Talk:Phillip E. Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request 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.
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
There several interrelated articles on Wikipedia about this subject, see:
Phillip E. Johnson; Wedge strategy; Discovery Institute; Howard Ahmanson, Jr

Contents

[edit] American Theologian category

User Gilbert says: I am going to try once again to take off the "American Theologian" category. Johnson is not trained as a theologian and by no stretch of the imgagination can you even argue that he is a theologian. Get over it. 8-3-05

[edit] ISBN links

Are the ISBN links really appropriate? And, how do we split the commission from his publishers? Alai 05:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they do no harm. See Wikipedia:ISBN. You can buy them from Amazon.com using one of the links and Amazon will donate a fee to the Wikimedia Foundation, possibly others will too if you're anti-Amazoninst types. Dunc|☺ 14:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No policy is articulated on whether or where to use them. I think they look pretty ugly as used in this article. If the book has a page of it's own, by all means cite the ISBN there. If not, is it worth doing so right next to a dead link? At the worst, a references section would be tidier. Alai 18:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you create a bibliography at the bottom of the article, where that list of titles (and ISBNs) could go, without disturbing the flow of the body text? I agree that it is bad form to plop an isbn in the middle of a sentence. --BTfromLA 18:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion coming

I am going to make big edits on the edit that was just added to this article. Here is my reasoning.

The contributer added a very large 'criticism' section about 'Teach the Controversy'. This would be much better off at the article Teach the Controversy than here. Secondly the criticism is intellectually flawed, since it summarises to 'we shouldn't teach the controversy since there isn't one'. The very fact that we are talking about it indicates that there is a controversy. Millions of people in the US alone think that alternative views of evolution deserve space in teaching - thats enough to be a controversy.

Finally, this is another case where the contributer is trying to conduct a debate under the pretense of writing an article. Adding all the the reasons why they (the contributer) thinks Johnson is wrong is good for a debating society, but bad for an encyclopedia. People come here to find out about Johnson and what he says or thinks, not to get embroiled in an argument about whether he is right or not. DJ Clayworth 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --VorpalBlade 16:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved most of the 'criticism' section to the 'philosophy' section, since much of it was quotes from Johnson himself (presumably he wasn't criticising himself). Some of the rest was duplicates of the philosophy section. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who is paying for all of this?

Talking about money, there is interesting controversy surrounding the funding of the Discovery Institute - see below. Ian Pitchford 13:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Genesis To Dominion Fat-Cat Theocrat Funds Creationism Crusade by Steve Benen Americans United for Separation of Church and State from: Church & State, July/August 2000

Anti-evolution crusader Phillip Johnson, dedicated his 1997 book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, to "Roberta and Howard, who understood 'the wedge' because they love the Truth."

The mysterious reference is apparently a note of thanks to Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and his wife Roberta, a wealthy and secretive Orange County, Calif., couple who have generously funded the anti-evolution movement and other right-wing causes that advance their fundamentalist Christian outlook.

Howard Ahmanson, however, is no ordinary fat-cat. The savings and loan heir has maintained a long-time relationship with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace American democracy with a harsh fundamentalist theocracy.

Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take "dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders, including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and those who spread "false" religions. They regard the teaching of evolution as part of a "war against Genesis."

Ahmanson served for over two decades on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation, Rousas J. Rushdoony's Reconstructionist think tank that serves as the intellectual center of the movement. Ahmanson has also generously supported the Foundation's work.

As for Ahmanson's interests in opposing evolution, his relationship with leaders such as Johnson raises a series of questions about how the movement to "defeat" evolution is paid for and what the larger agenda might be.

There is little doubt that the Ahmansons have the resources to help finance anti-evolution efforts. The family's wealth grew exponentially during the 1950s and '60s when Howard Ahmanson Sr, made billions in the savings and loan industry. After his death, his estate was divided between his son Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation, which had $663 million in assets at the end of 1996. (H.F. Ahmanson & Co., the parent company of Home Savings of America, had over $47 billion in assets in 1997.)

With a vast fortune in hand, the Ahmansons are playing an active role in ensuring the anti-evolution movement's success.

According to Reason magazine, promotional materials from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute acknowledge that the Ahmanson family donated $1.5 million to the Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy." In fact, the August 1999 issue of the Discovery Institute's Journal recognizes an Ahmanson outfit for providing the Center's start-up funds.

