not science because the field of science doesn't extend to untestable supernatural explanations, not because it's creationism. Creationism, DI, all of that rehash in paragraph 2, just meanders away from the key questions at the heart of this film before a reader is clear what this film is about. Don't forget, paragraph 1 talks of the "no dissent from evolution allowed" idea, and paragraph 2, I think, is trying to be about the "no God or supernatural designer allowed in science" idea, as well as the claims in the film that scientists who are believers are being denied academic freedom because of this exclusion. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Filll, I feel your pain. There's an article back when when I was pulled into the same overkill by bad faith content and NPOV disputes; there was a biased blindness to virtually everything any source said that they didn't want to believe. It demanded volumes of tedious minutia because these users wouldn't allow any synopsis statement whatsoever. For example, you couldn't say "company officials said" without naming these officials and supplying reference after reference showing their relationship to the company. The equivalent here would be to say "DI says thus and so", and some bonehead insisted we furnish copies of passports, fingerprints, and notarized resumes to prove these somebodies were who they said they were. You could claim "The sky is blue", and offer a source to verify it which says, "the atmosphere is skyblue in color". Then they'd respond, "It doesn't say 'the sky is blue'-that's misrepresenting the source", and you feel forced to find another source to backup the first one. It's ridiculous. But we're editing encylopedia articles, not patrolling a milecastle. So why give in to ridiculous demands, especially when it's at the expense of coherency and readability? As a reader, I wouldn't come here to learn if ID is creationism, or why schools can't teach it. I come here to learn what this movie is about, who's behind it and why, how is it being "used"/promoted/distributed, what's taking it so long to be released, and how it is being received. And as a reader, I'm kind of put-off by the article because it's a little patronizing trying to convince its readers--doggedly. The article probably has this tone because it's written to quiet POV pushers rather than inform readers.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point, we might rewrite it once again to address many of these. However, having personally spent many many hours rewriting it a couple of times, only to watch it turn into a dog's breakfast again under repeated attacks of various kinds, it is not something I am frantic to do again right away.

I will also note that the reason ID is not welcome in science classes is (1) it is not science and (2) it violates the first amendment.--Filll (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, how is not teaching ID a violation of the First Amendment? Infonation101 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Fill again, sorry - my "I feel your pain" may sound glib in light of your comment above, which I hadn't read and I didn't mean to dismiss. I really empathize how the articles get bloated responding to complainers. This article is full of really excellent content, and I wouldn't support in any way rototilling the content to pursue these high-minded ideals about improving it. I'm really sorry. It's not fun editing when it feels like you can't please anybody, and no matter how hard you try somebody's always complaining about something else.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Forbidding the teaching of ID violates the First Amendment (free speech). ID is science, and is not religion. The real argument is over whether ID is good science, not whether it is science. NCdave (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Forbidding the teaching of ID violates the first amendment in pretty much the same way forbidding the catechism does. Thus sayeth the court in Kitzmiller versus Dover. And wikipedia is not the court of appeals, so though editors may try, the decision will not be overruled here. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
A science class is not a place for free speech about religion. It is a place for children to learn about science. If they spend all their time listening to free speech about non-science then they don’t learn any science which I guess is the aim of all the creationists out there who are afraid that science will turn children into atheists. Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Well let me try to help you with a little information. There is far far more in various WP articles if you want to learn. First, ID is not science, mainly because it demands that the supernatural be a mechanism to explain natural processes. In other words, science does not have magic in it, but ID does. The supernatural was rejected as part of science several centuries ago, and is no longer accepted as a cause in science. There are several other problems with ID, but that is the main one. It is rejected by literally hundreds of scientific organizations around the world as complete hooey. We have lists of them in the intelligent design article, but if you do a bit more looking, you will find even more than we have on WP. .--Filll (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


"science does not have magic in it, but ID does" - Well, as far as I know, physics states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed; just the form can be changed. The Big Bang seems to break this law by creating matter out of nothing. Breaking the laws of physics is, as far as I know, the definition of "supernatural."  —CobraA1 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
CobraA1, were you aware that editing in the middle of someone else's post as you just did is WP:DE and can lead to sanctions? Do not do it again ok?
Your understanding of physics is actually comically wrong and uninformed. Sorry, but you are incorrect. Please do not use this as a soapbox for things you do not know about. --Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


"The supernatural was rejected as part of science several centuries ago, and is no longer accepted as a cause in science." - What was rejected was that science could somehow measure or make conclusions about the supernatural. So it's correct to say it's not scientific. The implication that there's some sort of positive assertion in science that the supernatural does not exist, however, is not a scientific observation and not a part of science as far as I know.  —CobraA1 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What science is, is determined by scientific consensus. If you look at the history of science, there have been positive assertions about what science is, and how natural phenomena are assumed to have natural causes in science. If you look at the court cases involving creationism and now ID, there have been such positive assertions. If you consult the publications of the National Academy of Sciences, they do as well. That does not mean the supernatural does not exist, only that as it currently stands, it is not part of science. If that changes, I am sure we will be informed, right?--Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Next, the first amendment is the "freedom of religion" amendment. One of the parts of the US law is that the government will not promote one religion over another. Now it has been determined that creationism is part and parcel of a set of religious ideas, mainly associated with a few protestant sects. These groups are mainly interested in biblical literalism, a long discredited idea that is held by a tiny minority of Christians worldwide, and an even smaller minority of the world's population. Nevertheless, when you talk to them, they present it VERY differently, but that is not reality. To use tax money, extracted at the point of a gun, from the public, to push the position of handful of religious sects (constituting maybe 15% at most of the US population) as a proselytizing action in public schools, and disguise this religious proselytizing for this tiny minority of the US population as science when it is not science, is just ludicrous. Where does this leave Catholics? Greek Orthodox? Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? Atheists? Agnostics? Literally thousands of other religions (about 5500 worldwide)? You are forcing these groups to pay to try to convert their children to the religious ideas of groups they disagree with. This is obviously a violation of the first amendment and blatantly unfair. And this is why it has failed in legal action after legal action in state and federal courts and in several appearances before the US Supreme Court. Well over a dozen major legal decisions (you can find many of them here on Wikipedia if you want to read about them).

