Talk:Icons of Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Creationism Portal This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Whos point of view? 2 Early comments 3 The author 4 External link removal 5 Criticisms of Wells, presentation of book, criticism of book 6 Campaign to keep this article highly biased 7 "Case study" 8 Author's views 9 Mainstream scientists 10 Video 11 Why the book biased review? 12 Matzke - excessive prominence? / External Links

[edit] Whos point of view?

How can comments from id opposers be allowed but not comments from pro-iders? Also the comments from PZ Myers who's argument is clearly without merit from the response to Icons of Evolution. This is clearly anti-id point of view pushing. The statement about the whole scientific community rejecting the claims is also factually inaccurate. -PromX1 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that nobody is either willing or able to address this is. The unwillingness of people to discuss this after I tried to do that has shown me that their aim is to keep the article biased as others have noted. On my next edit I am forced to once again reinstate the changes. -PromX1 18:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is highly biased, essentially serving as a rebuttal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.125.108 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is written per WP:UNDUE -- show us a substantive claim in the book that has not been discredited by the scientific community, and only then will you have a valid reason for complaining about the contents not being presented in a positive manner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early comments

This from "Avoid Weasal Terms":

Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have?

It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion (and to seek out other alternate opinions to discuss) than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source. This doesn't really give a neutral point of view; it just spreads hearsay, or (worse) couches personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax.

. . .

If a sentence can't stand on its own without a weasel term, it lacks NPOV (neutral point of view) and should be better defined by adding sources for the statement (which helps focus the discussion on the dispute).

I know that many biologists do not view evolution as the "unifying principle of biology." Some do. Fine. Just give a citation to who says it. --VorpalBlade 15:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know biologists who do not view evolution as the unifying principle of biology? I'd be very intrested to know who, what field and what they actually do, as for most fields of biology it has been pretty difficult if not impossible to function as a biologist without recognising that evolution is the central unifying theory. I have never met a biologist who does not view evolution as the central unifying theory of biology, and I've met many. I have talked to a few creationists (though fortunately we don't tend to come across them in Europe) who make the claim that biologists do not view evolution as the central unifying theory of biology, but when asked to name some or point out where they are they've never managed to get past Wells. Joe D (t) 15:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The author

I suggest we divide this article into:

1. material about the book: points it makes, and rejoinders made to them
2. material about the author (and move these to article about him)

Moreover, it would be good to expand this article by covering more than just one or two "icons".

Also, it will help readers to distinguish between (1) rebuttals that focus on each example and (2) rebuttals that attack the author's character or motivation (see ad hominem). Uncle Ed 11:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think this division makes sense. I think the section on the author's motivation is over-long, particularly the Well's quote which dominates the article in real estate. I also think the Coynes review needs some context. There's a series of good links in the article, but they follow the preceding paragraphs somewhat randomly. --Camipco 17:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External link removal

I just removed a recent entry because it did not seem notable or relevant to this article:

Bridging the Differences

• How Evolution and Religion can work together What is the next step in the evolution of religion? (Gary)

If we'd like to include it, I recommend we discuss this here. Jokestress 00:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

To: Jokestress

From: Gary (thegreatwhitebuffalo)

I'm sorry that you feel there is no value to the link that you removed, I replaced it in hopes that you will review your position and consider that what I propose is a Win/Win for both the Religious extreme like myself and the Athiest where the essence of GOD is the ether or fabric that makes up the universe and thus the idea behind my work is to bring a unification between the Science of Evolution and the Designer that is SOOOOoo Intelligent that life could start and evolve out of space that has always existed. This theory strips credibility of all religious sources and reshapes how we think about and look at an infinite universe.

The site in question appears to be someone's personal beliefs, which do not really qualify as notable in this issue. Further, the beliefs expressed on that site are vague and unsupported by references to the ongoing debate. While there are plenty of great books and sites looking at evolution and religion (e.g. Kenneth R. Miller), this is not really on of them. Jokestress 00:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your deletion of my theory is my theory on how the Universe was created and how we evolved, there is a debate going on right now in the court of law where the argument could be settled with a new look at the evidence, if you in your wisdom are so smart as to remove everything that you believe is irrelevent to the articles about Evolution and I.D. you could cause a catastrophic down fall of our great civilization.