With such high-powered assistance, the Center has quickly become a leading anti-evolution organization. The center's senior fellows include some of the highest profile advocates of "Intelligent Design" creationism, including David Berlinski, William Dembski and Michael Behe. Johnson himself is listed among the center's two official advisors.

Additionally, Roberta Green Ahmanson provided the funding for Dembski to appear at her alma mater, Calvin College, a conservative Christian school in Michigan, to promote his approach to attacking evolution. Although he claims to be interested only in the scientific "evidence" against evolution, Dembski's appearance was listed as part of the college's "Seminars in Christian Scholarship."

Funding from the Ahmansons is not always obvious. For example, the Fieldstead Institute is an extension of the Ahmanson empire, which frequently provides financial support for creationist causes. Dembski's appearance at Calvin was sponsored by a group called Fieldstead and Company. (Both appear to derive their name from Howard's middle name, Fieldstead.)

Ahmanson has also taken an interest in providing money for other political causes, including support for voucher subsidies for religious schools and opposition to gay rights and pornography. In the January/February 1997 issue of Religion & Liberty, published by the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, he argued that the Bible opposes minimum wage laws.

Ahmanson's opposition to evolution remains part of his larger agenda of establishing a fundamentalist "Christian nation." In the coming years, as different groups and personalities step into the anti-evolution fray, Ahmanson's role bears watching.

[edit] Johnson and his 2 controversies

I've cut the entire HIV-AIDS section:

Johnson is involved in a movement challenging the scientific orthodoxy that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[1] This group asserts, broadly, that there is no scientific evidence that HIV actually causes AIDS, and that while HIV and AIDS are correlated, they are not universally correlated, as (it is argued) there are people who have AIDS symptoms without HIV and people with HIV who have no AIDS symptoms. They argue that correlative statistics are misleading, because AIDS is defined by the presence of the HIV virus, so that a person with tuberculosis and HIV has AIDS, but a person with Tuberculosis but without HIV does not have AIDS. One researcher for the organization reported finding over 4,000 cases in which AIDS symptoms were suffered without HIV, but these cases were not counted as AIDS because the HIV virus was absent. Since, they argue, there is no known mechanism of causation nor is there a perfect correlation, they conclude that the cause of AIDS is as yet unknown.[2] Johnson's view that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is an opinion rejected by the scientific and medical communities at large.

Except for one link to a co-authored paper, this is not about Johnson. it as a rebuttal to virusmyth.net's claim that the HIV-AIDS connection is not fully established.

I suspect someone put this in here, to "prove" that Johnson doesn't think clearly on one topic, so he must not be thinking clearly on the other topic (i.e., intelligent design). This is ad hominem argumentation, and should not be part of an encyclopedia article.

It would be okay, though, to say something like:

  • critics of Johnson cite his 1994 papers on AIDS causations as blah, blah blah
  • Professor M. Ito Chondria argued that if his reasoning is so faulty about HIV - which everyone knows causes AIDS - why should we listen to him about evolution?

I suggest we mention the paper he wrote himself:

and characterize it not as denying any connection between HIV and AIDS but as strongly criticizing the arguments that HIV causes AIDS. Uncle Ed 18:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Give it rest, Ed. Back to pushing a creationist POV again? The content is exceptionally well supported. Your criticisms and edits smack of POV-deletionism and dissembling. You're going to have to step up with some better reasoning than that to delete well-supported content. FeloniousMonk 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What does ID promote?

Cut from intro:

, and promotes creationism as an alternative

I'm not sure intelligent design promotes creationism. Isn't there a controversy about that?

If it's not true then it shouldn't be in the intro because false information shouldn't be in the article at all!

And if it *is* true, then it's only a click away. If anyone reading about Johnson has no idea what intelligent design is, they can click on the link and its intro should say what it promotes.

The present article should be about Phillip Johnson. Uncle Ed 20:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, pull the other one. Dunc|☺ 21:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is all semantics but technically I think Ed is right here. I have always seen intelligent design as a repackaged form of creationism. Savey proponents of I.D. seem to be quite explicit that ID is NOT creationism and certainly don't promote creationism. However, they have not managed to train their followers to do the same which is why ID smacks of promoting creationism in, for example, the letters pages of local newspapers. I think Ed is coming from the savey perspective possibly not realising that ID cover has been blown. David D. (Talk) 23:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Teaching the controversy Ed? Three points: 1) Anything that says the universe was arranged in a particular way for life is a form of creationsim definition, by necessity. 2) All leading ID proponents have stated that they believe the designer is God (and likely the Protestant God, at that), 3)As to which form of creationism ID is, it's Neo-Creationsim. There is no controversy about these three points except from ID proponents themselves who think the backdoor to the science class room is still open. FeloniousMonk 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian minister and Christian leader categories