To get some context for this, suppose I came to your house with police and forced you to pay money to have your children taught Hinduism as science in school. Suppose they were also taught that your family's religion was evil and they were all going to hell and they were dirty filth and stupid and hated by assorted Hindu gods for being Baptists or Pentecostals or whatever. And on and on and on. Would that be fair? Would you like to be forced to pay to have your children indoctrinated in such a way? Every reasonable person will agree that this would be very unfair I am sure. Well of course, any reasonable person, when they understand the situation will reject the disgusting outrageous unfair antiAmerican lies from the Fascist jerks promoting nonsense like ID. .--Filll (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


"To get some context for this, suppose I came to your house with police and forced you to pay money to have your children taught Hinduism as science in school." - I would say that's how some parents feel about some science classes. Call it "science" as much as you want, that won't change the feelings of the parents.  —CobraA1 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well many parents do not want their children to learn about mathematics or French or slavery or the subjugation of the American Indians or all kinds of things. But we are a society of laws. So if the government has decided that we want children to attend school and have classes in A, B, C, then I guess we either homeschool our children, put them in a private school, put them in a religious school, move to another country with different laws, or allow our children to stay out of school and take our chances. I also believe that the only restriction is that the schoolboard cannot force teachers to teach creationism as science, but if the teacher wants to do so, and there are no objections from the school administration or parents, then there is no problem. I personally have no problem with requiring religious instruction in public schools, however, not just in science classes since it is not science. If people want different options, they will have to change the government I guess.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Okaaayyy...this discussion needs to reconvene in Speaker's Corner because this room has been previously reserved for writing an article about this film. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. This needs to end on this page. I was only answering a question or two.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you understand a bit better now? You can learn a LOT more about this by reading Wikipedia and researching a bit, and thinking for yourself, instead of swallowing every bit of nonsense spewed out by those greedy jerks at the Discovery Institute.--Filll (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Everybody MUST accept your definition of science, and everybody MUST accept mainstream science, or you will spew hatred towards them. Thank you for clarifying.  —CobraA1 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well we let scientists tell us what science is, not preachers, or Joe the Plumber with a grade 8 education who used to play football without a helment.--Filll (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides, in Hyde Park there are a lot of people around willing to snap a photo for the kids. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I presume this wasn't to me (if it was, please--I welcome everyone reading this to send me a nasty reminder on my talk page that this electronic medium doesn't lend itself well to subtle sarcasm so stop it already, dummy). But presuming it's not to me, I will second the motion--wikipedia's got great information on all this stuff. I highly recommend it, everybody should read it. Added bonus: that way editors will stop jerking editors in this article around with the nitpicky fact tags, forcing them to repeat the whole thing over and over and over again here. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No it is not meant for you. However, if one looks on this talk page, including the archives, one will see that repeatedly people ask (1) why isnt ID science? and (2) why is it against the law to teach ID? They ask these things because they have just been fed propaganda from religious bodies of various sorts, and really do not understand the issues.
So sometimes, not always, I stop and explain it a bit. I think when people start to really understand the issues, they soon realize how silly the entire thing is and how the case that ID proponents build for it just falls apart. I think few people undestand that forcing teachers to teach ID as science in public grade schools is actually illegal under US law. They are so confused over the issue they do not understand that a massive legal shift would have to take place to change this; we might have to get rid of the US democratic form of government and institute a theocracy to have this, probably.
Under oath, in court, ID supporter Behe admitted that using the intelligent design definitions for science, astrology would be taught as science in science classes. Probably witchcraft and alchemy and reading the future from studying chicken entrails as well would all have to be taught as science. Is this how the US wants to try to improve its position in technology and science to compete in the modern world? I am sure China and India and Japan would love it. But it would not help our competitiveness. What is wrong with Americans? Have they decided they hate money? Have they decided they want to be poor? have they decided they want to be losers? Have they decided they want to disarm the US military and reduce their military advantages? You might as well hand the Jihadists a military victory and convert to Islam right now if you make this kind of decision. Because that is what they are asking for if they want crap like ID taught as science. If you want it, be my guest, but you better understand the consequences before you make that decision. Because it will have HUGE consequences. Use Wikipedia. Learn a bit instead of listening to some babbling preacher who just wants to pick your pocket and make you stupid.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Filll, please try to be civil. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to characterize the people you disagree with as being stupid, to condescendingly demand that they "learn a bit," or to denigrate their religion by characterizing their spiritual leaders as "babblers" who "just want to pick your pocket and make your stupid."
I don't know who Behe is, but I don't believe this movie advocates having preachers or astrologers or witches teach science classes. The issue isn't whether unqualified people should be teaching science classes, but whether otherwise well-qualified scientists should be permitted to work in their fields if they are religious. NCdave (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion about the issue is noted. Do you have a reliable third-party source giving verification that is the issue? Obviously well-qualified religious scientists can work in their fields, just ask Ken Miller. Exactly what assertions does the film make that say otherwise, and what views do outside experts hold on these assertions? .. dave souza, talk 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Better than that: here's what the movie's own official web site says:
"...educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance."[19]
Also, as an aside, self-description is considered a reliable source for information about the positions of whoever is doing the description (in this case the movie's producers & promoters). It needn't be third-party.
Now, is there any reliable source to support the opinion that this movie advocates having preachers, astrologers, and witches (or any other unqualified people) teach science classes? NCdave (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
"movie advocates having preachers, astrologers, and witches (or any other unqualified people) teach science classes?" Where in the article does it say that, NCdave? Please point to the exact sentence that makes that claim, I cannot find it so I need your help. Or am I to assume this is yet another example of you disrupting the talk page. So...Please show me the part in the article that claims that the "movie advocates having preachers, astrologers, and witches (or any other unqualified people) teach science classes?" Thanks in advance. Angry Christian (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was replying to Filll, just above. In this comment he wrote that "using the intelligent design definitions for science, astrology would be taught as science in science classes. Probably witchcraft and alchemy and reading the future from studying chicken entrails as well would all have to be taught as science." Sorry if I wasn't clear. NCdave (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that someone who does not know who Behe is presumes to dictate to everyone else what ID is, what the movie is about, what it means, etc. Interesting. Not particularly convincing, but interesting.--Filll (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Behe have anything to do with this film, Filll?
Also, please see WP:no personal attacks, Filll, which says, in relevant part, "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." NCdave (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
NCDave, anyone familiar with intelligent design and Kitzmiller v Dover would understand Filll's comments regarding astrology, etc. And arguably without Michael Behe you wouldn't have ID. Angry Christian (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals?

