User talk:Inspectre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Warning 2 WP:TALK 3 Lengthy WP:SOAP from Talk:The Edge of Evolution 4 You are wasting my time. 4.1 An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe 4.2 Behe Jumps Shark 5 Wanna be useful? 6 Posting and warning 7 WP:SOAP userfied from Talk:The Edge of Evolution 7.1 Phillip Skell 7.2 Michael Denton 8 WP:COI 9 3RR 9.1 Advice

[edit] Warning

I'm not even sure what warning to give, so here's a couple:

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to The Edge of Evolution appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to The Edge of Evolution, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.

WLU 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TALK

Please review our talk page guidelines - comments must follow a specific formatting for ease of reading, and editing another's comments can get you blocked. They are simple guidelines, and pages must be readable without going diff by diff through the history. Editing another's comments is taken very seriously and is a very big no-no. WLU 15:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WLU: Please help me. I don't know how to do indents when commenting on a "talk" page. My "tab" key on the computer won't work; it bounces me right out of the editing box into the edit summary box. I've tried the help menus, but many of them are techno-babble about UNIX and HTML and things that are meaningless to me. I need the kind of explanation a secretary would need when learning how to accomplish a simple function in Word Perfect or Word, like: "To indent one level, click on/press X; to indent two levels, click on/press Y; etc." All I can do here is space in five spaces with my space bar, until you instruct me otherwise.

I also don't know why my comments on talk pages, when I go into preview, sometimes appear properly, but sometimes appear in a narrow box only one line of type tall, and then run out of sight, off the page.

What I need is a help page that explains how to use my keyboard and Wikipedia functions to get text on a Talk page in proper format, so I won't anger people again by typing comments in the wrong place.

I'm also unclear about the comment above, about "editing" another's comments. I didn't do that, in the sense of changing or altering anything that Hrafn wrote. I only added my own comments after his, albeit in the wrong place. And as far as I can see, the only way of adding anything to a talk page is to click on the "Edit" link to a section, and then put my comments in somewhere, so in that sense, it's impossible to avoid "editing". Is there another way of adding comments?

Thanks for listening.Inspectre 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Inspectre: to add a comment to an earlier comment, start a new line (enter/carriage-return) and add a colon(:) (or one more colon than the comment you are commenting on) -- do not insert spaces as this screws up the rendering engine & appears to turn off text-wrapping (resulting in a single very-long line -- as above).

E.g.:
Comment
:Comment on comment

yields:
Comment

Comment on comment

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you really want to get someone's attention, post a message on their talk page (i.e. to get my attention, go to User talk:WLU) - if you only post here, your comment gets lost on my watchlist unless I go hunting for it. Five spaces (or even one) gives you a weird blue box, and does not help the reader at all as it makes the text a single, very long line.

Very rarely is this style of box used. 

For some reason, the more helpful talk page guidelines that I remember have been replaced by the less helpful, more general ones. Anyway, always post at the bottom of the set of comments, indent with one colon more than the last person, and always sign your posts. WLU 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy WP:SOAP from Talk:The Edge of Evolution

If anyone is reading this page, please note that the lengthy exchange below (i.e., following this lengthy introductory note), was moved, without my consent, off the Edge of Evolution Discussion Page. I don't actually care that it was moved off the page, because that page was too crowded. Nonetheless, the characterization of my objections in the exchange as "Soapbox" orations is false and must not go unchallenged. They are not lengthy speeches, but point-by-point responses to statements I believe to be false or unjustified. Further, they are not meant to showcase my personal opinions, but to raise issues that ought to be at the heart and soul of Wikipedia, namely, the objectivity and fairness of editors in gathering material, in evaluating it, in writing it up, in rejecting alterations to their own writing, etc. This is important for any encyclopedia or objective reference work (which Wikipedia pretends to be), but it's particularly important when the topics covered are contentious ones where the public debate on both sides has been highly partisan, and filled with unjust charges and counter-charges.

The debate over ID is one such debate. It's vital that Wikipedia remain neutral on the subject WHETHER ID IS VALID SCIENCE. It should present the arguments that have been adduced on both sides, without slanting the article in any way, and then it should leave the reader to decide. This is not what is being done. Both in the article on the Discovery Institute, and in the article on Behe's Edge of Evolution, a bias against Behe and ID is evident to anyone who knows the material well. The bias is subtle rather than crude, but it's there. It's there mostly in the selection of opinions presented, and in the suppression or ignoring of alternate opinions. It's also there in the rejection of edits which strive to give the articles more balance. Thus, while the articles are not entirely without merit, they are skewed and unreliable.

As anyone who has read the recent discussion of the EOE article will know, I've been challenging the uneven application of principles, and general biases of the article. After fighting tooth and nail, and very much against the judgment of one editor who wanted to reject my edit, I secured a minor change in one portion of the EOE article, whereby some negative characterizations of a pro-ID reviewer were finally taken out. Beyond that, I have made no headway in convincing the editors of the systemic bias in the procedures used to generate this article and others on ID.

On the discussion page, as anyone can verify from reading the comments there, I've determined that two of the editors, Mr. Hrafn and Mr. WLU, are vehemently opposed to Behe and ID as a matter of personal conviction. They have made statements, speaking for themselves, to the effect that Behe is incompetent, not a real scientist, wrong, writes worthless books, etc. They have made statements, speaking for themselves, to the effect that the Discovery Institute is dishonest, untruthful, worthless, etc. These statements have been made in ways that show anger, irritation, contempt, and in my view, a certain intellectual arrogance. One of the editors, when confronted repeatedly with the fact (not allegation, but fact) that many critics of Behe have resorted to ad hominem remarks and arguments, finally admitted it, and then asserted that ad hominem arguments were justified against Behe because Behe was an incompetent or fake scientist. I was stunned that any editor could ever justify ad hominem arguments as legitimate in a scientific debate. If Behe is wrong, it is up to his critics to disprove him scientifically, not to insult him or employ arguments about his associations or motives. I do not think that any editor who does not accept this fundamental principle of honest intellectual discourse can justly edit an article on a contentious issue, where ad hominem arguments fly thick and fast from both camps.

I have been trying to point out to the editors, politely, that their bias has spilled over into the EOE article in many ways, some of them quite subtle, and it also shows itself in that one of the editors, Mr. Hrafn, reverts any change (at least, any that I have made) which attempts to balance the biases, as if the article is his personal turf, and doesn't belong to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Indeed, Mr. Hrafn appears to believe that the article contains no biases.

The exchange below represents the most recent part of the discussion, and includes: my comments upon the stated biases of these two editors, as established in their comments on the talk page; my criticism of them for having unjustified biases; my criticism of their inconsistency in demanding "qualifications" to review Behe when they themselves have none, yet write the article about him; my criticism of their inconsistency in admitting that they have no training in science themselves, yet believe they are qualified to know which scientists are right, and which wrong, in the ID debate; my criticism of the whole procedure for producing Wikipedia science articles, which basically allow untrained people to write about complex scientific issues, and then prevent themselves from being corrected by reverting any changes; my criticism of the whole procedure for producing Wikipedia culture war articles, which allows people with a bias to write an article, and then defend it from all changes, not only by people with an opposite bias, but even by neutral and fair people with an interest in truth and balance in reporting.

Near the end of the exchanges below, I ask Mr. WLU if he would allow me to add in balancing quotations to the EOE article, providing they fit the context, i.e., respond to Behe's critics, are properly attributed, and are introduced without biased editorial comment. I warned him that if I introduced such edits, Mr. Hrafn would almost certainly revert them, and I asked for his support to override such biased reversions, in the name of fairness. He has not, as of this writing, replied to me.

Readers who wish to see the beginning of the discussion will have to go to the EOE discussion page.Inspectre 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I’ll take Hrafn’s “no” answer to apply to both my questions, i.e., that Wikipedia authors aren’t experts, and that Hrafn has no degrees in the sciences. The latter admission raises two interesting questions.

First, since Hrafn is not competent to discuss scientific subjects, why has he formed such strong personal opinions (as evidenced by his harsh comments on this page) on the subject of Behe, ID, and evolution? One would think that someone with scanty knowledge of science would be neutral and open-minded on questions which require advanced knowledge of biochemistry, cell physiology, bacteriology, etc. One would think that Hrafn’s attitude would be more like this: “I don’t know much biology myself, but it appears that Behe is in a minority on the subject of evolutionary mechanisms. Since I am not competent to debate at Behe’s level, or at the level of any of his critics, the best I can do is to humbly and non-assertively accept the opinion of the majority.” Instead, Hrafn bad-mouths Behe like a bar-room brawler. Such bold confidence is not justified by any knowledge base which Hrafn possesses.

Second, since Hrafn admits himself not to be scientifically trained, then he is no more competent to write the Wikipedia article on Behe than Wybrow was to review Behe. So why his insistent campaign to try to insert into the Wikipedia article material which would show up Wybrow’s lack of qualifications, but no similar insistence upon asserting a disclaimer into the Wikipedia article, such as: “Caution to readers: the principal editor of this article is not himself a scientist”?