Johnson is a Christian leader because he's called the father of the intelligent design movement. By definition, he's a Christian leader. Johnson is a Christian minister because he speaks at churches and is vocal about his Christian faith. --Jason Gastrich 23:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But I thought Johnson touts ID as science, not religion? Wasn't that the whole point of the recent Dover trial? With regard to minister, if thats how you define a minister then it's fine with me. I always thought it was more official than just speaking to congregations. David D. (Talk) 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
ID is usually seen as science and not religion, but I don't think that matters much here. Johnson is a Christian and a leader in the ID movement.
"Christian minister" is a loose phrase. Basically, if you are a Christian and are sharing your faith and/or the biblical scriptures, you're a Christian minister. He wouldn't fit the category of Christian pastor, though. --Jason Gastrich 23:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Not all Christians support ID. I believe you're committing a Fallacy_of_composition. Some Christians support ID, that does not mean ID is, itself, "Christian." It's just something some Christians support. There's a difference. Further, as the Dover case shows, you can't have it both ways. Science is not religion and religion is not science. You've actually just demonstrated what torpedoed the ID case in Dover. Mark K. Bilbo 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed inaccurate quote

2/11/06 I removed a quote attributed to Johnson that he never really said according to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post_4.html the editing dialog never gave me an opportunity to explain the edit in the edit history so I'm doing it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.216.76 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Wedge Strategy Quote

FeloniousMonk, Even if it is a valid paraphrase, we should have something on the webpage making clear that it isn't a direct quote having it in the "quotes" section could be highly misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs) .

Felonious, its still needs some indication of the original context. In particular, the way the quote is placed along with all the completely direct quotes, it makes it look like Johnson said everything in the quote, not just the parts that have single quotes around them. This should be remedied. JoshuaZ 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus." It's clear the article's author, Rob Boston, is quoting Johnson [3]. I see no need for a qualifier about paraphrasing. FeloniousMonk 00:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I like your compromise, it makes it pretty clear what parts are not direct quotes and what are. JoshuaZ 03:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect definition of Intelligent Design

I noticed something incorrect in the introduction. Intelligent Design is NOT a form of creationism. I'm not going to attempt to state exactly what Intelligent Design is, but creationism is a literal interpretation of the Genesis story from the Bible. Intelligent Design has been referred to as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" (see [4] for the quotation in context) by Adrian L. Melott, a physics and astronomy professor at the University of Kansas. Whether or not Dr. Melott's assessment is true does not make them one in the same. Although I doubt this clarification makes much difference to Intelligent Design critics (of which I am, by the way), I don't believe that perpetuating misinformation will help anyone understand what Intelligent Design is or is not.

The problem is you're using an incorrect definition of creationism, not that the article uses an incorrect definition of intelligent design. Try reading the Dover trial ruling for a better understanding of the issue: [5] FeloniousMonk 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ID is not Biblical Creationism, since it doesn't insist that the Book of Genesis is the literal truth, but it can be regarded as a form of special creationism in that the Creator intervenes in the process of creation at various relevant points in the evolutionary sequence. There is also a strong perception among Darwinists that ID is really just a repackaged, updated, Version 2.0 derivative of Biblical Creationism, dispensing with the inclination of Biblical Creationists to make scientifically outrageous claims -- such as the Earth being a few thousand years old -- while retaining the core theistic concepts. Calling ID "creationism" could be regarded as a bit of a smear tactic, however -- though Professor Johnson would have to be the last person in the world who could complain that such treatment was unjust considering his grand condemnations of Darwinism. MrG (28 Nov 06)

Doesn't Johnson adhere to creationism as a religious fundamentalist? That's the impression I got from an interview I saw on TV with him about ten years ago. While there may be evidence to challenge, update or modify the present generally accepted iteration of Darwinism and related doctrines as the last word (which there never is in science) of cosmology and human history, there is overwhelming evidence, as with the idea the earth is flat, that the world was not created in six days approximately six thousand years ago. Of course, this is an idea that Johnson and fundamentalists sidestep in their campaign to point out discrepancies in evolutionary theory: that their competing theory had no evidentiary basis whatsoever. Tom Cod (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Johnson & UC Berkeley

Does anyone have any background on Dr. Johnson's relationship with UC Berkeley administration? It seems that his views were tolerated, which is possibly a bit surprising for Berkeley, though no doubt there was at least a faction who didn't enjoy hanging around with him.