Rather than arguing back and forth over something we probably can't hope to resolve, let's talk about real stuff, specifics. Do you (Pm) have any clear sense as to how you think the article should be improved? Why don't we discuss concrete proposals? Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There's some good general advice in WP:Writing_for_the_enemy. NCdave (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Actual proposals instead of vague hand-waving, please. Hence the use of the word "specifics". --Calton | Talk 13:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a specific proposal. NCdave (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
"Specifics" as is "This is the current version" of a section, and "This is how I suggest it should be phrased". You know, something concrete that we can work with and discuss. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
We were discussing one such improvement, here, but Hrafn deleted it from this Talk page. NCdave (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. I've mentioned a couple general ideas, and I'll try to sketch this out more concretely to see what you all think. This will take me at least a couple days to get a sketch together because I want to go through and become better versed about all the refs first. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I see that two discussions earlier closed because they had deteriorated into personal opinionating have been reopened. I am going to urge that editors stay firm on this. This is not a forum to express our own views on the topic of ID, creationism, academic freedom, US courts, scientists, believers, or the importance (or lack of) in this film. Everyone needs to stay off the soapbox, all the way off. Meaning, nobody---none of us are welcomed to sneak in "one last word" before closing such discussions. It means zip it shut as soon as we see the telltale signs appear, or whenever we ourselves should feel the urge to raise our arms to the heavens and bellow a sermon about Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Each editor is fully empowered to shut off such wayward discussions immediately. That's it. It policy, and we're all much more effective editors that way. Live with it. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Detailed proposals for improvements to the article, with sources for anything new to the article, are welcome. While a reasonable amount of discussion is in order, general discussions have to be kept in check. .. dave souza, talk 17:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've ever seen such a POV-ridden, worthless article on all of wiki. All this is is a place to attack the film, it seems like. I say you just wipe the whole thing and get some neutral writers on board, this reflects very poorly on the point of wikipedia! 128.252.78.81 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Point Made

I haven't been here since thursday and it looks like armagedon has happened or something. I hope no one missed me. Anyways, I think an interesting point was archived earlier and I want to bring it back out, without reviving the argument it was made during. Michael Moore's movies all mention the controversies over them at the end. The bulk of this article is about the controversy. One or the other needs to be fixed to match each other. Please, people on both sides, don't make this have anything to do with science, or religion, the constitution, etc. Just discuss which one should be changed and how. Saksjn (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I will make this simple. Who cares what the articles about Michael Moore's movies do. We wrote this the way we wanted to, and have worked on it for months, and this is the result. So I don't think we need to change that. The only thing I would change is to clean up the text, which has become a mess through repeated attacks, but I am in no rush to do it.--Filll (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, Saksjn! And I'm with you, the more we can focus on improving the article and the less debating here on the talk pages would be a welcome step in the right direction! Angry Christian (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Moore films generally receive more non-negative attention (I don't fully understand why). In that regard we have a Kent Hovind type problem; most of the coverage in independent sources is negative. Hopefully after the film is actually released we'll have enough content to consider switching to such a format. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Moore does get some bad press and is considered by many (including me) to be unreliable and biased. But on the whole the majority of the press for Moore is much more balanced. Hopefully some changes can be made after the post-release press sets in. Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

question/suggestion

In the People Presented in the Film section, would it enhance the readability if we either bolded each individual's names (Sternberg, et al) or even gave each person a sub-heading in that section? Angry Christian (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for sub-headings -- all the names are wikilinked, which tends to make bolding of them generally less effective. HrafnTalkStalk 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


We should add Michael Ruse.--Filll (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. I think it flows better now. I did not do a sub-header for PZ, et al. I think we need to add more content (not tons) and then add a sub-header for them. I don't have time at the moment to do that, perhaps someone could chip in. Angry Christian (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

This whole opening series of paragraphs is a mess and is near impossible to read with all the footnotes. Couldn't we cut the background down, say something really brief about the ID/evolution controversy, and just put a link to the ID/evolution controversy page? 90% of that "background" is a big argument embedded in the opening paragraph while each side is fighting to have the dogmatic upper hand. It's unnecessary and inapproppriate. THis page should be about the film. It does not need to be a whole expose on a matter that's already thoroughly discussed elsewhere. Dolewhite