This really is one of them, and you young lady should consider spell check before posting your thoughts.

I recommend you make your case for including your theory at Talk:Intelligent Design. It's the main page on this topic. I struck through your spelling flame above. Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks on other editors, so please refrain from insults and personal remarks. Jokestress 01:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me how to strike a line that I don't like. Please explain what you wrote above, and tell me that this isn't a typographical error. I know very well that a spell checker wouldn't pick up on this mistake, but it does exist. Here proof read what you wrote, I'll repost it right here.

(e.g. Kenneth R. Miller), this is not really on of them. Jokestress 00:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I do believe that it should read one of them. I'm sorry you appearantly have made two mistakes today.

I thank you for directing me to another source to engage the idea I am proposing, I am not looking to make matters worse, I wish I could have the oportunity to dialogue this out with out feeling violated. Sorry if you feel violated. It isn't a good thing to be stressed out over an idea. The problem is that this idea could change the world. Read what I wrote and consider the implications on humanity. Have an open mind and think outside of the box. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 02:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticizing spelling is considered disruptive and can get your editing privileges revoked. I recommend you make your case for including your theory at Talk:Intelligent Design. It does not belong here and will be removed per Wikipedia guidelines regarding external links. Editors at Talk:Intelligent Design will be happy to discuss the value of your site as an external link. It has no specific relevance to the book Icons of Evolution, and is not appropriate for this specific article. Jokestress 02:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You are critizing my theory with out giving me a fair chance to defend my position, and you don't find that disruptive? I didn't make the mistake, I only tried to validate my position, let the boss figure out what is going on here. I see that you are not willing to reason out the relevence of the information that I am offering. And FYI since you appear to be an athiest, may I add that the fabric of the universe is the space between the molecules of everything that exists, that space is the ether of the universe. Just in case you didn't understand my position, think about what that means.

Gary

• Please be civil and avoid criticising individuals - content matters here, not who says what.
• "since you appear to be an atheist" - apart from the fact that J's belief system is utterly irrelevant here, I can't even see how you can make that inference from this discussion.
• Your blog does not appear related to this book.
• Your blog does not appear to have had a major impact on the debate - there are just a handful of posts. When it has made an impact on the discourse elsewhere it might be appropriate to link to it (although not from this article). Coming here first is the wrong way to get things done - Wikipedia is not a forum for the debate. It is our job to report on notable elements and players in the debate.

Guettarda 04:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Gary-- Jokestress and Guettarda are right. The content you added has no place in not just this article, but wikipedia. It's spam for your original research-- a double no-no. Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NOR, WP:RULES. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 15:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

To All of the above,

I'm sorry if I appear to be uncivil, I've been working real hard to get this whole concept off of the ground. We as a community can grow, and know, how to prevent (Domestic abuse) from becoming even more of a problem than it already is. We have a lot of problems in our world that certainly can be corrected. And just this one article I wrote has led me to write other articles. I am now going over them and working out the bugs and growing in knowledge of how to present my work and get feedback on my work and credit my work for the value that can be gleaned from it. My sources are as old as time and can be considered common knowledge while the way I put the idea together is rather unique and worthy of consideration and review. Peace to all of you, TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC) * Link to a Source and Concept

Furthermore; as for the comprehending that Jokestress does not adhere to the Truth, her typographical error proves to be a provoking trick as to troll for a response. She baited and tested to see if I could be provoked. The obvious point to be made is that she never edited her mistake and never appologized for making that mistake. She immediately took offense to the fact that I pointed out the error in her typing, and never accepted that removing my work would offend me without first giving me the opportunity to understand the rules and why my Edit was in violation of the rules which seem to be rather slanted to only including notable writers and excluding the up and coming. My work was probably not even read. I know that because I know who I am and what I wrote when comprehended makes a great impact on the reader, as in WOW! TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Wells, presentation of book, criticism of book