The question is relevant to the whole notion of "academic freedom" relative to ID.

MrG (27 Nov 06)

Johnson's relationship with UC Berkeley administration is that he is a tenured member of the faculty of the law school. I don't think I understand what the question is getting at. Like comparable institutions, Berkeley in general and Boalt in particular, has a diverse faculty with a wide range of political philosophies. (I might contrast that with institutions that are notably not comparable academically or w/r/t academic freedom, such as Liberty University.) At any rate, as a former Boalt student, I can attest that Johnson wasn't generally around (emeritus) but did I think participate in a debate once, and received a lot of school support when he had an health problem. --lquilter 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As another former Boalt student who was taught by him when he was around a lot more, I can say that back then he was tolerated but not loved, by students or faculty. He only started his campaign of tripe when he'd achieved tenured status, and there was nothing the school could do; it would have surprised many of us if that crap had been tolerated from a junior faculty member. atakdoug (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was surprised to see that a prestigious institution like Boalt, which operates on such a high intellectual level, unlike say, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University or some other fundamentalist institution, would have someone on their faculty who promotes such churlish views. But then again, he was a law clerk to Earl Warren. Moreover, the views he expresses are of a topic of which he has no particular specialized training or expert knowledge beyond that of most lay people; after all its not as though he's on UC's biology or paleontology faculty. Thus the crediblity of his views, while respecting his First Amendment rights to hold and advocate them, can be seriously called into question by educated persons and surely many at UC view him as an embarassment as a result. Finally, Johnson like his cothinkers generally, emotionally concludes, like the Church did concerning Ptolemaic earth centered astronomy 500 years ago, that evolution is somehow a moral question when it is not.Tom Cod (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health Problem

He seems to be shaking in this video [6] and to have aged extremely fast lately. Any information about his health problem?--Filll 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well as the article said he has suffered a series of strokes. Which brings me to why I am here: according to Ron Numbers' The Creationists (updated version), it says that Johnson has, since his strokes, taken some pretty wacky positions in regards to the role of women in society. This should probably be added to the article. --24.147.86.187 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I quickly skimmed through the Expanded Edition of The Creationists and could not find any mention of post-stroke wackiness on any of the pages indexed as referring to Phillip Johnson. Could you provide more details (page numbers and/or subsection titles)? Hrafn42 05:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg

Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He Said it!

We ought to see humans occasionally being born to chimps or perhaps chimps born into human families Read the whole interview here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html

Are all IDers this ignorant about biology and evolution or just the grandfather of IDC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bad source, NNPOV claim

While it may well be true that Phillip Johnson was "reborn" after a divorce, we can't use an obvious polemic as a source. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html just isn't an acceptable source. We're going to have to look for better evidence, I'm afraid.

If you want to revert, please contact me first. Talk or User Howfar (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is an electronic reprint of a chapter of a book (edited by Robert T. Pennock) by Barbara Forrest, a legitimate academic and a court-acknowledged expert on the history of ID. As such it is most emphatically a WP:RS. I am therefore reverting. HrafnTalkStalk 03:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thank-you for contacting me. I believe that I was over hasty in deleting the content outright and would like to apologise for that. However, I still think that we need to look at the way the source is used and the position the statement occupies within the article.

I think that we have two problems. The first is that the there is an implied judgement upon the validity of Johnson's arguments in the statement, "became a born-again Christian following a difficult divorce". It implies a particular chain of causality, one that Johnson's original quote does not. I don't think that this is appropriate to an encyclopaedic article. Johnson never described his divorce as "difficult". If you remove "difficult" from the sentence, it seems pointless to tell us that his religious conversion happened after his divorce. At this point in the article "Johnson is a born again Christian" would seem to be sufficient.

Second, "(according to Barbara Forrest)" seems to be a combination of bad writing and bad sourcing. If it is a fact we don't need the parentheses and the source is given by the footnote.

First proposal: We include the divorce information in the article based on Forrest's original source, not her claim and citation. I think this would certainly improve things. Phillip Johnson seems a reliable source in this context. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/insightprofile1099.htm
Second proposal: We incorporate the information into the section, rather than having it as a single sentence in the lead paragraph. Maybe after "Johnson is an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA)." we have "Johnson describes his conversion to Christianity as being motivated by, 'The experience of having marriage and family life crash under me, and of...seeing the meaninglessness of [academic success].'"