It looks very much as if Hrafn’s desire to expose Wybrow’s lack of “qualifications” is to neutralize the effect of a well-written review on the pro-Behe side. I note that such rigorous care about qualifications has not been taken on the anti-Behe side. Rosenhouse is a mathematician, and his lack of training in biology is neither noted in the article, nor discussed on this page in the same breath with Wybrow’s. Matzke’s article against Behe is cited, but it is conveniently omitted that Matzke has only just now started his Ph.D. in biology, and that when he wrote that article he was only an M.Sc., which definitely indicates less competence than Behe’s Ph.D. (plus 35 peer-reviewed articles, as opposed to Matzke’s – what – one?). Given that Matzke was up till recently in the pay of an anti-ID lobby organization, why was Hrafn’s “suspicionometer” not flashing to prompt him to look up Matzke’s degree, as he looked up Wybrow’s? It is also not mentioned that Dawkins is no longer an active biologist, but a full-time propagandist for Darwinian theory and atheism, and that even when he was a biologist his field was very far from Behe’s, and that therefore he is not qualified to review the book, either (as evidenced by the fact that in his review, Dawkins stayed away from Behe’s technical argument about malaria, which was the core of the book). Since Hrafn cares so much about making visible Wybrow’s lack of “qualifications”, why isn’t he campaigning to have all these defects in the qualifications of the anti-Behe reviewers pointed out? Hrafn’s objectivity as a writer on the subject of Behe and ID is very much in question.Inspectre 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What applies to wikipedia is irrelevant to the real world and vice-versa - what is said by who in what citation counts here, irrespecitive of who places it. Further, on a page related to creationism, which stirs up a lot of animosity from pro-science (real science that is, not empty rhetoric) editors, there's an extremely high degree of scrutiny. So basically, your question is irrelevant - our qualifications count less than our ability to find, summarize and cite a reliable source. So to answer your actual question, no, there are no 'qualifications' required to edit wikipedia. To answer your implied question, we haven't reviewed Behe's book, but we have cited a lot of qualified people who have. Further, Wybrow is completely unqualified to write a scientific analysis of Behe's text, his degree's in a different paradigm, let alone specialization. It's not alleged, it's pretty much prima facie to anyone with literacy in science. Historians don't generally know much about molecular biology, but perhaps Wybrow's done a lot of extra credit reading. Unfortunately, that's not really reflected in his review of EoE. However, should he ever be notable enough to have a wikipedia entry and an award-winning blog, more of his opinions may pop up here. WLU 21:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WLU, I was very impressed by your fairness in moderating Hrafn’s unfair editing practices, but your remarks here show that you are uncritical of a number of things.

First of all, you openly admit that Wikipedia articles do not aim at truth, but at assembling opinions. That is, Wikipedia articles do not present knowledge, but record the various sophistries of the day. And you think this is a good thing? Second, your use of the term “creationism” is more biased than the use of the term “Darwinism”. If you know anything about the debate at all, you know that ID supporters distinguish themselves from “creationists”, and that “creationism” is almost always used pejoratively, and that it is almost always used in connection with Biblicism, with which ID theory proper has nothing to do. Not a single argument in any of Behe’s books depends on any statement in the Bible, or belief in the Bible, or in any religious doctrine. You know this, yet by using the term “creationism”, you willfully perpetuate anti-ID prejudices. Third, how can you distinguish between “real science” and “empty rhetoric” unless you are yourself trained in “real science”? Please state your qualifications. Fourth, you speak of your “ability” to find a “reliable source”. But in science, or in any serious subject, the ability to find a reliable source is intrinsically connected with knowledge of the subject matter. Unless you grasp the mathematical and biological arguments around ID, you are not competent to determine who is or who is not a “reliable source”. All you can go on is hearsay, or on which source shouts the loudest, or which source appears most on the internet, or which source is cited and praised by other (and perhaps unreliable) sources. Without scientific knowledge, you can’t tell whether Ken Miller knows more than Behe, or whether Ken Miller is a complete fraud. And you’ve tacitly admitted you have no such knowledge. Fifth, you have no intellectual warrant for the statement: “Wybrow is completely unqualified to write a scientific analysis of Behe's text”; you’ve merely inferred that, and the deduction is not valid because you don’t know about his outside knowledge. A cautious, objective statement would be: “Wybrow’s byline does not indicate any scientific training”. That is the maximum that you can assert as fact. And even that would be implicitly biasing the description, unless you added, “though no one has accused his discussion of Behe’s argument of containing any scientific error”. Sixth, you say you haven’t reviewed Behe’s book, but someone at Wikipedia at least wrote the introductory summary of Behe’s book, and if that person isn’t a biologist, then how do you know that that person didn’t make more errors than Wybrow? And why aren’t you concerned about that possibility, the way you are concerned about Wybrow?

Last of all, if Wikipedia really sees itself as you describe it, i.e., as a place where opinions are recorded, rather than judged for their truth, then why are so many anti-ID, pro-Darwinian bloggers and lobbyists and professors cited in the EOE article, while hundreds of other opinions about the Behe book, many by people with Ph.D.s in the sciences, which can be found on the Discovery Institute site, or at Uncommon Descent, Telic Thoughts, Post-Darwinist, etc., are not recorded in the article? Even though those statements in many cases address the very statements you cite from the anti-ID side, and therefore would be contextually relevant, as informing the reader that certain statements have been challenged? Are you saying that if I take the time to write these statements up, you will allow into the article any neutrally-framed counter-opinions from pro-ID sites, provided they are properly footnoted? So if I quote Dr. Michael Egnor, or Dr. Lyle Jensen, or Dr. David Berlinski, or Dave Scot, or Casey Luskin, or others, provided that I attribute properly, and frame neutrally (i.e., report the comments rather than endorse them), you will stop Hrafn from reverting my edits, and will leave the pro-ID, pro-Behe quotations in the article? If you have this much intellectual integrity, and if you have the authority to stop Hrafn from continuing in his biased ways, I may consider further editing work on the article. Otherwise, I will have nothing further to do with it.Inspectre 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPA - Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your speculation on Hrafn's motivations is a rude waste of time. If you have a problem with how Hrafn and my opinion is expressed on the page, which is really quite a neutral statement in my mind, take it to WP:DR. Incidentally, I am convinced that EoE is a bogus waste of time in part by my own knowledge, in part by the reviews by 10 respected, notable, prominent scientists who disagree on formidable scientific grounds. Further, my knowledge is not reflected on the page, but the opinions of the 10 scientists are. EoE is scientific garbage, just like DBB was, and Behe is not doing serious work here. This is the verifiable content of the page, and reflection of the scientific consensus. Your objections are spurious. If you're objections are not going to be discounted without being read, don't pursue this further. Further, look up Matzke's wikipedia page to see why he is qualified. Finally, Wybrow's review is not well written, it completely fails to deal with the scientific flaws (of which there is a multitude, referenced by the other reviews by relevant scientists), and focuses on the fact that scientists are objecting, but completely ignores why. WLU 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WLU: It was necessary to raise the question of motivation, because the anti-ID motivation demonstrably affects the objectivity of the article. The entire EOE article is biased by content, omissions and framing against Behe and ID, be the quotations ever so properly attributed. As for "the scientific consensus", you are regarding the writing of about 25 people in all of the U.S.A.(many of whom don't have Ph.D.s in the life sciences, or in anything at all, and many of whom haven't published in peer-reviewed journals, but only on their own personal blogs) as representing "the scientific consensus". And you are ignoring the fact that the journals which published their reviews wouldn't have allowed a pro-Behe review to be published, so that "the scientific consensus" means nothing but "the prejudices of the editors of Science, Nature, The New Republic, and the New York Times." Matzke's Wikipedia page shows that he is NOT qualified, according to the standards set by Hrafn. He has fewer qualifications -- by far -- than Behe, and Hrafn thinks that Behe is not qualified! Next, based on your statements here, you are intellectually unqualified to offer an opinion on Behe's book. I read EOE in its entirety, and understood all of it, including the technical parts about protein binding sites. Can you claim the same? If not, disqualify yourself from the discussion. Further, Wybrow did not deny that there might be legitimate scientific objections to Behe, but his purpose was to point out that much of the material in the reviews -- insults, innuendo, ad hominem arguments, and other subscholarly tactics -- did not constitute scientific objections, which is a very reasonable thing to point out, though Hrafn does not agree. Finally it is the opinion of many intelligent, articulate people that Wybrow's review was very well written.Inspectre 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Inspectre: I don't give a flying toss about the assorted insults, innuendos, baseless assumptions, baseless assertions, putting-words-in-my-mouth and bad logic in your above rant. It quite simply is not worth my time to respond to it all. Suffice to say that I do not accept either the basis or the conclusion for pretty everything you say above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are wasting my time.