Well we have tried that in the past for such controversial articles about controversial topics. And you know what happens? We get hit with challenges and templates and people belligerently claiming that all of the statements we make have no proof and demanding references. And so, slowly but surely, these sorts of articles get more and more boilerplate and footnotes and citations. It happens to all these controversial articles. People are not willing to accept anything even if it is heavily cited in a linked article. --Filll (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's exactly my point. Since we know that it's going to be a fight (it clearly already is a fight), we should just redirect it to an existing debate. I see absolutely no sense in having this huge struggle in the middle of the article. IT MAKES IT ILLEGIBLE. Perspective aside, this is not the place to hold the debate, period. It's totally irrelevant to the summary of the article about the film whether Ben Stein or the whole movement is right or wrong, and no matter where you stand, if you step back for a few seconds and thinks from the perspective of a person aiming for standards of objective journalism that this is NOT the place to be having this discussion. You just put in that it's about the ID/evolution controversy, put a link to that article which already exists, and focus only on the FACTS of the FILM, not the facts of the film's CONTENT, which is only relevant to a lower paragraph under a seperate heading. Dolewhite —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Dolewhite, the film is not about the ID/evolution controversy, it is an attempt to demonize scientists as persecuting anyone that tries to advocate ID/evolution. The sad thing is that it is the creationists that are doing all the persecution. I have never heard of any scientist persecuting a Christian but there are many documented cases of creationists persecuting people that support evolution with acts of violence and death threats. I wish there were a good place in this article to state that the persecution is actually happening in reverse! Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You are not making a lot of sense. Relevant to the film but not its content? By the way, the LEAD has to summarize the entire article. So we cannot just relegate stuff you do not like to the lower paragraphs. Sorry. Also, we do not subscribe to "objective journalistic standards" whatever those are. We have our own principles we follow here like RS and NPOV etc.--00:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Ya, I do agree that the article should just be about the film. The whole article has become a ID vs. Evolution article, which is not what its meant to be. I think that links should be provided to ID and evolutions as well as related controversies, and the rest of the article should just be about the film. Saksjn (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All the reliable sources I've seen say the film is about ID vs. evolution, and take care to spell out what that means. While you may want to hide that, the article should show the context clearly for readers who shouldn't have to research other articles to find out the significance of the film. .. dave souza, talk 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is a big surprise coming, the film that has been shown in sneak previews and that has been reviewed and all its promotion point towards an ID vs. evolution theme for the movie. It is also sort of confused, since the film links ID and God, which the true intelligent design movement does not, so they can maintain a "big tent" and for legal reasons. If the film is not about intelligent design and its conflict with evolution, what is it about? And do you have a WP:RS which describes it otherwise? --Filll (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear Ben Stein is anti-science, anti-evolution, pro creationism and believes creationists are being persecuted for their religious beliefs by nazi loving darwinists. He also hopes that his creationist film will result in policy/social changes that will include creationism will be taught/discussed in public science class. He is also profoundly stupid on matters of science, he cannot seem to distinguish between cosmology and biology and makes other astonishing claims that are grounded is ignorance. To ignore those subjects in the article would be pretty dumb. It is both necessary and appropriate to cover these subjects in the article. Angry Christian (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The film is about ID and evolution, but the article shouldn't be. It should be about the film and its significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksjn (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the significance of the film, together with education standards, as shown by reliable third party sources. Do please provide such sources for any other significance the film has. (remember, primary sources such as publicity stuff by the film producers, the DI or Stein can't be used to assess significance, see WP:NOR). .. dave souza, talk 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is much we can "clean up" in the article. Bluetd, it's true that some who support evolution have been persecuted, but it's also true that Christians have been persecuted, in this era and in others - there was Hitler and Nero. Christians today are not truly persecuted but scoffed at and ridiculed. Evolution is considered a fact of science. Anything that says otherwise, unless scientifically proven, will be ridiculed. This is why ID and creationism will never be taught in public science classes: because they are theories and not facts of science. Frankly, evolution has too many holes to be a fact of science, but it's accepted by the general public and will never leave the public schools. 70.251.236.53 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

seen this on the expelled website?

I read this quote on a blog that said they got it from the expelled website. Anyone else seen this:

"In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany"

Angry Christian (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's here, in hidden text at the bottom. Use your mouse to sweep out the area below SPOILER!! and it should show up as reverse video. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Ah good. That is probably a better source than some of what we have been using (which start to make us look sort of ridiculous). We really need to have a careful exposition of this entire episode, with good sources, not blog entries talking about who might have emailed a blogger and what they might have claimed in a personal email to this blogger etc.--Filll (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Even more ham-fisted sophomoric theatrics. I start to see now what Dawkins was talking about with 'Lord Privy Seals'. It'll be interesting to see what a high-brow film critic from a major paper makes of such tactics. HrafnTalkStalk 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Dawkins pointed out that Hitler drew more inspiration from Martin Luther's On Jews and their Lies than from Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. I hope some journalists make that point as well.--Filll (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
They will if they go to Wikipedia, where the article on Luther tends to make one think he was an antisemite first and just happened to split the Catholic church in his spare time. Relata refero (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A gross exaggeration. Discussion of Luther's anti-Semitism is only a small fraction of the article, without any undue prominence of positioning. HrafnTalkStalk 11:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Really? The Lutherans must be editing tendentiously again.....
I do notice that "small fraction" of the article means the second largest section, a majority of the bibliography, and an entire section of the intro.... Relata refero (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet you somehow failed to "notice" that it was only one (and the second-last) of 16 sections and that its "entire" paragraph in the lead is only two sentences long, and is the last paragraph. And there is no "bibliography". Do you mean the 'Notes' section? If so, all that you can claim is that its the best-documented section. You poor FAUX-persecuted Christian you. HrafnTalkStalk 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Well considering that Luther's work was a major motivation for Mein Kampf, maybe this is not completely out of line. And Luther was four square behind the Inquisition and wanted to see much harsher treatments, if I remember correctly. He was kind of a brutal sort.--Filll (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Luther's anti-semitism was wrong, but it wasn't the major work of his life. The major work of his life was the founding of Protenstanism and the translation of the Bible into German. But all this has nothing to do with expelled. Saksjn (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shermer

