Talk:Michael Denton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Creationism Portal

This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Some additions

Link to version.

I will leave this perfunctory comment here regarding this version of the article which carries additional, correct information for other editors to consider. Apparently I have been thwarted in my assistance of Wikipedia's aims by an odd administrative problem; therefore, I hope at some point another editor will do what is necessary.— ^ignis _scripta 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I leave it to the readers to determine that User:Igni has interpolated at least one "fact" which is implausible and unsourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One last mention for other readers (since miscalculations seem intent on lingering on my skin not unlike a case of verruca) so that they may not be mislead by misapprehension: Michael Denton is a part of the intelligent design movement; however, his position is based not on theology (i.e., the "religiously based intelligent design movement") but on his theories regarding the structure of nature, a matter which he discusses at extended length in his books to discredit the Darwinian formulation of intrinsically chaotic, random, and cumulative events as the bases of evolutionary processes. So much for factual erroneousness—readers of reasonable understanding will inevitably conclude that nowhere is a written, "implausible and unsourced" error "among others" to be found.— ^ignis _scripta 14:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he is part of the intelligent design movement, he intentionally supports it, as far as can be determined. The statement that he is not part of the ID movement is not sourced, nor is it likely to be. We would need a third party source for the statement; neither his word nor the word of ID advocates is adequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the statements of his second book "Nature's Destiny" he isn't a supporter of intelligent design. Specifically quotes like " Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." prove this point. I will give some reviews of his second book. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/natures_destiny.html http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm Headrattle (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, so I guess his previous books should just be ignored. Along with his former placement at the Discovery Institute. His statement appears to be yet another attempt to distance ID from creationism; a goal long sought by ID members but continuously upheld by other institutions. Baegis (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Denton's dissociation from ID has been, to say the least, ambiguous and equivocal. It has also been poorly documented in reliable third party sources. Also it isn't particularly clear whether Nature's Destiny takes him away from ID or merely away from the biological wing of ID (typified by Michael Behe & Irreducible complexity) and towards the Fine-tuned Universe‎ wing of ID (typified by Guillermo Gonzalez & The Privileged Planet), with any apparent 'disassociation' to his prior position merely being due to the contradiction between the claims of these two wings of ID. Because of this, we really need a reliable secondary source to say whether Denton is genuinely disavowing ID or not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the nature of ID wouldn't it be safe to say that he has distanced himself from the viewpoint of ID? In the forward of his book he specifically states that everything has natural causes. Though it is hard to find any actual quotes from him it seems that he distanced himself from ID when he no longer agreed with them. Though this is conjecture it should be noted for the future of this page.Headrattle (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The "nature of ID" is too frequently equivocal and self-contradictory for safety in making such assessments without expert opinion. How do Denton's views differ from Gonzalez's for instance? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a casual observation

I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, so take this with two grains of salt, but the article claims he "has been a strong proponent of intelligent design" yet the discussion here on the talk page does not reflect that. There seems to be some unanswered questions regarding how "deep" his ID support goes. Also, the claim that his book "was instrumental in starting the intelligent design movement" is not well referenced and a claim like that, I think, should have a significant amount of support. And what is the relationship between the title of his book and the Disco's anti-science mantra "evolution is a theory in crisis?" Finally...How do we know he asked that his name be removed from the DI web site? I'm just curious, I'd like to read more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Oops! Angry Christian (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right: "strong" is inaccurate, so I've changed it to "influential". His writing was one of the things that caused Johnson to kick off the whole thing, though I've always had the impression he was luke-warm about it -- his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis‎, tends to be mentioned in the formation of the ID movement far more often than he is. Will work on finding citations for this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware on the influence on Johnson, I am now. I tried to find more about the guy so I could add some cites (and more to the article) myself, I just haven't found much yet. I'll keep looking Angry Christian (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just checked, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis#Historical significance and intelligent design fully substantiates, and sources, the claims in this article. I don't really think duplication of this information here is needed (if you want more details of the impact of a book, you logically follow the link to the article on the book). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, the mag that has the Johnson interview seems to be down right now. I read the Behe one though. I think some of this would improve the article. I need to learn how to add cites...Let me do that and I'll see about adding alittle Angry Christian (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Denton's PhD

Denton's PhD is widely reported, especially in Creationist circles, as being in "developmental biology" (an error that can be traced back to Dembski's mendacious statement in Uncommon Dissent: "As a post graduate he studied developmental biology at Kings College, London University where he gained a PhD in 1974.") I have therefore given full details in the article. As far as I can tell, not only did he received his PhD from the Department of Biochemistry, whe thesis topic, which is on "developing adult mamalian[sic] erythroid cells" is unrelated to developmental biology, which is "the study of the process by which organisms grow and develop", not how cells develop in adults. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)