First of all, you openly admit that Wikipedia articles do not aim at truth, but at assembling opinions

Based on this comment, it's clear I'm wasting my time talking to you. I'm done. WLU 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You and Mr. Hrafn have returned the favor, by wasting my time as well. I have spent hours trying to make the Wikipedia articles on ID better, only to be blocked by partisan anti-ID editors who have no intention of allowing readers to hear a balanced discussion of EOE. I won't try again.Inspectre 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Inspectre, you were wasting your time. No Inspectre, you were not "trying to make the Wikipedia articles on ID better" -- you were attempting to insert your own WP:POV WP:OR whitewashing a bunch of documented dishonest cranks. When you were prevented from doing so you launched into a series of unsubstantiated soapbox rants and personal attacks. To call this drivel "balanced discussion" is laughable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to this remark by Hrafn, I'd call upon the reader to note two things. First, the aggressive, strident, rhetorical voice of the above comment, which is what I've had to deal with every time I've made a suggestion or argument. Second, that the "documented dishonest cranks" I've apparently been trying to "whitewash" (i.e., to let speak for themselves, rather than be misrepresented by Hrafn), include people like Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. William Dembski, Dr. David Berlinski, Dr. Michael Egnor, etc., and that Hrafn, in answer to my question whether he had ANY science degree at all, answered: "No."Inspectre 06:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No Inspectre, I answered "no" to "May I ask whether similar standards apply to writers of Wikipedia articles? Does the writer of a Wikipedia article have to prove that he or she is “qualified” in the subject area of the article before being given the go-ahead?" (As you would have realised had you read my detailed response.) It is none of your damn business whether I have a science degree of not! It is also irrelevant. None of the bunch of dishonest cranks you list is a biologist. Of them, only Behe had any pretensions of being a scientist at all (and he has been moribund as a scientist for over a decade). All of them have a long track record for gross intellectual dishonesty, and in Dembski's case outright lying. Speaking of lying, you claimed "I carry no brief for the Discovery Institute" -- yet here you are defending this pack of charlatans. So you can take Stephen "hopeless monster" Meyer, Michael "Yes [Astrology is a Scientific Theory under my definition]" Behe, Dr William "written in jello" Dembski, David "no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science" Berlinski and Michael "I never use evolutionary biology in my work" Egnor and shove them where the sun don't shine -- a fart has more credibility than do (which is perhaps why Dembski made a fart-ridden video lampooning Judge Jones). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To all Wikipedia readers: I hope you've enjoyed the above glimpse into the opinions and attitudes of one of the main editors of the neutral, objective Wikipedia article on The Edge of Evolution.

That said, I would like to apologize for misunderstanding Hrafn's answer to my question. I asked him about his science education later in the same long paragraph, and I took his "No" answer to apply to both questions. I see now that he didn't intend to answer the second question, so I withdraw my claim that he did. And I agree that it's no personal business of mine what degrees he has. But it might be the business of the Wikipedia reading community. The Wikipedia readers just might want to know whether or not a major contributor to an article on Behe actually knows anything about biology, or simply takes his thoughts on the subject from the group of vocal scientists, lobbyists and bloggers who regularly savage Behe.Inspectre 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But Inspectre, Behe has little if anything to do with biology either. What he produces is pseudoscientific Neo-Creationist Christian apologetics. Also you can't count -- I answered your first two questions "no", the question you are referring to was in fact your fourth (if we ignore "May I ask a naïve and hopefully not rude question?"). At this stage, I will leave you to stew in your own Creationist juices and observe WP:DNFT from now on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I thank Hrafn for putting up with my arithmetical inadequacy, and for gracing my talk page with his genteel conversation. And like a good host, I'm letting him have the last word.Inspectre 10:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not. You're letting me. Hrafn is indeed very curt, even rude and skirting the boundaries of incivility. However, he has to deal with ongoing spurious garbage from pro-Creationist editors, who use sockpuppets to skirt blocks and waste tremendous amout of editors valuable time defending a failed, non-scientific, completely laughable argument (not a theory, because it's the very opposite of science) which was refuted over a century ago by Darwin himself, who refuted these same arguments before they were even made. That Hrafn took any time to respond to what were ultimately baseless comments that didn't change the page a whit, from an editor who apparently hasn't read a sausage of policy in the entire duration of the discussion, is actually a courtesy. You owe him an apology for wasting his time. WLU 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear WLU: I am happy to let you have the last word, but there are a couple of things I don't understand.

First, you have just said that "Hrafn is indeed very curt, even rude and skirting the boundaries of incivility" -- yet you say that I owe HIM an apology? Something doesn't add up there.

Second, after admitting that Hrafn is rude, you proceed to excuse his rudeness on the grounds that he has to deal with arguments that he considers (and you consider) to be laughable, baseless, unscientific, spurious garbage, etc. If you step back from a minute from all the friction that has gone on here, do you not see an instructive parallel? Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, and a host of others, many with Ph.D.s and university positions, have behaved rudely towards Behe and other ID supporters, have offered below-the-belt insinuations about Behe's motives, etc., and have excused their ungentlemanly, unscientific, abusive tone and statements on the grounds that Behe and the ID crowd infuriate them by offering what they consider to be bad science. Now, the gentlemanly, scholarly way to deal with bad science is to show that it is bad, not to impugn the character, intelligence, degrees, etc., of the person offering the science. Yet when this is pointed out to the attackers by many fair-minded observers who simply want to see an honest intellectual debate, instead of bowing their heads in shame at their juvenile behavior, and amending it, they become even more incensed. Regardless of your personal opinion about evolution or intelligent design, do you not see the danger to intellectual life and public debate if the mere conviction that the other side is wrong-headed justifies tirades, insults, imputation of bad motives, etc.?

I hope I have stated these questions politely. That is always my goal. I believe that polite debate is the best way to go. And I deplore savage and dishonest tactics on either side of the ID debate. I have noticed, however, that while both sides have done very wrong things, and said very wrong things, that the anti-ID side seems angrier, more belligerent, more insulting, and more inclined to impute motives (e.g., the desire for "maverick" fame, or a fundamentalist religious agenda, or a theocratic political agenda) than the pro-ID side. If you read the posts at, say Uncommon Descent, or Telic Thoughts, in comparison with those at Panda's Thumb, or on the anti-Behe discussion lists at Amazon.com, I think that any objective assessment would conclude that the "rage count" and "insult count" is higher on PT and Amazon. And the question has to be asked, why is this?

I have experienced you as a relatively fair editor in practice, and I don't understand why you are defending the excesses of the anti-ID side, whether they come from Dawkins's review, Panda's Thumb, or some Wikipedia editor. Must it always be winner-take-all war, so that either ID or Darwinian theory must die an inglorious death, with the victor gloating smugly? Can there not be dialogue, with the two sides learning from each other, willing to admit that they do not know the entire truth about the great mysteries of life? I am pleading with the moderate side of you, that I have seen, and know is in there. So one more time I ask you, will you allow a section of quotations from the opposite side (properly attributed, and framed neutrally) in the Wikipedia article on EOE? If not, please tell the readers of this talk page why not. Thanks for listening.Inspectre 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note for Mr. Hrafn-- I have not cluttered up your talk page with lengthy blocks of quotation from other sources. Please do not do me the discourtesy of cluttering up mine. If you have a point to make, make it in your own words. I will reply politely to any politely-worded remarks you have to make, on matters pertaining to the fair editing of Wikipedia articles, but I will not engage in battles with the enemies of ID you bring in from other sites. I am striking through your lengthy quotations. If you would prefer, you may remove them to your own talk page, so that people can view them there.

For the record, I believe your point is that Dr. Behe committed a breach of netiquette, a point which you could have made in two sentence in your own words, without the lengthy quotations. Fine, let's say for the sake of argument that he did. But did you also note the context? Have you quoted the many spots on her blog and elsewhere where the person to whom he was replying sounded peevish, arrogant, attention-seeking, and actually insulting to Behe, and thus was likely to provoke him? You are behaving like a referee who gives a hockey player a penalty for throwing a punch, while ignoring the fact that the other player threw the first punch. And this is, in my opinion, typical of your editing style on the EOE article: to show only one side of the story, the side represented on anti-ID sites, while suppressing the other side of the story, the side represented on pro-ID sites and neutral sites. That has been my point all along, not to attack you personally, but to suggest that your personal dislike of Behe and ID appears to have affected the objectivity of your editing. I may be wrong, but this is my perception, and I have the duty to bring this perception to the community for discussion.

Note also that you are using Wikipedia space inappropiately. This space is to discuss editing issues regarding the fair treatment of articles (which, be it noted, is what I want to use my own talk page for), not to debate who is right or wrong, just or unjust, in the battle over intelligent design. If you wish to bash Behe for his alleged bad behaviour, you should take your comments to Panda's Thumb or other anti-ID sites, which will gladly print any negative thing you wish to say, about Behe or any other ID proponent, free of charge.Inspectre 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== Michael Behe's "ungentlemanly, unscientific, abusive tone and statements" ==

[edit] An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe

Dear Dr. Behe I have recently read your response to Abbie Smith’s article on the HIV-1 protein VPU. Ms Smith showed how Vpu’s recently evolved viroporin activity directly contradicts your statement that HIV has evolved no new biding sites since it entered humans (Edge of Evolution, page 143 and figure 7.4, page 144 ). I was greatly disappointed in your response. I must admit to having a special involvement in this case. Firstly, I drew the illustrations for Ms Smith’s article, and its follow up. But secondly, as a member of my professional association’s education committee, I am directly concerned with the support and nurturing of the new generations of enquiring minds, those that we will pass the torch of enquiry on to when we retire. It is in this regard that your response very disturbing. It is almost the exact opposite of what a concerned scientist and science communicator should have done.

It was bad enough that you chose to ignore her for over two months and then did not do her the courtesy of replying on her blog (1). It was bad enough that you chose to start by belittling her and playing the “I’m a Professor and she is a mere student” card (conveniently ignoring the fact that she actually works on HIV). This is particularly egregious in science, where we pay attention to the evidence and logic of an argument, rather than the letters after an author’s name. Doubly so if we wish to guide young scientists into a demanding profession.

But by far the worst, you ignored her core argument. That in the space of a decade HIV-1 Vpu developed a series of binding sites that made it a viroporin, a multisubunit structure with a function previously absent from HIV-1. Dr. Behe, it is not enough to cite a generalist review and claim that the differences between HIV-1 strains are “not all that great”. You actually have to show why Vpu developing binding sites to form a multi-subunit structure with a novel function does not falsify your claim that HIV has developed no new binding sites. Ironically, the very paper you cite to dismiss Ms Smith contains evidence of at least two new binding sites in HIV. I will not dwell on this any further, as Ms Smith is producing her own response.