Doesnt Michael Shermer appear in the movie? Should we mention this?--Filll (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, if he definitely does, though how much we can say about him in it, given current sources, I dunno. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, even if they plan to put certain people in the film at the moment, it is not clear that they will appear in the final cut.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Read Shermer's experience and a well written review here. It appeals Shermer is not a Ben Stein fan at all. According to the review Kitzmiller is in fact mentioned in the movie. This is well worth reading and also incorporating in the article Angry Christian (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we get ahold of his Scientific American review?--Filll (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I'm pasting all of what Shermer wrote about his interview experience with Ben Stein to make it easier to discuss:

My take on Mathis is that he's an opportunist. He says and does whatever he thinks necessary to get his film made and now promoted. My guess on the latest flap about tossing PZ out of the screening but not Dawkins was PZ's original assumption that they just didn't notice Dawkins there, and only after the fact rationalizing the whole affair with plausible (and ever changing) reasons.

For my part, the moment I sat down with Stein (with Mathis there) and he asked me that question about firing people for expressing dissenting views a dozen times, I realized that I was being manipulated to give certain answers they were looking for me to give. I asked them both, several times, if they had anything else to ask me about evolutionary theory or Intelligent Design. In frustration I finally said something like "Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking me this question in hopes that I'll give a different answer?"

That's when Stein finally changed the subject and asked about social Darwinism. We got into a lengthy discussion about Adam Smith, which he seemed surprised to learn that I seemed to know more about the great economist than he did! For example, he didn't seem to even realize that Smith's first book was "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", and that Smith didn't trust businessmen any more than he trusted government bureaucrats, and that we need a mix of enlightened self-interest and strictly enforced rules of trade. But as I noted in my review of the film for Scientific American, Stein was especially displeased with my linkage of Smith and Darwin, that Darwin read Smith as an undergraduate at Edinburgh, etc. I also pointed out to him that Darwin has been used and abused by ideologues of all stripes, and that in any case that is all separate from whether the science is good or not. That seemed to tax his thinking too much, because shortly after he announced that he had to take a rest break and he just got up and went out to his car for about 20 minutes! Seriously, he just went out to the street next to our office and sat in the rent car they had! I couldn't believe it. We had only been going for about 30 minutes and he was tired? And this was in the late morning. I joked with Mathis that, this being Hollywood and all, I wondered if Stein was out doing a line of cocaine.... Mathis assured me that Stein doesn't do drugs, but I found the whole thing to be quite odd. Then Stein came back in and that's when we walked around the office with the handheld camera to get some B-Roll footage, and they showed him asking me about my books, and that's where I told him I thought ID was much closer to pseudoscience than science. Then he asked me AGAIN if I thought people should be fired....

The whole experience was a bit surreal, and I found Stein to be a somewhat disagreeable man. He tried to come off like he was a star and that I should have been star-struck, and when I wasn't that seemed to get under his skin a bit. For example, when he came back into the office from resting in his car, I said something like "gentlemen, I've got work to do so I'd like to wrap this thing up now," he looked at me like "hey, don't you realize who I am and that you should be grateful to be talking to me?" I let him off the hook a bit in my review about his questionable comment about blacks, but I suspect he has some racist tendencies.

Angry Christian (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


I dug around on the web but so far I haven't found Shermer's column on Expelled. I suspect that it has not been published yet. Perhaps Dawkins et al got ahold of a preprint of the column. We could as well I suppose, but we probably couldn't use it until that edition of Scientific American is officially published. --Filll (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just sent him an email asking when it's scheduled to be published. We'll see what he says. Angry Christian (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is Shermer's email response to me:

That was from an email to Josh which I gave him permission to quote. You can quote it as well. But I just realized that my closing paragraph doesn't make sense without the opening paragraph of my review for Scientific American, so you may include that if you like:

“Should I be worried about the Crips and the Bloods up here?” These were the first words out of the mouth of Ben Stein as he entered my office at Skeptic magazine, located in the racially mixed neighborhood of Altadena, California. I cringed and hoped that the two black women in my employ were out of earshot of what I hoped was merely Mr. Stein’s ham-handed attempt at humor before we settled into his interview of me for what I was told was a film on the intersection of science and religion titled “Crossroads.”

My review in the print edition of Scientific American will be published in the June issue, out in mid May. I'm writing a longer review that will be published online at www.sciam.com on April 18, the day the film opens. Everyone is jumping the gun by a month here, playing out the entire debate before anyone even has a chance to see the film. So it goes in the Internet world of the blogosphere. Michael