Criticisms of Jonathan Wells is off-topic here. This article is about the book. Andries 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Before biologists discovered that peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, many experiments were conducted by pinning or gluing dead moths to tree trunks. This practice should have been abandoned, however, once biologists knew that it fails to test the camouflage-predation theory under natural conditions. In Icons of Evolution, I criticized textbooks that continue to use staged photos of moths on tree trunks to illustrate natural selection--though I stopped short of calling them “fraudulent.” [1]

I didn't quite catch the reason this Wells quote was taken out. Don't our readers want even one example of an "icon" Wells critiques?

I suggest we divide this article into:

1. material about the book: points it makes, and rejoinders made to them
2. material about the author (and move these to article about him)

Moreover, it would be good to expand this article by covering more than just one or two "icons".

Also, it will help readers to distinguish between (1) rebuttals that focus on each example and (2) rebuttals that attack the author's character or motivation (see ad hominem). Uncle Ed 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ed but yet once again you're seeking to undermine the majority's view, which is critical of Wells, and in turn circumvent WP:NPOV. What you propose is to separate the views critical of Wells and the book from their context, creating a hierarchy of fact where Wells' view, an extreme minority view, is presented as is "true" and "undisputed" whereas that of the scientific community, the majority view here, is presented as a fringe view that "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that is inaccurate and violates a specific clause of WP:NPOV.

Your recent habit of bouncing from ID-related article to article adding biased content and arguing to insert content that ignores or violates policy is becoming disruptive, Ed. Since you are on arbcom probation prohibiting this very activity and you've already been spoken to several times about this on your talk page over the last 3 days and yet here you are, still at it. If you continue this pattern don't be surprised if some are compelled to seek enforcement of the terms your probation. FeloniousMonk 05:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree for the most part with User:Andries that criticism of Jonathan Wells is off-topic here and should mainly go in the article about Wells. An article about a book should present what the book is about, including main themes and arguments, and in the case of a highly controversial book such as this one, criticism of the book. I do not at all agree with Wells's program/agenda or views on evolution or on "intelligent design," but this article is still very heavy on criticism and a bit light on presentation of the book, even after I cleaned up a few obvious problems. User:FeloniousMonk's criticism of User:Ed Poor seems unwarranted. Obviously it is not biased to explain one of Wells' "icons" when the article is so heavy on criticism. -Exucmember 09:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's based on an arbcomm ruling concerning Ed. How is that not warranted? Guettarda 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign to keep this article highly biased

I made a series of 17 edits, most of which no reasonable person could dispute, including correction of such banalities as the correct title of a Wikipedia article, and I added the "Unbalanced" template, because even after my edits the article was still highly biased and very unbalanced. Several editors have refused even to allow any of my 17 edits to see the light of day. If those editors feel a hachet job is in the best interest of readers, I think they are mistaken. Many readers can easily tell that an article is highly biased. -Exucmember 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Making 17 separate edits really messes up the page history - please consider using the preview button.
2. I was in the process of trying to re-instate your useful edits when you reverted the page. If you choose to edit war, don't expect people to rush to clean up after you. Guettarda 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I use the preview button, thank you. When I have edits on different issues, I cite a rationale or summary of what I am doing in each one. People may disagree with some of my edits and not others. This way they can clearly see what I have done on each topic and why.

You kept my article title correction and my semicolons, and none of the others. -Exucmember 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Wells' doctorate in biology at University of California, Berkeley was funded by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church" does not match the citation. -Exucmember 07:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Case study"

1. Two quotes does not make a "case study". That is not the way you write an encyclopaedia article.
2. This contrast is unrepresentative of most of what has been said about Icons.
3. The "case study" is misleading. As many people have pointed out, Coyne got it wrong on this one.