But I will comment on one other aspect of your response. Not content with dismissing Ms Smith, you make an incorrect statement as a central part of your argument.

Another, more important point to note is that I’m considering just cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins, not to foreign proteins. Foreign proteins injected into a cell by an invading virus or bacterium make up a different category. [emphasis added here[by MB]] The foreign proteins of pathogens almost always are intended to cripple a cell in any way possible. Since there are so many more ways to break a machine than to improve it, this is the kind of task at which Darwinism excels. Like throwing a wad of chewing gum into a finely tuned machine, it’s relatively easy to clog a system — much easier than making the system in the first place. Destructive protein-protein binding is much easier to achieve by chance.

This is simply not true, either generally (2) or in the particular case of Vpu. Importantly, your statement shows that you do not understand what Vpu does. Vpu down regulates the surface protein CD4 (the Viroporin activity is something separate related to viral release). It does not “gum-up” CD4, it specifically binds to it, then binds to a separate protein (the βTrCP subunit of the SCFβTrCP ubiquitin ligase complex) in the Golgi apparatus (all except the C strains, which target the plasma membrane). This multiprotein complex links to the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, where CD4 is ignominiously broken down by the cells own mechanisms. This CD4–Vpu–βTrCP complex is NOT mere “gumming up of the works” but a precise targeting of CD4 the proteosome by Vpu. This is not obscure, but has been well known for some time.

Ian Musgrave

[edit] Behe Jumps Shark

Over the summer, Abbie Smith called Michael Behe on statements that he made about HIV in his book, “The Edge of Evolution”. It’s taken two and a half months, but Behe finally got around to saying something himself about the issues raised.

Now, up to this point Behe has had the character of harmless nebbish down pat. But I think that he has been hanging out with a bad crowd. Look at how he starts off his response:

This is the second in a series of responses I’m posting this week, this one regarding the Darwinian website The Panda’s Thumb, where a woman named Abbie Smith questioned whether results from HIV research actually square with the claims I made that little fundamental change has occurred in the virus, even though it attains enormous populations sizes and has a much increased mutation rate.

Although she calls herself a “pre-grad student,” the tone of the post is decidedly junior high, the tone of someone who is trying hard to compete with all the other Mean Girls on that unpleasant website. I’ll pass over all that and try to stick to the substance.

“Passing over all that” would mean actually not committing it to print, Mike. By actually putting it in print, you already have come unstuck from substance and are dealing in simple invective. And such invective… As Abbie points out herself, sexism ill becomes you, Mike. Was there provocation? Sure. She pointed out that you didn’t know what you were talking about. That’s gotta sting.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanna be useful?

Creationism cosmologies is very light on sources, and would give you an area of wikipedia that would productively find an outlet for your knowledge of creationism. There's already some references waiting to be integrated on the talk page, WP:CIT and WP:FOOT has information on how to produce citation templates and reference tags. WLU (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that this suggestion about "creationism" is meant in good faith and not as some kind of sarcastic dig: sorry, but I'm on, so to speak, an extended leave of absence right now, studying information theory and its application to the question of the origin of complex cellular nanotechnology. In any case, why ask me about "creationism"? I never claimed any detailed knowledge of it, or any interest in it, and I never even introduced the word into any discussion. In fact, to the extent that I have studied "creationism", I'm quite critical of many aspects of it. But critical though I might be of creationism, I couldn't bear to watch the character-assassination and humiliating treatment which biased and anti-religious Wikipedia editors are undoubtedly going to inflict upon its supporters. My soul revolts at injustice of any kind, even against parties I don't particularly warm up to. So count me out. Maybe, when my extended leave of absence ends, I'll come back and edit articles on subjects that atheist ideologues have no interest in, like disputes over the exact height of Mt. Everest.Inspectre (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That page needs work and sources, EoE does not, and in order to get a good feel of wikipedia, you should edit a broader array of pages. That one needs basic work, which would familiarize you with policy and basics of formatting a bit more. Contributing to a single page alone always gives a biased idea of what wikipedia is about, and there's a certain satisfaction in just adding useful, uncontestable information to a page. But as you like. WLU (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, information theory also needs citations added, there's a tag at the top. WLU (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I agree with all your practical comments about the value of learning formatting etc. You seem to me to be a dedicated and serious editor, however much I may disagree with you over your blind spot regarding intelligent design.

However, in response to one of your comments, I haven't just looked at one page. I've looked at the Discovery page, the EOE page, and the Jonathan Wells page, and the same systemic bias and hostility runs through the editing of all of them, so I have no reason to believe that the same bias wouldn't be found in every article relating to ID. I even glanced at the creationism cosmology page you mentioned, and, while I have no interest in defending creationism, it looked as if the knives were out there, too. It's clear to me that a majority of editors have chosen sides in the ID/Darwinism debate, and also in the creationism/Darwinism debate (the latter being an entirely separate subject), and that those editors are letting their opinions about philosophy, theology and science affect the way they edit, and I can't deal with editors like that. I'm sure I could work co-operatively with editors in other areas, e.g., in articles about the history of science fiction television shows, or the like, where the editors' personal biases aren't likely to affect the way the information is selected or presented. But on controversial matters, as opposed to factual matters, I see Wikipedia as entirely vulnerable to "take-overs" by zealous groups who want to use the encyclopedia format as a disguise to promote their various opinions. So I might still use Wikipedia to look up the height of Mt. Everest or the first airing of the Perry Mason show, or to find a periodic table of the elements or a list of U. S. Presidents, but I don't trust it on any contemporary debate.

In any case, as I said, I'm very busy, with paid editing responsibilities of my own, and academic research, and personal family responsibilities, and I must budget my time, so I have to bow out for now. Thank you for asking so politely, though.Inspectre (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed hostility towards ID and creationism - wikipedia is based on reliable sources, the most reliable of which are scientific, peer-reviewed ones. It's quite natural that many editors find creationism/ID's deliberate bypassing of the peer review process, the mis-use of reliable sources, rape of the public's trust and credibility and the general exploitation of the 'mystique' and respectability of science for their own political and religious ends to be disgusting and offensive. The same disgust is felt at pseudoscientific topics like reflexology, homeopathic remedies and ESP, with just as much acrimony. Creationists cheat the system and waste enormous amounts of time and money, with deliberate knowledge of what they are doing and why it is wrong, but they do so anyway because God knows why - the end of days I suppose. And no matter where you go, you'll run into hostile editors and POV-warriors (good luck, by the way, on sci-fi pages, where there really are NO reliable sources for either side :). I've edit-warred over Sole (foot), Uncaria tomentosa, Terry Goodkind, and many others equally silly. The only resolution comes with the introduction of reliable sources, of which creationism/ID have none, and science has many (again, and sci-fi/non-science have none, now there's an acrimonious dispute). On top of that, myself, Hrafn, OrangeMarlin and ALL the other long-term, dedicated editors have to deal with the same complaints from either sockpuppets, or the same ignorant bunch of Christian conservatives who are ignorant of science as a philosophical stance, as a methodology, as a body of knowledge, as a process, everything, recycling the same creationist complaints that have been discredited for, in some cases like ID, more than 200 years, because their pastor told them so. It gets frustrating and difficult to remain civil. I was warned by one editor about the near-inevitable incivility of the creationism pages, and she was right. In some ways, incivility short-cuts the debate when you know your opponent isn't going to introduce anything new, because it's the same argument you've already seen a half-dozen times. I'm not happy being sharp with new editors, but I'm also not happy to have to deal with the same shit again and again. But it's the inevitability of wikipedia, so if you're going to stay, you have to get used to it. Wikipedia is like sausage and the law - if you like it, don't watch it getting made. So that's why anyone who attempts to portray ID/irreducible complexity/creation science/religious science of any sort worthwhile research endeavor, especially when there are many, many reliable sources indicating it's not, gets harsh treatment. But there's over 2 million pages, many of which need improving even in copy editing, so there's never a need restrict yourself. WLU (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to justify your actions to me, and to excuse the actions and words of your more savage colleagues. Why bother? You and your allies, by virtue of having worn down and driven away all the editors who disagree with you about the validity of ID and the motives of its proponents, have acquired a collective dictatorial power over the contents and framing of the ID articles, and dictatorial power never has to justify itself to anyone. You only have to justify yourself if you have a conscience, and hence feel the need to convince someone that you are exercising your power rightly. In that case, you already know my opinion: you aren't exercising your power rightly.

You also already know my view that your actions are parallelled in the larger world, because the enemies of ID, the intelligentsia, who control the universities, and all the research grants, and all the hiring of teachers, and the PBS, and most of the print media, and most of the nation's First Amendment jurisprudence, aren't exercising their power rightly, either. They are all colluding to protect Darwinism from any serious criticism, at any cost. They are manning the battlements to protect the intellectual world-order which justifies all their activities, and in the corresponding Wikipedia articles, you are acting as their cheerleaders. Do you expect me, with a lifelong commitment to absolute freedom of speech and debate in the academy and in the media, to endorse any kind of censorship or muzzling of opposition, no matter how right you guys think you are, and no matter how wrong you think the "creationists" are? Even if I agreed that ID was totally wrong and Darwinism was totally right, I would never justify your actions or your attitudes.