Angry Christian (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

alleged societal ills

It's a minor fine tuning but first of all I read the cites given and did not see any obvious link of the producers claiming "evolution = societal ills" I know the film does in fact claim this so we need a better or additional cite that clearly supports what the article is saying. Secondly, I believe they are not blaming evolution for alleged societal ills but actual societal ills. I could be mistaken. If they are legitimate societal ills then I think we should remove the "alleged". Angry Christian (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While the NYT article touches on the point, Whipple is a better reference – "After a half hour or so, "Expelled" wanders off to blame the theory of evolution for Communism, the Berlin Wall, Fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood." It's certainly a matter of POV whether atheism and Planned Parenthood are a bad thing, and I'm sure there are many who think communism is a good thing, though obviously some of the implementations fell at least as far short of the ideals as, say, the Spanish Inquisition did of Christian ideals. So, suggestions for rephrasing would be welcome, and probably best to move references [2] and [3] a phrase earlier to cover the preceding points, then cite Whipple for that specific point. Dawkins's review could also be cited there. .. dave souza, talk 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I get it now and the "alleged" makes perfect sense. Angry Christian (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use some term other than "alleged." Alleged suggest action, issues of definite fact, and, usually, some type of wrongdoing. Example: "He is alleged to have committed murder." Can someone think of a better term or phrase? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Purported? Putative?--Filll (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe purported would work. Or maybe just not use any qualifier, and just list some of the (alleged) ills. "blames the theory for a range of modern phenomena from Nazism to Planned Parenthood." How does that sound? Perhaps the word phenomena shouldn't be used though. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry none that I can think of but I just removed the duplicate instance of this so now we only need to worry about the mention of it in the opening para Angry Christian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I made an edit to change this in the opening paragraph. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate information

There is a substantial amount of duplicated material which is making the article far more lengty than needed and will make adding material that much more challenging. I'm trying to identify duplicate points and remove those that have aloready been clearly made. Angry Christian (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! That's awesome. That was my original contention: the intro is too over-loaded with content that should be discussed below, or for which reference to other pages should suffice. Now the page has exploded, and you're returning to ideas I've been trying to sell all along. But since I'm a n00b, you couldn't get past your initial paranoia that I might be a (*gasp!*) propnent of ID. Oh, noes! Dolewhite (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you wanted to remove content. You didn't say anything about duplication. Bluetd (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd direct you to [Header #4] where I explicitly talk about "Clean[ing] up" the "whole set of opening paragraphs." If you didn't read enough to see "opening paragraphs" as operative, I really can't help you. Try an English course. Dolewhite (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dolewhite it's not uncommon for editors to ignore even good suggestions by those who are disruptive and/or show a repeated lack of knowledge about Wikipedia policies and also the subject matter. And as far as your "paranoia" claim, I don't think the editors here are worried about who "believes" in ID and who does not. Personally I could care less about whatever gets people through the night. Angry Christian (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for reactionaries to be unable to view the content of an argument when their emotions are running high and they're operating in war mode. I did nothing disruptive, nor did I violate any policies. Note that your initial unnecessary outrage stemmed from my work to make the article more like its present form. In its present form, it distinguishes that some people view ID as a scientific theory, but they are a minority, and the consensus is that it is not. That was my first edit, and that's the one you decided to initiate an edit-war over. My only objection was to the unqualified assertion that ID *is* a form of creationism, which ran contrary to other claims where that relationship was qualified by reference to the consensus that already existed in the article. It led to in inconsistent and internally constradictory article. You shot first and asked questions never, assuming that any effort to qualify the equivocation must be de facto defense of ID.
You really ought to consider taking a less antagonistic approach to this whole matter. I have only been civil, while you're throwing around accusations both here and on your talk page to demean or discredit others. Don't pretend to have a moral or intellectual highground when you make no effort to hold yourself to standards that would give you those virtues. Dolewhite (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, Dolewhite. Angry Christian (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some editors do seem to dismiss anything an editor that believes ID says. I've experienced it before. Angry Christian, didn't you join only this January. You've gained alot of experience in that time and know policy pretty well but, time wise your still pretty new yourself. Saksjn (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
ID is pseudoscientific nonsense, Saksjn, so it stands to reason any editor might point this out or mention it on the talk page here at some point. And I cannot speak for other editors here, but I suspect no one cares if an editor here believes in it. As I mentioned, I could care less if someone pretents ID is science or even if they think the world is flat or just a few thousand years old or if the moon landing was fake or if the moon is made of cheese. I'm here to improve the article and not figure out what other people believe. It picks my pocket not for folks to believe in ID. You mentioend you believe in ID and i can assure you I have not lost any sleep over that fact nor have I been afraid of you (paranoia as dolewhite mentioned). Any edits you've made that I might have objected to were not because you believe in ID but because your edits were suspect in view of Wikipedia policies. Angry Christian (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dolewhite, I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself, and suggest that perhaps others might feel the same way. The reason *I* have discounted many of your suggestions is because you are FAR too quick to accuse others of "paranoia", being "bush-league propagandists", "coffee clatch of culture warriors", "intellectual dishonesty", etc. etc. etc. etc. I could spend an hour collecting all the examples of your hyperbole and personal snipes, almost all due to your inability to deal with the fact that people have different views than you do on how to edit the article, and/or have ignored some of your posts because you spoke in generalities but didn't suggest specific edits to consider to remedy the issues you raised. And then now you have the gall to say that you "have only been civil"... That, son, is why I give your opinions little weight at this point, and don't feel a great need to attempt to mollify you since you seem to prefer to feel outraged and "persecuted". Others may likely respond the same. Learn to play better with others, and others will start to treat you differently. Until then, get used to being brushed off. --Ichneumon (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Saksjn, I don't care whether someone "believes ID" or not, as long as they make worthwhile contributions in a non-confrontational manner. Unfortunately, in my experience those who "believe ID" tend to come barging in with a chip on their shoulder and odd ideas about what constitutes useful, informative articles and/or valid material. They get dismissed for the latter, not for the mere fact of believing in ID. Then they tend to declare themselves "persecuted" for their beliefs instead of accepting the fact that their attitude and performance might have something to do with the reaction they got. Come to think of it, the folks being held up as martyrs in "Expelled" follow the same pattern -- experiencing negative consequences for their inability to meet normal standards, then waving the "persecuted for my beliefs!" flag. The declarations of victimhood really, really get old fast. --Ichneumon (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Researchers of the Phenomenom?