What do you think? I won't go ahead and edit right away, as I'm a little irritated with myself for being trigger happy in the first place. Howfar (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious conversion following a substantial life-crisis (divorce, death of a loved-one, hitting rock-bottom with alcohol/drugs, etc) is not an uncommon occurrence. Given that Johnson himself links the divorce and his acceptance of Christianity together, I don't see any problem with Forrest doing so. I'm not particularly happy with the current wording (which seems to misrepresent Forrest somewhat), but do not agree with your wording either. The link is divorce to conversion to ID. Johnson himself makes the first link, and Nancy Pearcey makes the second one (which is entirely credible, given Johnson's lack of a scientific background). Forrest (a reliable source) draws this together from two ID primary sources. I think the article should articulate this point more clearly, and more clearly attribute it to Forrest, but that's my main problem with the current wording. HrafnTalkStalk 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Neutral Tone

I am anxious that this article is not only be fair and just, but is also perceived as being so. If I may put my cards on the table, I think the ID is bunk and Johnson is a charlatan. However, I also believe that other people should be able to make up their minds about this, without my opinion intruding. I believe that most people, when given good information in a neutral manner, will make the right judgement. I have no doubt as to what that judgement is. Making sure that the content and tone of articles like this are above reproach is vital if we want their readers to learn the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howfar (talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn that the subject of this article was "Phillip E. Johnson" not 'ID advocates generally'. So why are you repeatedly trying to turn "his" into "their"? The intellectual dishonesty of other advocates is documented in their own articles in excruciating detail (and so can be relied on here per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions). Here we are documenting Johnson's dishonesty. Your edits don't seem to be altering any perceived neutrality issues so much as muddying what the subject of the article is. HrafnTalkStalk 10:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a fair comment. However, it was not the reason that you gave for your original reversion, so it seems unfair to claim that I am doing something "repeatedly". Instead, I removed the reference to other ID advocates, as this still accurately represents the sources and better focuses the article. You do understand that my difficulty with the original version was that it included what appeared to be an allegation by the article rather than an allegation made by a critic? By removing the off-topic information, we improve the article from both our points of view, yes? Howfar (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit that I reverted changed "his" to "their" twice, so it did so "repeatedly". There are only a limited number of characters available in an edit summary, so rather than repeating myself, I did the all IDers are intellectually dishonest in the first revert (per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions cited above) and the "what is the subject" in the second. While I think the dishonesty of his fellows is defensible from information cited in their respective articles, the issue is too tangential to be worth a lengthy argument (this is after all an article on JEJ, not ID, the IDM or the DI), so I'm accepting your most recent edit. HrafnTalkStalk 15:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn has taken issue with some re-wording and grammatical improvements I just made. So I'll take them one at a time, starting with Nancy Pearcey's views, CREDITING Philip Johnson's work in the ID movement. In the cited article, especially in the quote copied to the WP article, she clearly supports Philip Johnson's efforts. She is not begrudgingly allowing the truth of some unpleasant fact, she states it approvingly it as her lead point. Why then do you insist on the word "ACKNOWLEDGE"? It is your own POV, showing that you yourself do not approve of Johnson's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keno (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Weinberg on Johnson

This quote should not be included as:

  1. Weinberg is a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist, so his opinion is inexpert.
  2. It is a misquote, as what Weinberg in fact said was "The most respectable academic critic of evolution may currently be Professor Phillip Johnson" (Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature, p247, my emphasis)
  3. It is taken out of context -- he goes on to criticise Johnson's claims.
  4. It was written in 1992, before the dishonesty of Johnson's intelligent design movement tarnished his reputation.

HrafnTalkStalk 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While Weinberg's opinion of Johnson might warrant discussion in the body of the article, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn's points, especially the last three, must be addressed if Weinberg's statement is to be included in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A more accurate characterisation of what Weinberg wrote would be to state:

In 1992, physicist Steven Weinberg stated that "[t]he most respectable academic critic of evolution may currently be Professor Phillip Johnson" but went on to criticise Johnson's claims.