As for your complaint that "creationists" waste your precious time, do you expect me to feel sorry for you people? The best thing to happen to a tyrant is to find himself having to waste lots of time to deal with the rebellious masses he is repressing and humiliating. Tyranny has that way of bouncing back upon its perpetrators (cf. Xenophon's Hiero), and the bounce-back is educative. If you want to waste less time fighting with "creationists", start treating their arguments and editorial suggestions fairly. Make them feel like discussion partners rather than unwanted illegal immigrants. Consider the possibility that you may have misjudged ID and its proponents, and that your "reliable sources" may themselves have an agenda which is not above scrutiny. Consider the possibility that your habitual use of the subtly derogatory term "creationists" to describe ID theorists (despite their repeated protests that they are not "creationists") has blinded you to what ID is actually about. Consider the possibility that you are letting your personal opinions about science, politics and religion (especially if any of you have an animus against religion) interfere with the objectivity of your editing. Consider that since all human beings are prone to error, prejudice, stubbornness, and self-justification, that sometimes it may be you people, rather than the "creationists", who are stonewalling, obstructing, cavilling, and making excuses for biased or uneven treatment of authors or sources. If you do all these things, I think you will find that the "creationists" will cause you fewer problems. You may even learn something from them. And the Wikipedia articles on ID will become a lot less like propaganda pieces and a lot more like informative articles, which is the ultimate goal.Inspectre (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design = creationism (in a cheap tuxedo) = political, not science. Bye. WLU (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" -- ah, yes, when logic and evidence fail, one can always resort to that most devastating of replies -- the cliche. I guess ID must be the same as creationism, because a such a clever and witty retort couldn't possibly be wrong.

One can learn a lot from editing Wikipedia. Before I became an editor, I (unfortunately influenced by the scholarly training that earned me my doctorate) naively thought that truth could properly be got at only by examining the subject matter and reasoning correctly from it. I therefore foolishly thought that, in order to determine whether or not ID was creationism, one had to seek out texts from the leading proponents of ID, find out how they defined ID, seek out texts from the leading proponents of creationism, find out how they defined creationism, and then do a close and probing comparison of the two definitions to see whether they were identical, similar, mostly dissimilar, or utterly opposed. Based on this utterly naive process, I had become convinced that ID was not creationism.

Wikipedia editors, however, have opened my eyes to the light. I now realize that the proper way to determine the question is this: read and amass in great number the definitions of ID and creationism put forward by those who oppose both views with a ferocious animus; read in much smaller number the protests against such definitions coming from the ID and creationist authors themselves, and read those protests only cursorily and with a resolution not to believe anything contained in them; count only the statements of those who oppose both ID and creationism as coming from "reliable sources"; finally, total the reliable statements on both sides of the issue. It then comes out 100 to 0 in favor of the proposition that ID is creationism. One doesn't even have to know the correct definitions of ID and creationism, and one only has to read about half of the potential sources. It's so much easier, and it has the added advantage of getting you the answer you want.

"Truth through selective quotation" -- beats research, close textual study, and careful reasoning all hollow. I wish the Encyclopedia Britannica would kick out all those pedantic scholars and hire the Wikipedia team to write all its articles. Then it would be just as reliable as Wikipedia.Inspectre (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posting and warning

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as The Edge of Evolution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. This is not the place for you to post 'jokes', it wastes the time of other contributors and is clearly a violation of WP:NOT.

Moved from Talk:The Edge of Evolution WLU (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right; it clearly wasn't the place to post a joke, since Hrafn didn't even get the joke. Of course, if he'd actually read all of the second comment, he'd have seen the punch line, in the name "Charles Darwin".Inspectre (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Hrafn: I continue to reject your emphasis on paper qualifications in biology. I've recently been reading a book by a guy who purports to be an evolutionary biologist of sorts, and, while I don't entirely agree with his Darwinian slant, he appears to me to be really smart, and to be a very thorough researcher, and to have a vast knowledge of large areas of biology, and to argue extremely fairly and without personal animus. But being suspicious like you, I checked up on his degrees on the internet, and found out he only has a liberal arts bachelor's degree, mainly languages and philosophy, with a smattering of math, physics and astronomy, but no chemistry or biology at all. But he's smart -- way smarter in my view than Coyne or Dawkins or Miller or Matzke or Carroll, and much more qualified in my opinion to write about evolution than they are. So it just goes to show you that an Arts degree doesn't preclude great competence in biological matters or even evolutionary theory. You were clearly too hard on that other Arts major, Wybrow. (Though I must say that the section on Wybrow was improved, last I looked.)Inspectre (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Inspectre: you were the one touting Behe's mythical "paper qualifications in biology", I was merely refuting your claims. I really don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what you think of some anonymous liberal arts major, or your daft-sounding opinion that he is better qualified to write about evolution than genuine experts in the field. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Mr. Hrafn, let's not re-write history: You did argue that Behe's critics were more qualified than he was to talk about evolution because their Ph.D.s were in biology whereas his Ph.D. was only in biochemistry. You even went so far as to say that Nick Matzke's Bachelor's degree in biology (the highest degree in biology that he has) made him more qualified to talk about evolution than Behe. And you made a great deal out of the fact that Wybrow wasn't qualified to criticize Behe because his degrees weren't in biology, but in the Arts. So I put two and two together, and concluded that a bachelor's degree in biology was the minimum you need to be an expert in evolution (like the Behe-slaying Nick Matzke). My point was that I had discovered an evolutionary writer who had no such degree, but only a degree in the liberal arts, and who never passed a single university-level exam in cell biology, molecular biology, paleontology, or genetics. But I forgot to include the name of this person who, in your view, doesn't stack up to the "genuine experts" on evolution. His name was Charles Darwin.

Gotcha!  :-) Hope you will forgive my little jest, as part of the seasonal merriment. I've also asked Santa to put "The Design of Life" in every Wikipedia editor's stocking. And as I exit to a chorus of "Humbugs" wafting across cyberspace, allow me to wish you and your infidel colleagues a very Merry Christmas.Inspectre (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And my point is that your claim is meaningless -- an anonymous liberal arts major who you claimis more qualified than notable experts on evolution to write on the subject. I could likewise claim that my youngest nephew is as great an artist as Leonardo da Vinci -- and would expect as much derision as I have to offer you. As for The Design of Life, I'm not going camping this Xmas, so have no need of waste paper for fire-lighting. And I in turn wish you and all your religious bigot colleagues a Merry Pagan-Festival-Rebranded-by-Christianity. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I don't seem to have any religious bigot colleagues. In fact, a lot of the people I know of who are skeptical of Darwinism, and open-minded to Intelligent Design, aren't conventionally religious at all. David Berlinksi and Antony Flew come to mind. Design is the wave of the future, and 19th-century chance-and-survival-of-the-fittest are the thinking of the past. You might say that the best scientific and philosophical thought of the 21st century has "evolved" into information theory and design theory. The Victorian materialists who write all the Wikipedia articles on the subject will one day be seen as a quaint relic of a bygone era.

As for Christianity taking over a pagan festival, is that supposed to be an insult? Or even news? It's an old story that Christianity accommodated everything it could from past religions, pagan and Jewish. Tell me something I don't know. Like, for example, a clear, detailed (to the genomic level), testable Darwinian pathway from a fin to a foot, or from an air bladder to a lung. Darwinism can only survive a few years longer peddling peppered moths and varieties of dogs and single-protein changes in microbes. Sooner or later even the dumbest biology student is going to wonder why, after 150 years, such detailed pathways have not yet been demonstrated. Maybe that question will someday occur even to a Wikipedia editor. Oh, well, happy Solstice Day.Inspectre (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SOAP userfied from Talk:The Edge of Evolution

[edit] Phillip Skell

My neutral addition about Phillip Skell was undone. It was correct information and properly sourced (to Wikipedia!). Further, the information I added was actually on the dust jacket of the book, and therefore was in essence concealed from Wikipedia readers by its removal. I was merely restoring the identification of Skell that was there originally. I think this is an unreasonable undo.

The alleged reason for the undo, i.e., that Skell's field of research is chemistry rather than biology, is pedantic. The point was not to pass off Skell as a biochemist. The point is to indicate that Skell is a highly respected scientist of above-average accomplishment. An NAS member is selected for superb scientific achievement, and therefore, if nothing else, is regarded as a master of the scientific method. Whatever Skell's particular field, he can tell a scientific piece of work from a piece of non-science. If he endorsed Behe's work, he must be of the opinion that, whether correct or incorrect in its conclusions, it has genuinely scientific merit as an investigation and argument. Skell has not endorsed books on astrology or about aliens in flying saucers visiting the earth and building the pyramids. He does not endorse books he considers to be pseudoscience. He clearly classes Behe's work in the scientific category. It is highly relevant to the curious reader, who has been told by numerous hostile sources that Behe's work is "not science", to know that an NAS member, who presumbly knows what science is, disagrees. To conceal Skell's NAS membership, when it is right on the dust jacket, is to try to conceal from the reader that there is at least one top-flight American scientist who has no hesitation in classing Behe's work as science. I know the fact that some top-flight scientists are open-minded towards ID bothers some Wikipedia editors, but they shouldn't let their personal prejudices cause them to conceal interesting and relevant information.

But even if the alleged reason for the undo is granted, it follows that several other comments should be removed from the article. If a chemist (whose field borders on biochemistry, Behe's field) is no authority on biology, then philosophers and mathematicians are even less so. It follows that the negative comments of Ruse and Rosenhouse should be removed from the article. It is an "appeal to false authority" to regard them as having any serious knowledge of biology or any qualifications for reviewing Behe's book. I have commented before on the systemic bias in this article, by which everything possible is done to discredit anyone who says anything positive about Behe, and all kinds of things which could discredit Behe's critics (e.g., the fact that some of the "biologists" have not yet completed, or have barely begun, their Ph.D.s) are silently passed over, even when these things are pointed out to Wikipedia editors.