Whats a reasearcher of the phenomenom? What the phenomenom? Life? The universe? The supernatural? Whatever the "phenomenom" is we need to re-word it, cause its confusing as heck! If we can agree on what it is, I'll change it. Saksjn (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It took me about an hour to find it because there are so many freaking foot-notes! Could we do something about that guys? Saksjn (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the people who have spent a great deal of time researching the Intelligent design movement and who are widely considered experts on it are not, technically, scientists. - Barbara Forrest, for instance, is a professor of philosophy; Ronald Numbers is a historian of science [And also a professor of history of science and medicine], but both are usually considered experts on the subject. Depending on technicalities relating to the applied/pure science split, even Eugenie Scott, as an anthropologist, may or may not fall under the label "scientist", as anthropology is one of those nifty mixes of biology, history, and sociology [no disrespect intended to the field, obviously, and the biology side Eugenie Scott's training makes her eminently well-placed to talk about the most controversial parts of evolutionary theory - the evolution of man. I only mention her as "science" and "the arts" are two sides of a continuum, so it's hard to know where the cutoff for the use of the term "scientist" falls exactly]. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I would add philosopher Robert T. Pennock to that list. HrafnTalkStalk 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely Pennock. Probably Sober as well. "Historians and philosophers"? Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The main point is that the neutral parties who have thoroughly researched the movement and become experts on it have almost universally decided that it is creationism, or very much like it, and is not science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So what's the phenomenom? That didn't really answer the question. Saksjn (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the cultural phenomenon which is the ID movement. Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It currently says:
Although the Discovery Institute which is the hub of the intelligent design movement, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach, and not creationism,[5][6] it is generally considered such by scientists or historians of the intelligent design movement.
I don't think the phrase "historians of the intelligent design movement" should be used. That might suggest that they are historians within the ID movement. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"Historians of [X]" are historians which study [X]. Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's just stick with scientists. If the writers (us) are confused... Imagine how confusing this is to a reader. Saksjn (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The top authorities on ID are the historians and philosophers. And they have played a leading role in the demarcation question (as Ruse did in the Edwards case). Guettarda (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Aye, exactly. We ought to mention them, as they're also neutral parties, not part of "Big Science", etc. Hence they are well-placed to judge without the supposed fear for their careers that the film claims as a reason scientists don't speak out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the phenomenom is. Saksjn (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an ill-chosen synonym for "the intelligent design movement". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh...Kinda a strange synonym. Thanks for clarifying that. Saksjn (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be a British thing. Or an American one. I've moved between the two enough to pick up both country's ways of using words, and now I can confuse people wherever I am. Not to mention reading all those Victorian novels. God, it's a wonder I can talk to anyone =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker, you're cherry picking the scientific view by claiming a handful of non-scientists or science historians are the significant voice of the scientific community who recognizes intelligent design as creationism and/or pseudoscience. There is not one single science organization that believes ID is anything scientific. Here is an imcomplete list you might want to recognize - [20]]. I think we have enough reliable sources and evidence to conclude id is considered creationism, pseudoscience by every science society that has weighed in on the subject. Barbara Forrest is an exception id researcher. She is a single, tiny voice amongst a whole lot of people accross every discipline in science. This is not a smear it is an observation. The evidence is conclusive. So let's see if we can write something that jives with reality, shall we? Angry Christian (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is this [intelligent design] is generally considered [to be creationism] by scientists or historians of the intelligent design movement. Is a weasle sentence. Angry Christian (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That depends. I would consider the Institute for Creation Research to be a scientific organization. If you define scientific according to what those scientists who believe in evolution consider to be science, then of course your statement is correct. But if you include all scientists including the late Henry M. Morris, your statement is not correct. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you read Richard Feynman's classic essay "Cargo Cult Science." The Institute for Creation Research may have built something that looks like a runway and a control tower, but the planes ain't gonna land. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am fully aware of that list. However:
  • ID is "creationism in a cheap suit" [Dawkins' preferred quote, I believe], it is "creationism repackaged", it is "Creationism's Trojan Horse", it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and therefore religious roots". But that doesn't mean that just saying it's creationism is meaningful to the general reader, or particularly important, and a few people don't make explicit comparisons, e.g. "creationism's idealogical cousin" is not an equality, it is pointing out the similarity. It also doesn't matter, because WE CAN'T PRESUME PEOPLE KNOW WHAT CREATIONISM IS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
  • What is important is what I was very careful to make clear in my edits. The thing that was LEFT OUT from the previous versions. That ID [and creationism] are not science. We didn't even say that before my rewrite. Do you have to attack me over your dogmatic insistance on a pure equality while being so blind that you can't even see what's important, that it's NOT SCIENCE, the thing that ACTUALLY RELATES TO THE MOVIE UNDER DISCUSSION? The movie is "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed", Not "Creationism: Intelligent Design Isn't This." The ID=Creationism point is barely even relevant, and yet you are lecturing me, the person who actually bothered to fix that paragraph to deal with and refute the core claim made in the movie itself - WHICH IT DIDN'T BEFORE MY EDITS - by casting me in the role of a quote-mining creationist.
Also, it's very hard to write a sentence that uses the strongest possible wording while still flowing and making the appropriate comparison with the Discovery Institute's views while suffering from the flu, and wading through 178,963 references that break up the sentences into tiny bite-sized chunks hidden amongst them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not to worry, I just added some details. I think it is important for the reader to know that it's not just a few scientists and historians who recognize ID as creationism,pseudoscience. We should not hide the fact that the conspiracy against ID runs deep in the scientific community! Angry Christian (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Antagonists from "both" sides are finding their way here and reacting to every comment made like nutty conspiracy theorists, which doesn't allow for much effective discussion about even simple problems. ID is creationism in an academic sense, but not in the popular use of the term. I found the same messiness with creationism in the Creation science where the term "creationism" was used in the article more only as an accident when CS specifically was being described. Here this conflation is on purpose because opponents of ID such as Myers are engaging in PR "push-back" against DI's PR strategy to cast ID as non-religious. These are the "backstory" machinations going on--which I think would be great to have described in an article someplace at WP, if it isn't already. But specifically in terms of this article, we need to be more conscious of the fact that the academic definition of creationism is not familiar to every reader. Sources such as Numbers or the NCSE write that in the 70s the term creationism was essentially "co-opted" by creation science, and that continues to be many people's understanding of the term. And creation science is not so very much like ID. In the academic definition of creationism, both CS and ID are forms of creationism. But not all creationism is ID, not all creationism is CS. We need to somehow write this article in such a way that the reader gets it. As it is now, the article is so pushy with the creationism association that it is misleading the reader to think the fight is not whether ID is science or ID is religious, but whether ID is creationism. The former, science/religion, is the fundamental issue to the dispute. Whether ID is creationism is important to understand the background and historical/philosophical context of the movement.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is slightly more complicated than this. While I agree that CS & ID are two fairly distinct movements, there is at least some overlap. While the more prominent Flood geology arm of CS (ICR, CRS, etc) remained aloof from ID, there was a reasonable degree of acceptance from the Creation biology arm, with the likes of Dean H. Kenyon joining forces with ID. HrafnTalkStalk 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, complicated it is. There is some overlap. But take Morris (CS) and Behe (ID)--both believe science can offer conclusions about divine creation. The similarities end about there, more or less. Except both shared in this view that their work was attacked due to a kind of pro-Darwinian persecution, in schools as well as the sciences. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC) (Left out who I meant with "they both")-rev Professor marginalia (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, I think showing the readers how the creationists changed the word "creationism" to "intelligent design" as a way to side step Edwards v. Aguillard and therefore side step the constitution would help them understand the modern use of these terms. Can you work on that? 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talk • contribs)