His Nobel Prize would only be relevant if the comments were about physics. He only said "currently", and he said it 16 years ago. Also the correct context is that he went on to criticise Johnson's claims, not to applaud them. Further, I agree with Guettarda that this belongs, if anywhere, in the article body. This is not a famous evolutionary biologist acknowledging Johnson as a critic of evolution, so is not particularly noteworthy. HrafnTalkStalk 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Weinberg seem to be implying that critics of evolution are so lacking in credentials that Phillip Johnson, a law professor, was the "most respectable" of them? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really, it's been a few days since I read his actual text, but that's not the impression he gave. I think that it's more that this was before his arguments had been shredded in sufficient detail, and with sufficiently high a profile, that even non-biologists realised the full scope of their lack of merit. HrafnTalkStalk 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This link gives Amazon's search facility for the book, if anybody's interested in reading the page in question. HrafnTalkStalk 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Since there have been several different comments by more than one person, let me try to address each of them in turn.

First, as to Hrafn's concern about describing Steven Weinberg as a Nobel Laureate: I did not include the description to imply that he won a Nobel Prize in anything other than physics, but simply to accurately describe him as a notable member of the scientific community. Since the "scientific community" is the group that was referred to in the immediately preceding sentence, I included Weinberg's credentials as a member of that group. Perhaps "scientific community" should be revised to be less ambiguous and general.

His Nobel Prize makes him notable in physics, not when discussing a field unrelated to physics. HrafnTalkStalk 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Second, it should be up to the reader to decide how relevant it is that Weinberg is or isn't a biologist. The sentence included a link to Weinberg, which would allow any reader to learn who exactly Steven Weinberg is. Either way, I am happy to revise the sentence to include that Weinberg is not a biologist. At the same turn, the sentence about the "scientific community" should be revised to be less ambiguous.

Nope. Weinberg is not a biologist, therefore it is questionable as to whether he is a WP:RS on whether Johnson was (back in 1992) "respectable" as a critic of evolution, and it is an editorial decision as to whether mentioning him gives this inexpert opinion WP:UNDUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Third, that Weinberg is a critic of Johnson's isn't mutually exclusive with the fact that Weinberg considers Johnson to be evolution's most respectable academic critic.

They are not mutually exclusive, but stating one without mentioning the other is misrepresenting Weinberg's position. HrafnTalkStalk 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourth, if Weinberg has publicly changed his opinion about Johnson, then that should be included in the article. Otherwise, it is just conjecture to assume that Weinberg thinks differently about Johnson. Biaswatchdog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.11.7 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are, of course, a number of issues here. You seem to have missed the most important one - this information most definitely does not belong in the lead. In addition, there's the issue of how this is presented. The way you present the statement is also misleading, because it comes across as if this is a current observation when it's a decade and a half out of date. If it is to be presented, it needs to be presented in a way that isn't misleading to the average reader. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Guettarda brings up an interesting point. By his standard I've also excluded the statement about the scientific community as it is reductive and belongs in a section concerning criticism about Johnson's views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biaswatchdog (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Biaswatchdog, the statement you blanked is supported by several references that are not in dispute. It belongs in the lead because it places Phillip Johnson's views in proper perspective. His are views are not scientific and belong to a fringe sociopolitical movement. Not mentioning this in the lead would be misleading, pardon the pun. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, strictly speaking the statement I deleted is not supported by the references. No one journalist speaks for the entirety of the scientific community. The statement is therefore reductive and unsupported. In addition, it is not misleading for it not to appear in the lead. There is ample space to include the statement in the section reserved for criticisms about Johnson. Readers need only look a few lines down to find it. (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.11.7 (talk)

I'm certainly not going to get into a lawyerly argument with a single purpose account editor about what reductive means and whether any source truly supports anything at all. You are operating against consensus. By the way, you can sign your comments using the shift key and hitting the key to the left of the '1' (on most English-language keyboards), the "tilde," four times. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should engage in "lawyerly" argumentation if that will force you to deal with ideas instead of resort to ad hominem ("single purpose account editor") and ad populum ("you are operating against the consensus") methods of argumentation. Biaswatchdog (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Noting that you are a single purpose account editor is not ad hominem because it is true and pertinent to this article. And while ad populum on its own is not a valid argument for establishing truth, Wikipedia is, for better or worse, not concerned so much with truth as with verifiability. Consensus is of great value on Wikipedia and I encourage you to respect this. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves what ad hominem actually means. From our ever reliable Wikipedia about the topic: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

A statement need not be false to be ad hominem, but distracting from the substance of the argument. So with that little reminder let's return to the original issue we were discussing - the verifiability of a claim as broad as "the scientific community does [anything]". The sources cited for that statement did not support this particle sentence which is why I removed it. If you would like to replace it with a more coherent, "verifiable" sentence, I would welcome the edit. 198.181.11.7 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)