By the way, there is inconsistency in the spelling of "Phillip Skell" in various sources; the Wikipedia entry on the man has a different spelling from that on his university's web-site, in which "Phillip", has two l's.Inspectre (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Skell's "accomplishment" is in an area completely unrelated to the area he was offering an opinion in. Therefore listing it in the article is both irrelevant and misleading. The reason it was mentioned in the dustjacket was that Behe wished to dishonestly lay claim to respectability on the basis of it. I doubt that Skell has any background in Philosophy of Science, so his knowledge of the scientific method would be restricted to a hands-on experience of how it applies to Chemistry, and would likely have no idea how it applies in Biology. He is in no position to judge its scientific merits, so his support can be dismissed as purely ideological. That chemistry "borders on biochemistry" is utterly irrelevant, as Behe's claims fall outside the field of biochemistry (and thus likewise outside Behe's field of expertise), but rather in the fields of immunology, parasitology, evolutionary biology, and no doubt a few others. Likewise your claim that "philosophers and mathematicians are even less" qualified to judge his arguments is utterly spurious -- the former is qualified to judge where his arguments lie outside the scientific method (a subject which is part of the Philosophy of Science), the latter can identify errors in his mathematical calculations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your speculations about the motives of Behe and Skell ("dishonest" and "ideological") are private opinions, and as such should not come into decision-making about what should or should not be included in an article. Your "doubt" that Skell has any knowledge of philosophy of science is speculative and undocumented, and in any case, one no more needs background in philosophy of science to recognize a good piece of science than one needs background in the philosophy of plumbing to recognize a good work of plumbing.

An honest question you might ask yourself is this: If an endorsement by a famous NAS chemist appeared on the dustcover of an anti-ID book, written, say, by Eugenie Scott, would you have taken the same trouble to excise the NAS reference from the Wikipedia article? For some strange reason, I have my doubts. I think that you, in that case, would regard the inclusion as a neutral reproduction of the identifying information found on the dustcover.

Finally, I note that you have rejected 100% of my proposed changes over the last several months. Not 50%. Not 90%. Not 99%. 100%. In discussion you never grant even a minor point, and never agree to meet me half-way or even a third of the way. Your reaction to my edits is thus clearly reflexive. Wikipedia is supposed to be "collegial" venture. I have not felt the collegiality. I have felt my suggestions running up against an iron wall of dogmatism and pre-conceived opinions. And I imagine that I am not alone. Keep in mind that the world is watching. Already the integrity of Wikipedia is being questioned in the media. Already thousands of teachers and professors are ordering their students NOT to use Wikipedia as a source for essays and assignments. They do not think it can be trusted. My experience trying to contribute has shown me why. When a person such as myself, with a Ph.D. in relevant areas, can be overruled 100% of the time by a couple of editors who apparently have not even one Bachelor's degree in Science or Philosophy of Science between them, there is clearly something wrong with the editing hierarchy. Certainly I will forbid any of my students from using Wikipedia as a source in the future, especially on any articles concerning the subject of evolution, where it is clear that the articles are agenda-driven.Inspectre (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Membership to the NAS is a ridiculous addition to make, perhaps it could be added if it was included as being for chemistry and thus demonstrating it's useless for an article on biology. Otherwise it looks like an attempt to put undue weight on his credentials and opinion when he's making comments on a field totally out of his area of expertise. Being an NAS member for chemistry isn't useful. Also Inspectre, your additions are mostly being removed and rejected because you appear to be dogmatically adhering to the idea that there is any merit to intelligent design and Behe's ideas. There is not. And the integrity of wikipedia to the media has always been questioned. This is a good thing, because a lot of vandalism and absurd ideas are pushed on wikipedia, ideas like Behe's work being anything except a desperate rearguard re-invention of the watchmaker argument. It is not a source to be trusted, it's a source to be casually read for an introduction. Indeed, you should forbid students from using wikipedia for anything except very preliminary information - that's pretty much it's intended purpose and only an idiot would think to use it for anything else. You are doing them a favour. Hopefully, however, conscientious editors will continue to add link and information from reliable sources, that should be where students turn for real information. I hope you equally forbid them from using encyclopedia brittanica. It's also got errors, and is also useless as anything except a source of very basic information. WLU (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Inspectre, your edits have been ubiquitously reverted because they have equally ubiquitously been attempts to give WP:UNDUE weight to statements supporting a viewpoint that has been unequivocally debunked by the scientific community. Your "Ph.D. in relevant areas" (which wouldn't happen to be "historical aspects of religious thought" by any chance?) only matters on wikipedia to the extent that it enables you to get your opinions peer-reviewed and published in academic journals, thus becoming a WP:RS. It does not endow you with special editing privileges. If you don't like that fact, then you are welcome to start your own PhDs-only wiki. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I never at any point made any dogmatic statement in favor of intelligent design. I criticized false and dishonest charges against intelligent design, which is not the same thing. That you have steadily misperceived my editorial intentions is a testimony to your own blindness and deafness; you assume that anyone who defends ID's right to a fair trial must be pro-ID and rabidly so, rather than merely interested in the fair and open discussion of ideas without any ad hominem attacks (such as the sort regularly launched by Myers, Dawkins, Coyne, Ruse, etc.). And because you assume from the outset that ID is utterly false, you cannot imagine why anyone would want to defend its right to be heard, unless they are some sort of religious fanatic. Your position is like that of someone who says an accused murderer should not be allowed a defense attorney because he's obviously guilty, and anyone who tries to defend him must be an accomplice or have some other ulterior motive. You appear to think that, when the "murderer" in question is ID, we should do away with the formality of defense lawyers, and just let the D.A. (i.e., Matzke, Coyne, and Co.) set forth the charges unchallenged, and let the "impartial" judge (i.e., you guys) find the accused guilty.

You say ID has no merit. You are entitled to your opinion. What you aren't entitled to do is to let that opinion interfere with honest judgment regarding proposed edits. Unfortunately, you have; today's alteration of my Denton entry (which was scrupulously objective and verbatim from the sources) is a case in point. You deleted correct and informative data and replaced it with false data and innuendo, and in doing so were guided by your dislike of ID. Why not just admit that you yielded to temptation here, and restore my edit? I would respect you for that.

I of course tell my students to be properly cautious about all sources, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nothing is to be taken as Gospel truth, not even the words of Darwin, of Jerry Coyne, or of those brilliant non-Ph.D.s Nick Matzke and Abbie Smith. However, the Encyclopaedia Britannica compares favorably with Wikipedia in the following respects: (1) Its errors are fewer; (2) Its treatment of most subjects is more sophisticated and more in-depth; (3) The writers and editors of the articles are not unqualified, self-appointed hobbyists, as is the case at Wikipedia, but are sought out for their genuine expertise in the subject-areas of the articles; (4) The writers and editors, being scholars, are trained to represent differences of opinion fairly, and to a very large degree refrain from employing "dirty tricks" such as guilt-by-association, innuendo about motives, use of culturally loaded terms like "creationism" to achieve a pejorative effect, suppression of evidence favorable to one side or detrimental to the other -- all of which I have seen in several Wikipedia articles on evolution, ID, Discovery Institute, etc. I would therefore certainly send my students to the Britannica for an introduction to any subject.Inspectre (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design has no scientific merit. Every relevant scientist who has reviewed has said so. I've read it myself, it's awful. The relevant reliable sources agree. Please stop soapboxing. WLU (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If by "soapboxing" you mean "give a soapbox oration in favor of intelligent design", I've never done so. I've only pleaded for fairness in editing the articles on intelligent design. In fact, I don't personally think that intelligent design, as currently formulated, is a wholly correct position, and I've never said it was.

Nor, despite the charges you and Hrafn have levelled at me, have I ever delivered a soapbox oration in favor of "creationism", which is not surprising, since, as "creationism" is normally understood, I'm opposed to it. Many supporters of ID are. They don't want the Bible used as an authority in the natural sciences. I don't. Behe doesn't. His arguments are therefore by definition not "creationist", if you are going to use the term in its recognizable meaning in the American context, and not in some artificial meaning cooked up by Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, or Wikipedia. Behe's arguments for ID may indeed be invalid, but if so, they're invalid because they are inadequate as science, not because they depend upon Genesis (which they don't). And I'm willing to listen to scientific critiques of Behe and ID -- the ones, that is, that aren't laced with arguments from authority, cheap shots, innuendo and other ad hominems -- and I do it all the time.