Maybe we should show where the creationists used the term creationism and then changed it to creation science and then later changed that to intelligent design is a brilliant idea, Shoemaker. Angry Christian (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is more on how the creationists changed terms to circumvent the constitution Pandas and "cdesign proponentsists". The links and info there could be melded into this article. When this history was pointed out at the Kitzmiller trial I laughed when they talked about the next incarnation of creationism would be called the "sudden emergence theory". Angry Christian (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am fully aware of such things - hell, I wrote - something that would reveal my real name which I'm not willing to do at this juncture - but which summarised the Kitzmiller trial, and got a very minor award. All I'm saying is that just saying ID=creationism isn't particularly relevant to the film; it's that ID isn't science that matters to the film's premise. If anything, the film only serves to link ID and creationism explicitly - see the New Scientist review which includes discussion of the film explicitly linking ID and God.
If we came at it from that angle, dealing with the controversy between the DI's long-standin g assertion that ID was not religious, and the film's explicit recognition that it IS, that's relevant, and we can spend as much time as we need to discuss it, using the New Scientist review and other reviews that discuss that as a starting point. But lengthy arguments over whether ID is or isn't creationism are definitional quibbling, and, while certainly appropriate on other pages, such as Intelligent design, aren't that relevant to a film that seems to accept the connection ANYWAY. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you mean me or Shoemaker? That escapade was a key episode in Kitzmiller, but was not the origin of Intelligent Design. Modern day Intelligent Design originated before Edwards v Aguillard, and before Pandas and People. It originated in 1984 with Mystery of Life's Origins, with further push in 1986 with Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. It's incorrect to say ID developed initially as a gimmick to circumvent E vs A, though revisions made to Pandas and People were. Pandas and People morphed from a creation science textbook to an ID textbook after E v A. The story is very convoluted, so are we sure we want to jump down another lengthy history lesson simply to associate ID with creationism? I'd be happy enough just to lay out a few definitions so the reader knows what is meant by creationism as it is used by those involved in or evaluating this film. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I think we're spending too much time dealing with things, like ID=creationism, that aren't relevant to the film. IT'd be better to discuss related but relevant issues, like the conflict between the film treating ID as an explicitly religious issue, while the DI insists it isn't religious. That's the relevant part of the ID/creationism issue as it regards this film, IMO, and going beyond that should be mnimised as it isn't relevant HERE. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree except for the situation where spokespersons cited in this article are introducing it in their analyses. But unless the problems were improved significantly in recent edits, this article's "ID=creationism" equation is devotedly shoehorned in at every opportunity, to little purpose. It's distracting from key points about this film, also confusing, and tedious. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the entire article again. There is now not a single mention of "ID = creationism" that is not a direct quote. I think this is now a non-issue. Angry Christian (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The "ID didn't start with OPAP!" argument just doesn't work. What is being asserted is that ID, defined as a field of study, originated in drafts of OPAP in response to the decision in the Edwards case. That timing is firmly established. Previous instances of use are descriptive and do not attempt to establish ID as a thing with some independent existence. This is pretty simple stuff. All that would be required to disprove it would be to come up with someone using ID in a previous work as a field of study and not as description of something else. No one has managed that so far. Until such time as it is managed, the assertion stands. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I just gave it a quick read, and agree it is so much much much much better. Good job! Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
hey thanks for adding the ref(s) back that I mistakenly left out. I read somewhere that about 5% of wiki editors make 90% of the edits. When you try and move stuff around or create refs it's no wonder why :-) What an editorial hassle!  :-) We still have a ton of stuff that is misplaced. I think this is probably due to people editing prior to reading the entire article (and observation, not an attack). Eventually I think we'll spot all the orphaned sentences and find new homes for them. Angry Christian (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.