Guettarda 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I modified my contribution so that it no longer conflicts with any of your 3 objections above, but you simply dismissed it with "rv per talk" even though you didn't write anything else here. Did you not notice that I changed my contribution very substantially to answer all 3 of your objections? -Exucmember 06:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You changed your edit, but did not address the my points. Instead of presenting two quotes, you presented only one. To begin with, that does nothing to address the primary problem - your addition is not a section of the article, it's a quote with no context. Undiscussed quotes are copyvios. Additionally, your original version consisted of two quotes, one by Wells, the other by Coyne. While Coyne is a very poor choice on the peppered moth, going from a bad perspective to no perspective is not in keeping with NPOV. So no, you did not correct the problems with that section. Guettarda 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response makes it clear that I did address your objections, and that you are now creating new ones. Perhaps you could show good faith by providing the needed perspective, being careful to represent Wells's views as he would present them. -Exucmember 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Making things worse" isn't the same as "addressing concerns". I explained the problems, and you exacerbated them. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written using secondary and tertiary sources. They are not supposed to be verbatim quotes of primary sources. Since you obviously don't believe me, consult the appropriate policy and guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:MOS, etc.) and stop making false accusations. Guettarda 17:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Author's views

Interestingly the only description of the icons is the opponents' view. Nowhere is Wells' view on his own point. And is talkorigins really a reliable source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.211.150.60 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Talkorigins is pro-evolution point of view pushing and commits the same dishonesty Wells is exposing. -PromX1 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles should be written based on secondary and tertiary sources, not primary sources. And yes, Nick Matzke is a reliable source. Guettarda 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk Origins is an outstanding site for compiling primary sources that can be used in the article. There is no "pro-evolution POV-pushing", since Evolution is a well-studied and accepted scientific fact. Over 99% of scientist accept Evolution as is. If that's POV-pushing, then someone needs to redefine the words. Orangemarlin 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Guettarda is right about using secondary and tertiary sources vs. primary sources, see WP:RS, Matzke is an expert on the topic, and the Talk Origins represents the majority viewpoint on the issue, that of the scientific community, so is perfectly acceptable as a source. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The pov pushers here are the editors. My additions and corrections were reverted without consensus stating pov pushing while the editor was doing pov pushing by doing so. The article makes it sound like there is consensus in the scientific community when there isn't by starting off with "The members of the scientific community ... have roundly rejected ...". This is blatent dishonesty and readers should be made aware that this is not the view of the whole scientific community. The changing of text books is central to this fact and readers should know that people like Tamzek is not without their critics too and that they are mainly becrying the changing of text books to make them accurate. These are not pov puching, they are facts. -PromX1 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is more accurate as it stands than is your change. Changing it to "some" is highly misleading. Please stop insert misleading information into articles. Thanks. Guettarda 21:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

why not many scientists instead of many in the scientific community. Reads much easier. Northfox 13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you call 99.9% just many? 'Near unanimous' or 'nearly all' at a minimum are the only accurate terms according to the available sources here and at other ID articles that describes to the degree to which the scientific community rejects ID and accepts evolution. Odd nature 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's just 1 out of 1,000,000 the statement about all and roundly is highly misleading and untrue so it can NOT stand. -196.207.32.38 13:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream scientists

This = "No true scientist", otherwise, he would have said "name one scientist who does." — goethean ॐ 15:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling. Odd nature 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video

Is there more than one edition of the video? The text in the article reads:

In 2002, a 75-minute video titled Icons Of Evolution and directed by Bryan Boorujy was released by Discovery Institute (ASIN 0972043314). In it, Wells discusses the ideas presented in the book.