But that has nothing to do with Wikipedia editing. I'm sorry you regard my repeated pleas for fairness in editing -- pleas always accompanied by detailed indications of the injustices committed -- as "soapbox". You might find them less frequent, and much shorter, if you and Hrafn stopped worrying about my alleged motives (which you've had wrong all along), and simply edited more fairly. A good start would be to restore the entire text of my section on Michael Denton.Inspectre (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your claims here amount to little more than a parroting of the standard DI line that ID's brand of Neo-creationism is not creationism. Sorry, but this canard has neither been accepted by the courts nor the experts. Your claims also ignore the large number of ID proponents that are YECs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Your comments and tone show that, no matter how polite and earnest I am, and no matter how precisely I write and how carefully I qualify my remarks to avoid misunderstanding, you will not listen to exactly what I say, but will instead insist on hearing what you want to hear. There is clearly no point in arguing with someone who holds the opinions he holds for purely emotional reasons and will not genuinely engage with someone of a different viewpoint. It is also a bit hard for someone like myself, who has translated Genesis from the Hebrew and taught Hebrew grammar, who has studied with great care the original sources of most of the great works of theology and philosophy pertaining to creation and evolution from ancient Greek times to the present, who has studied carefully (not skimmed) Darwin's Origin of Species in its entirety, who has read dozens of books by Darwinists and IDers in their entirety, who has taught scientific classics like Galileo's Dialogues at the university level, and who has been following the evolution/creation wars in the USA for about 40 years, to be lectured by an internet hobbyist on the proper meanings of "creationism" and "neo-Creationism". I have been trying to give you the opportunity to learn from someone who knows a great deal more than yourself about every aspect of evolution, creation and intelligent design -- free university-level instruction, as it were -- but you aren't interested. The pride of the autodidact continues to astound me.Inspectre (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the forum for a "fair trial" for Intelligent Design. It has had its "fair trial" already, both generally, by the scientific community, and specifically, under a church-going, Republican, social-conservative-appointed judge: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎. That trial drew into sharp relief Behe's incompetence in areas, outside his speciality of biochemistry, on which he pontificates, and in philosophy of science and thus the theory underlying the scientific method. Wikipedia's role is to report, in an encyclopedic manner, the result of this -- that ID has been unequivocally debunked, disproved and dismissed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role is to report -- though this may shock you -- the truth. Anyone interested in truth would know that the Kitzmiller judge was a complete ignoramus in science, in religion, in fact in every subject other than law, and that his judgment vastly overreached -- as I concluded on my own, without the help of the Discovery Institute (since I know that you will charge that I am just parrotting their words). In any case, even if the judge held a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology on the side, the courtroom is neither an appropriate nor an adequate place in which to conduct a scientific debate. Lawyers are not interested in the truth but in winning their case, and all the proceedings are conducted with that end, rather than the end of truth, in mind. (Which reminds me of the procedures of Wikipedia editing on all articles regarding ID, evolution and creationism.) This was true of both the plaintiff's and defense lawyers in the Kitzmiller case. In any case, I suspect that neither you nor WLU have read all 2,000 pages of the Dover Trial transcripts (as I have), so I have little to learn from you about that event.Inspectre (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Inspectre (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

“

Wikipedia's role is to report -- though this may shock you -- the truth

”

This points to just how little policy you have read, and your complete lack of engagement with wikipedia beyond pasting pro-creationist ranting. Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth. It's one of the core policies, one of the most fundamental, key, most often cited, one that you have certainly been pointed to before. Yet you haven't read it, or just skimmed. So go away. You are a point of view pushing troll, who has not engaged in the project beyond what you need to game the system. Go away. Go to creationwiki. Go to conservapedia. Just go. WLU (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You just failed both Latin 100 and Philosophy 100. First, "verifiable" comes from the Latin "verus", meaning "true". Second, it is impossible to verify anything without a standard of truth. If the "reliable sources" you use to verify something are themselves ignorant of the matter in question, or have only imperfect knowledge of the matter in question, or lie or distort the matter in question because they have an axe to grind, then they cannot "verify" anything. You can't get an accurate weight with a busted balance. So an encyclopedia based only the notion of "verifiability" without a corresponding notion of "truth" is an exercise in either ignorance or sophistry.Inspectre (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have philosophy and latin. I have a policy. I win. On wiki, <large>NOTHING</large> tops policy, it is the reason pages get deleted, editors banned and changes made. Your analysis does not matter here. Policy does. If you think the policy has no merit, take your latin and your philosophy to the relevant talk page and try to change it. See what response you get. If you can change wikipedia's policy, then I will enforce your new policy. Until then, I don't care about your philosophy and latin, I care about policy. WLU (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish you, Hrafn, and the rest of your cabal DID care about policy. Then you wouldn't violate so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your partisan effort to use Wikipedia to further your own opinions about ID, evolution, and the Discovery Institute. You violate Neutral Point of View on a regular basis by every imaginable means of selection, omission, juxtaposition, and phrasing. Your use of the phrase "pointed out" rather than "claimed" or "stated" for arguable claims violates the specific guidelines for attribution regarding that phrase. Your label of "creationist", for the Discovery Institute and various individuals who would not call themselves that, violates the spirit of the guideline (which in Wikipedia is more important than the letter of the guidelines, as also stated in the guidelines) about the word "fundamentalism", and also the guideline about using, wherever possible, words used by insiders to describe themselves rather than those used by outsiders to describe them. You regularly use as "reliable sources" blogs and other privately published sources that are regarded as generally inappropriate by the guidelines, either due to their non-peer-reviewed nature or their extreme partisanship. Etc., etc. Your claim to be defending "the policies" of Wikipedia is thus blatant hypocrisy. You defend Wikipedia policy where it can be construed in such a way as to allow for unfavorable treatment of ID, and you ignore Wikipedia policy where it would restrain your desire to humiliate ID and its proponents. And you use lawyer-like arguments, i.e., arguments aimed at making the inexcusable appear excusable, to cover up all your blatantly unfair editing decisions. You are interested in neither procedural fairness, nor justice, nor informing the public. Your goal is to propagandize the public into sharing your view of ID and the Discovery Institute, using Wikipedia as your tool. So please spare me the pious lectures about neutrality, verifiability, reliable sources, collegial working together of a community of editors, etc. If anybody on earth is reading any of these exchanges (which I greatly doubt), they can see right through you.Inspectre (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Denton

Denton's full review from amazon.com is really more of a summary of the book:

In The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe carefully assesses the evidence of what Darwin's mechanism of random mutation and selection can achieve in well documented cases, and shows that even in those cases that maximize its power as a creative force it has only been able to generate very trivial examples of evolutionary change. Could such an apparently impotent and mindless force really have built the sophisticated molecular devices found throughout nature? The answer, he insists, is no. The only common-sense explanation is intelligent design.

He's not actually saying anything here. He's summarizing the book, then giving Behe's answer to the question Behe poses. He's not saying anything good or bad about the book, it's just its contents. What can we use as a prose summary of this that's not re-stating the book's contents? "Denton says that Behe's assessment of evidence for evolution's ability to be creative is careful"? "Ability to be creative" isn't something used in science I don't think, and the use of gene doubling to be 'creative' (that is, to produce traits which can then be used for purposes other than the use of the doubled gene) has been well discussed in negative reviews as an excellent mechanism to evolve new structures. This is a non-review, the equivalent of a three-line Coles notes. I've adjusted the summary to reflect this so we aren't quoting, and to give the only meaningful 'praise' in the review. WLU (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, he's also an ardent creationist and a former fellow at the Discovery Institute. Given the book, that's just as relevant as his current affiliation. I've put it in. WLU (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Denton's not an "ardent creationist", or even a "creationist" at all, in the normal culture-war usage of the term, which is the prejudicial usage you are employing in all the Wikipedia articles on evolution. It's obvious you haven't read much of Denton. You should check your facts before you alter others' edits. You might start by actually reading the authors you offer an opinion on, rather than quoting rumors their enemies spread about them.

Re: the Discovery Institute: You're appealing, as usual, to guilt-by-association. Guilt by association is an ad hominem form of argument and is intellectually worthless.

Re: Denton's comments. The words which I quoted are not mere summary, but indicate Denton's agreement with Behe's critique of Darwinism. It is certainly relevant to note that a published evolutionary biologist agrees with Behe's critique of Darwinism, since the pro-Darwin lobby has always loudly insisted that no such evolutionary biologist exists.

You deliberately suppressed Denton's full list of impressive qualifications, as I supplied them from a published source, and replaced them with a false label with pejorative connotations ("creationist") and an attempt at guilt-by-association (in reference to an organization Denton has left). I can see nothing but conscious and willful bias in these actions.Inspectre (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But the full quote does not support the book, the only place where he in any way places a qualification on the book, is the use of the term 'carefully'. There is no support for the book's conclusion based on that quote, and I'd say it's quote mining to adjust the wording to show any sort of support; where in his full quote does he indicate support? I don't see it. Denton's wikipage shows him as a creationist, and a fellow at the Discovery Institute is pretty ardent. Still, I suppose his affiliation with the DI is sufficient, so I've removed the 'creationist' statement. WLU (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Our posting overlapped, so I didn't see your proposed compromise. Thank you for attempting to be reasonable by getting rid of "creationist". I add that you shouldn't rely on other wikipages alone for judgments like that, since, as you know, the authors of wikipages on evolution often strongly slant the material and use "loaded" terminology.