I have obtained an undated [on edit: the end credits carry a 2002 copyright] DVD also entitled Icons of Evolution, also directed by Boorujy, but this edition is 51 minutes and is released by ColdWater Media LLC of Palmer Lake CO. The video I have is marked ISBN 0-9720433-1-4 and includes interviews and commentaries with a broad cross-section of people on all sides, including Jonathan Wells, David Berlinski, Eugenie Scott of NCSE, and Roger DeHart, among many others. The video I have describes both the political controversies and various technical objections to how the scientific evidence is organized and presented when teaching macro-evolution at the high school level. This edition appears to differ from the one described in the article. Moulton 08:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the DVD of Icons was mentioned in Dover trial testimony (as is mentioned in the article), it is likely that any version that mentions the Dover trial [as Moulton's original, unedited, comment explicitly specified[2]] is a revised/extended edition. Given Wells' record to date, I doubt if its descriptions or 'objections' are in any way honest or accurate. Hrafn42 09:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Updated to account for editing in the original question. Hrafn42 10:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less interested in the cogency of any of the theses or rebuttals presented by any of the principals appearing in the video itself, and more interested here in the accuracy of the description and identification of the video as a bibliographic item. Is the 51-minute video released by ColdWater Media LLC a different version from the one cited, or is there an error in the citation? Moulton 10:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. Here is the relevant paragraph from a May 15, 2002 story in the Seattle Weekly on the video in question...

The 51-minute documentary film, which made its official debut last Friday evening in the modest setting of Seattle Pacific University's Gwinn Commons, is credited to a video production company called Coldwater Media LCC, but to anyone even slightly familiar with neo-anti-Darwinian synthesis in America today, the tone, text, and cast of characters are all intimately known. Whatever Coldwater Media LCC may be, the fingerprints of Seattle's neoconservative Discovery Institute (DI) are all over the film.

Icons of Evolution is in part the story of a crusading high-school science teacher persecuted by the authorities for daring to expose his students to the truth about evolution. No, not John Scopes. This time the martyr is Roger DeHart, hounded out of his job with the Burlington-Edison (Wash.) School District for daring to take a critical attitude toward Darwinian dogma and encouraging his students to do likewise.

That's the video I obtained. 51 minutes, released by ColdWater Media LLC, and mostly about the story of Roger DeHart. Moulton 11:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following revision to describe the video...

In May of 2002, ColdWater Media LLC released a 51-minute DVD video documentary entitled Icons of Evolution (ISBN 0-9720433-1-4).^[1][2] This video was directed by Bryan Boorujy and chronicles the story of high school biology teacher, Roger DeHart. The documentary includes interviews and commentaries from a cross-section of observers on all sides, including Jonathan Wells, David Berlinski, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and Roger DeHart, among many others.

1. ^ Icons of Evolution DVD, ColdWater Media LLC, 2002
2. ^ "Not the Whole Truth," by Roger Downey, Seattle Weekly, May 15, 2002

Moulton 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Amazon lists it as 75min.[3] It's quite conceivable that there are two different cuts of it. So what? The easiest thing to do is simply to delete the exact length of it, so that the brief mention can cover either/both. They really only require separate mention if they cover substantially different material. Hrafn42 14:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The www.coldwatermedia.com link is inappropriate under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided ("5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.") Hrafn42 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unclear as to whether there are two different cuts. I can find two WP:RS confirming the existence (and availability) of the 51-minute video released by ColdWater Media LLC. I cannot find a reliable citation for any 75-minute cut, Amazon notwithstanding. Perhaps the Amazon listing is also inappropriate, since it's a commercial bookseller. But I did appreciate the fact that Amazon supplies 28 reviews. The third reviewer on Amazon says it's an hour-long video produced by ColdWater Media. If the article devotes a section to the video, should it not include a citation to the publisher (as is the usual practice for books and published articles). Moulton 15:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: Who cares whether it is 51 or 75 minutes? It is a trivial piece of information either way (on a video that is little more than a footnote in an article that is mainly about Wells' dishonest book) and certainly not something worth obsessing over. Please drop the issue. Hrafn42 15:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The different lengths of the two (??) versions is just a red flag. The 51-minute documentary video is primarily about the story of Roger DeHart. Amazon lists the video as Icons Of Evolution by Steve Meyer, Paul Nelson, Ken Miller, and Bruce Chapman (DVD - May 1, 2002). This would appear to be substantially different from the book of the same name by Jonathan Wells. Moulton 16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a red flag, it is a red herring. The signal to noise ration of the DI is notoriously low (does anybody really think that Kenneth R. Miller is a co-author of this piece of tripe?), so working out what exactly is true/changed/misrepresented/a mere typo/etc is a futile exercise. The exact contents of this video is peripheral to the article, and no WP:RS can be found to say exactly what is going on. So can we please move on. Hrafn42 18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following revision to the first paragraph of the Icons of Evolution Video ...