I re-worded one paragraph above before I read your note. I didn't mean that Denton endorses Behe's book overall, or even ID overall (he doesn't); I meant that he endorses Behe's argument for the limitations of Darwinian processes. He says Behe "shows that...", not "purports to show that" or "tries to argue that" or "makes a case for the view that". His phrasing "shows that" combined with "carefully", implies endorsement. And this is what any reader of Denton's books would predict Denton would say about the negative part of Behe's argument.Inspectre (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He also says "The answer, [Behe] insists, is no." Behe says this, Denton does not explicitly agree. WLU (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In the first half of Denton's comments, he is endorsing Behe's negative critique of Darwinism. In the second half, he is stating Behe's alternative, without necessarily agreeing with it. In my section on Denton, I stressed his agreement with Behe against the Darwinists, to show that a competent writer on evolutionary biology agrees with Behe's negative findings from molecular biology. That's legitimate, and something readers would be interested in knowing (especially since the surrounding paragraphs in the article try to give the false impression that no competent biologist has anything nice to say about Behe's work). I'd be glad to rework the entry, keeping my original quoted words, while clarifying that Denton did not explicitly endorse ID, but only Behe's negative critique of Darwinian mechanisms.Inspectre (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by M. Denton. [1] by M. Denton. Creationism shows far greater dedication to preconceptions than scientists and atheists do - there is no reason to believe the creationist accounts or theories unless there is a pre-existing dedication to Genesis. Scientists believe the scientific account because of evidence and theories to link the evidence, in which case they see to reason to posit a supernatural creator. WLU (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Emphasizing that one, just one, 'competent biologist' (he's a biochemist though, not a biologist, and not an evolutionary biologist, therefore it's arguable that he's a competent writer in the area. Like Behe, who has been criticized for not knowing enough of the areas he criticizes I believe), and a former member of THE major creationism mouthpiece in the United States, endorses one aspect of the book, without a greater emphasis of the enormous, enormous number of scientists who think Behe's books, research and conclusions are absolute horse shit, is kinda placing undue weight on his opinion, non? I think the current summary is adequate, it's a reasonable summary of the lukewarm review given by Deton. He is not endorsing the book, he's rhetorically summarizing it. WLU (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would take the time to read the source which I cited in my excised comments, instead of relying upon incorrect internet sources, you would find (p. 350) that Denton's Ph.D. is indeed in developmental biology, not biochemistry. And since he did that Ph.D., over 30 years ago, he has made himself into one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, as witnessed by the several publications I alluded to (for which see the reference, which may require you to actually open an old-fashioned book for a change). I did not place any "undue weight" on his opinion. I simply attempted to address the biases and distortions introduced in the surrounding material (presumably by you two), by indicating Denton's competence on the subject of evolution, since that was implicitly denied by the context. You two still wish to conceal that competence, even after having been informed by me that it is a fact. You have introduced extraneous opinion about the dustjacket endorsement (Gross's) which deliberately misleads about Denton's qualifications, without allowing Denton's qualifications to be noted. If the cause of this was innocent ignorance on your part, you can now show this by adding in Denton's qualifications, as I presented them. If you won't do so, your motivation is obvious.Inspectre (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be remembered that Denton, in relinquishing his Fellowship with the DI and with comments that he makes in Nature's Destiny, has been (rather ambiguously) distancing himself somewhat from outright support of ID. However he should still be regarded as a fellow-traveller and thus overly-sympathetic reviewer to Behe's book, and these sympathies should be noted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"He SHOULD still be regarded--" Why SHOULD? Because you say so? "Overly-sympathetic"? Why "overly"? If his "sympathies" are based on his scientific knowledge and reasoning (which they are), why are they "over" what they should be? What you mean is that anyone who says anything nice about Behe or ID, for any reason, is by definition overly-sympathetic, because (in your opinion) ID is false. Yet Denton, far from being a toady of Discovery or ID, is an independent scientist of the first rank, and is the least partisan (and clearest) writer on the ID-Darwinist debate today. His "sympathy" for Behe is not out of any personal, ideological or religious loyalties, but out of agreement (up to a point) with Behe's analysis. You should try reading Denton's books, instead of just picking up opinions about them from snippets quoted on the internet. You should also try emulating his scholarly tone. A little intellectual humility would improve both your thinking and your conversational style.Inspectre (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Edge of Evolution, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. . dave souza, talk 11:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dave Souza:

Thank you for the warning, and thank you for a fair editing-out of "snarky" comments. Your tone is also much more polite than that of other Wikipedia editors I have encountered. You will see from Hrafn's latest response to me on the EOE talk page that he cannot refrain from launching into endless accusations that I am a creationist, right-wing culture warrior, etc. You will see also that he calls "creationists" (by which he means ID supporters) liars, and that he calls Behe's remark (against a grad student who perpetually badgered him in public) "puerile" and "ad hominem", but has not yet granted, over a period of several months, that any of Behe's opponents have engaged in such "puerile" and "ad hominem" remarks. Yet he must know of these remarks, since he cites blogs containing them as "reliable" sources.

The issue on this page should not be (as Hrafn and others continually try to make it out to be) whether ID or Darwinism is true; the issue is how to present the contents and debate over Behe's book from a neutral point of view. I have spent months listing examples which demonstrate beyond doubt that Hrafn, WLU and others have slanted the material, in some cases originally unconsciously, in other cases consciously. I have tried to make alterations. My alterations have been rejected either on technicalities (the letter rather than the spirit of Wiki rules) or because Hrafn and others dislike what they think I am up to, when in fact the only thing I am up to is balancing the article. Balancing the article requires radical neutrality, and that means being extremely careful about language. "Creationism" must be entirely removed from all ID articles, except in sentences such as "Judge Jones deemed ID to be a form of creationism." It is in these articles purely for pejorative reasons; Wikipedia editors know that "creationism" calls up associations of fanaticism, ignorance, religious prejudice, the Scopes trial, the movie Inherit the Wind, and anti-scientific attitudes generally, and they want to tag the ID people with these associations. This is intellectually and editorially dishonest.

ID people want to be responded to purely on the level of science. It is completely legitimate to attack ID on the grounds of science, and I have never altered even a word of the article regarding the details of scientific criticism of the contents of ID. I never touched any of the discussion of mathematics, proteins, etc., that cropped up in earlier or current versions of the article. I have only attempted to alter deliberate mischaracterizations of ID, deliberately preferential handling of sources, people, and institutions mentioned in the article, and deliberate inclusions and omissions designed to subtly steer the reader in an anti-Behe direction.

The most obvious bias, of course, is that champions of Darwin are regarded as purely neutral "scientists", with no axe to grind, whereas champions of ID are regarded as purely religiously motivated. In fact, the champions of Darwin are in many cases demonstrably motivated by a religious position (atheism), and this is never mentioned in any ID articles, whereas every possible link, no matter how tenuous, between ID and creationism is researched and documented, often from unreliable sources. Hrafn has devoted an inordinate amount of time to proving that a Philadelphia Inquirer reviewer is a creationist pawn, but is silent about the public statements in favor of atheism available from Coyne, Dawkins, Forrest, Scott, Rosenhouse, Myers, etc.

Understand that I have no beef against atheism as such. Atheism is a legitimate religious position. My complaint is only against atheists who pretend that they are objective and neutral on the subject of intelligent design, when their atheism predisposes them to be closed to the notion, since any designer might possibly be an entity whose existence they deny.

My contention is that the best possible commentator on ID and on Behe is someone who is genuinely agnostic, i.e., who does not have a firm opinion in advance of the evidence whether or not an intelligent designer exists. There are such people, e.g., Denton and Berlinski. The problem is that the public discussion (in print media) has been controlled by people who have already made up their mind that such a designer does not exist, and are not genuinely open to examining the evidence for or against design and drawing a conclusion on purely rational and empirical grounds. They have a theological agenda (i.e., atheism) which skews their editorial choices -- who is allowed to write about intelligent design, for example. Thus, The New Republic did not ask Berlinski to write a review of Behe, even though Berlinski is a Jewish agnostic who has denied being either a creationist or a supporter of ID. It asked Coyne, who is a public atheist and who would not accept ID no matter what the evidence for it, since he decided at age 17 that God (which he understands the intelligent designer to be) does not exist. And the worldly, secular New York Times did not ask the neutral Denton to write its review of EOE; it asked Dawkins, well-known as a polemical atheist and Darwin dogmatist, and thus congenial to the world-view of the Times. What ticks off Hrafn, apparently, is that this Wybrow guy, whose previous publications are scholarly works, not polemical ones, and who has no evident theological position, got a review in a secular newspaper which gave Behe a fighting chance. He is angry that the Philadelphia Inquirer printed what it thought to be an intelligent and fair review from a previously unheard-of outsider to the debate, instead of commissioning another atheist Darwinist to demolish Behe's book. He doesn't see that the Philadelphia Inquirer is the only print medium that acted entirely neutrally, i.e., did not seek out in advance the condemnation of Behe.

I realize that most Wikipedia editors are young, single males who are technically leaning and predisposed towards atheism, and that it is hard for them to be truly neutral, i.e., agnostic, when it comes to theology. Nonetheless, the job requires keeping one's religious biases out of the editing process. Hrafn and WLU have proved they are not up to this duty. Are you? If so, then we may be able to co-operate fruitfully. If not, please let me know the worst right away, so I won't waste the time that I have wasted on the others.Inspectre (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. That is quite a rant. I was going to warn you but I see you were already warned. So consider yourself warned.--Filll (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Your attention has already been drawn to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ policies. Ideas such as intelligent design which make claims to scientific credibility but have clearly been rejected by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field can be presented on pages specifically devoted to them, but under NPOV: Undue weight these articles must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. NPOV: Pseudoscience requires such articles to 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 consensus about intelligent design has been reached on that main page, and under NPOV: Making necessary assumptions we shouldn't re-argue that consensus on related pages. NPOV: Giving "equal validity" makes it clear that we don't have to "give equal validity" to minority views. What Wikipedia is not policy emphasises that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the guidance in Wikipedia:Fringe theories includes ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, specifically mentioning that subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis.

All material must be verifiable from reliable sources, with a basis on reliable secondary sources and no original thought or new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. Wikipedia is not the place to give uncritical credence to ideas that have been rejected by the scientific mainstream, or to hide their religious basis. .. dave souza, talk 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)