In 2002, a 51-minute video entitled Icons Of Evolution and directed by Bryan Boorujy was released by ColdWater Media LLC.^[1] The video chronicles the story of Roger DeHart, a high school biology teacher who came to controversy for handing out unapproved material from a Natural History article^[2] by Stephen Jay Gould and an excerpt from Of Pandas and People.^[3] Jonathan Wells appears in the video and presents some of the ideas from his own book of the same title.

1. ^ Boorujy, Bryan (Director). (2002, May 1). Icons of Evolution [DVD]. Palmer Lake CO: ColdWater Media LLC.
2. ^ Stephen Jay Gould, Abscheulich! - Atrocious! - the precursor to the theory of natural selection, Natural History Magazine, March 2000.
3. ^ Not the Whole Truth, Roger Downey, Seattle Weekly, May 15, 2002

Given that this 'revision' contains OR (the claim that DeHart used a Natural History article is unsourced) and omits sourced information (the DI's prominent role in manufacturing this controversy), I would disagree with this proposal. I would also note that I am getting more than a little tired with Moulton's obsession over it. Hrafn42 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is the cited video itself. At 14:45 into the cited DVD, the viewer sees a closeup of the first page of the cited article by Gould, immediately followed by a sound bite of Roger DeHart explaining his reasons for handing out that article to his students. On camera, DeHart says, "Stephen Jay Gould wrote an article for Natural History saying that we need to let go of these drawings [Haeckel's embryo drawings], that basically they're not needed." The 10-second sound bite of DeHart is immediately followed by a 15-second rebuttal from Eugenie Scott of NCSE, casting doubt on DeHart's motives for using the handout. In the next frame, the viewer sees a closeup of the Skagit Valley Herald (May 28, 2000), with the headline, "School officials throw extra science materials out of class." Moulton 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the book biased review?

This article reads more like a crtitique of a book rather than actually about the book itself and I am very surprised to see that it has not been tagged with a Neutrality dispute. It reads like a book review written by a guy named Gishlick, like something I might see on a pro-evolutionist's blog or something. That and the fact that "Reception by the Scientific Community" is the largest part of the entire article and almost half of the article???

I think this article would reflect Wikipedia policies and standards better if it were comprised on only the Intro and the list of the Icons and maybe a few pictures.  ;) Jmcdanal 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ID and this book are an extreme minority view in the field in which they stake their claim, biology. Whereas the scientific community is the majority view there. And the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected ID. Now Wikipedia's core content policy WP:NPOV says specifically "article[s] should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." Hence the reviews here are representative of its reception by the scientific community and in the proper proportion, given that its the majority view in the field. Odd nature 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If refuting viewpoints are a must on this Wikipedia article about a book, then please tell me to what proportion of "scientists" rejected the notion of Intelligent Design even within the scope of evolution? I read somewhere above in the talk that its 99.9% but there is no reference provided. This article is extremely/heavily slanted and overly critical of the book. At what proportion have the editors of this article concluded that the proportion is accurate? Surely its not 100/0 as is implied by this article.

A 1997 poll by the American Men and Women in Science (1995 Directory and biography of roughly 120,000 American scientists) taken from a random selection of 1000 put the proportion at 55% reject the notion of ID.

Now ive even gone off topic. While I do agree that criticism of the book is warranted, obviously, this is not the place for a debate on ID and especially not the place for a one-sided line by line refute of the book by a guy named Gishlick. Should the article be primarily be concerned with the evolutionary viewpoints or viewpoints of the actual book?

Simplifying information and segregating criticism could do alot for this article. Also, expanding the Well's Icons section for sub-sections of each Icon (instead of just 2)would help for completeness. I mean seriously, its not even noted that TalkOrigins.com agrees with Wells on his assertion that Haeckel's embryo drawings have no place in textbooks. As is, this article isnt in shambles, but will never pass the B-Class WikiProject rating (NPOV problems) if assessment ever moves it from Start-Class.

For a good example of how this article (on a controversial book) should reflect and criticism see the Wiki on Ann Coulter's Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism. Jmcdanal 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC) <BR

I suspect the difference between the treatment of Icons & Godless is due to:

1. the fact that nobody has bothered to perform such a detailed dissection of Coulter's claims. Scientists tend to be more thorough than political analysts; and
2. the applicability of WP:UNDUE is more clear-cut on Icons than it is on Godless.

I would also note that Coulter spews Wells' Icons from Icons pretty much verbatim in Godless. All the more reason for an emphatic rebuttal of these fantasies at the source. Hrafn42 03:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42 - thank you for your response. It is discouraging to see that those participating in the edits of this article feel that a Wikipedia article on a book is the place to make sure the anyone reading the article leaves the page with their viewpoint. That said...

To those reading this Talk, let me try to get my point across a different way...
I challenge anyone who reads this post to do a quick preview of what this article would look like if you were to remove all of the bias, critque, rebuttals, criticism, and opponents viewpoints etc. What I found was that the article is left with roughly 8 paragraphs the longest of which contains a mere 3 sentences. The article as is written now is almost completely gone. Without the Biased portions of this article, a reader would leave its page with only the vaguest of an idea as to what the actual book was about.

Let me remind you that the subject of the article is the book. Books contain pages - pages of information. The Wikipedia article should provide an extended summary of what is included in those pages before it can simultaneously provide any criticism and opposition. No reader should have to deduce what the actual book is about by sifting through the criticism and viewpoints put forth by opponents of the points made in the book. A reader should not have to find out what Wells wrote about the Peppered Moths experiments from a reference that begins with "So many things are wrong with Wells's treatment of peppered moths....". Wow. Jmcdanal 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The book claims to describe science. See NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". For more detail on what Wells wrote about the Peppered Moths experiments, see Peppered moth evolution#Criticism and controversy. Regarding moths on tree trunks, note from the Predation experiments section of that article that during an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001-2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of the moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs. Wells writes in Icons "biologists have known since the 1980's that the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks." ..... dave souza, talk 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from secondary or tertiary sources. So we shouldn't actually report what the book says, we shouldn't summarise the book ourselves. But in this case, we don't need to. There are several detailed articles about the book - one of these being Gishlick's. A while ago I added detailed summaries of two "icons", working primarily from Gishlick's review. You are more than welcome to add sections about the remaining "icons". There are links to Gishlick's work, and to Nick Matzke's. Gishlik does a better job of summarising the chapters, Matzke tends to focus more on responding to the claims. The resources are there, all it takes is a little time commitment. Guettarda 03:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matzke - excessive prominence? / External Links

I see it's been discussed previously whether Matzke's criticism is a Reliable Source (I think it is, as it only expresses his views and, though effectively self-published, is written by an author who has been published in a peer-reviewed publication on the same topic). I do think, though, that it is rather excessive prominence to deep-link, to sub-page anchors within the HTML review, next to the main listing for that chapter. This seems to suggest that Matzke's specific criticisms are the dominant thing to know about each chapter of the book.

I note WP:EL#Points_to_remember 2 - 'External links should typically not be in the body of an article. Include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox' - and 3 - 'Avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website unless there is good reason to do so.' This section currently conflicts with both of these guidelines.

I think that the single link to the top of the docuent that is given when Matzke's review is mentioned is quite sufficient; and will mean that readers will know what the document is that they're going to and who wrote it, rather than simply that it is a "critique of Wells".

Thoughts? TSP (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at WP:EL, I've Been Bold and moved all the external links from the text into the references (all articles referenced were already in the article's External Links section) and tried to turn the section below the chapter list into an encyclopedic overview of who published criticism of the book, rather than a collection of links. WP:EL seems pretty clear that external links belong in the External Links section, not in the article text, and I can't seen any particular reason that this article should be an exception. Obviously, say if you disagree. TSP (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)