Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

1 Response to Suggestion on "Teach the Controversy"
2 Introduction is Still Propaganda
3 Monk's Proposal II with edits that had growing consensus
4 Proposal III
5 Proposal 4
6 Comments on Proposal 4
7 Final comment
8 Summary of comments on Proposal 4
9 Ian Pitchford's claim that Congress is not government
- 9.1 New Comments
10 An unacceptable first sentence
11 Proposal II -- to replace the first sentence
- 11.1 Edit to Mel's change
12 Renewed call for dialogue on opening sentence

Response to Suggestion on "Teach the Controversy"

As Robert M. Young has often pointed out power often lies with the person who defines the situation. In this case the power to define the situation in the US public school system as one in which evidence against evolution is not taught lends legitimacy to the campaign to coerce biology teachers to teach something other than the position of mainstream science. Of course, members of the “teach the controversy” campaign want to claim that they are only arguing for the evidence to be taught and critically evaluated in schools, but the very existence of a campaign with those aims as stated implies that the majority of educators are either incompetent or corrupt, i.e., allowing the proponent’s definition of their aims to stand doesn’t contribute to the debate or to understanding of any kind but of itself ends the debate by acceptance of a thought-terminating cliché. Absolutely no one disgrees with “teaching the evidence”, but only a very, very few agree with “teaching the controversy” and so it’s pretty fundamental that these two phrases must not be equated if we are to give two hoots about the integrity of the US educational system.

With regard to the material presented under the heading “Square One” the following phrases are standard creationist propaganda

”contemporary Darwinian theory” – educators don’t teach “Darwinian theory” they teach contemporary evolutionary biology in accordance with the consensus in the scientific community. That consensus is challenged by contributions to the peer-reviewed literature, not by political campaigns or sloganeering.

”the growing controversy over biological origins” – the theory of evolution isn’t a theory of origins. Creationists like to give the impression that it is so that people are left with the choice between either creation or evolution, i.e. either you can be a decent god-fearing person and choose creation or you can side with the evil materialist teachers and scientists by choosing evolution. Even mainstream Christianity doesn’t accept the position that there is a conflict between belief in God an acceptance of the theory of evolution.

Anyone interested in the scientific consensus on the other items of propaganda in the article regarding the Cambrian explosion, natural selection etc can simply read the relevant reports produced by the National Center for Science Education or the detailed responses archived at talkorigins.org.

”intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins” – ID is not a new theory of origins - it was proposed by William Paley in 1800, and as I mentioned above we are not dealing with two opposing theories of origins here, that is simply the fundamentalist assertion.

”scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism” – evolutionary biology is not based on “Darwinism” orthodox or otherwise. This eponym is used specifically to imply that evolutionary theory is based on dogma.

“polls show that over 70% of the electorate favor teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution” – of course they do, but “Darwin's theory of evolution” isn’t taught in schools, if it were students would know nothing of genetics, which does not appear in Darwin’s theory. Educators teach contemporary evolutionary biology!

Just as MPLX/MH says “in America, censorship should be the dirtiest word of all” and the “teach the controversy” movement shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it by the use of clever phraseology and by misrepresenting what educators and scientists do. Ian Pitchford 09:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction is Still Propaganda

My comments have not been absorbed at all. Here they are again.

The summary includes the criticism that you cite — that teaching the evidence is not the same as teaching the controversy, because there is no genuine controversy.
We're not engaged in 'the debate', we're an encyclopædia.
If Teach the Controversy is a Wikipedia article, then it has to be presented fairly; that is, its aims should be cited as it cites them. That's a fundamental, in fact, for any scholarship, whether encyclopædic or original: the more that you want to criticise something, the more careful you must be to present it fully and accurately, so that the proponent or subject would say "yes, that's right, that's what I want to say". If you can't bear seeing what you disagree with presented in that way, then I'm afrad that Wikipedia isn't for you. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. stating the actual state of affairs isn't criticism. We're not in the business of peddling alternate realities as a ruse to secure political advantage.

2. we're are engaged in the debate if we hand over defintion of a concept to the fringe group that wants to change its meaning.

3. I'm sure you'd agree that good encyclopedias are a contribution to scholarship and scholarship is fundamentally about honesty. This movement is an exercise in deception, not an honest attempt to categorise or describe anything. There might be a few members of the movement who have no background in biology and really believe all the nonsense about "Darwinism", but by and large I think those involved know they're peddling lies. You've only got to look at something like Icons of Evolution to see just how carefully the arguments are constructed to give a false impression. Only someone who knows the facts could really mislead so well. Ian Pitchford 20:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the material presented under the heading “Square One” the following phrases are standard creationist propaganda

”contemporary Darwinian theory” – educators don’t teach “Darwinian theory” they teach contemporary evolutionary biology in accordance with the consensus in the scientific community. That consensus is challenged by contributions to the peer-reviewed literature, not by political campaigns or sloganeering. ”the growing controversy over biological origins” – the theory of evolution isn’t a theory of origins. Creationists like to give the impression that it is so that people are left with the choice between either creation or evolution, i.e. either you can be a decent god-fearing person and choose creation or you can side with the evil materialist teachers and scientists by choosing evolution. Even mainstream Christianity doesn’t accept the position that there is a conflict between belief in God an acceptance of the theory of evolution. Anyone interested in the scientific consensus on the other items of propaganda in the article regarding the Cambrian explosion, natural selection etc can simply read the relevant reports produced by the National Center for Science Education or the detailed responses archived at talkorigins.org. ”intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins” – ID is not a new theory of origins - it was proposed by William Paley in 1800, and as I mentioned above we are not dealing with two opposing theories of origins here, that is simply the fundamentalist assertion. ”scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism” – evolutionary biology is not based on “Darwinism” orthodox or otherwise. This eponym is used specifically to imply that evolutionary theory is based on dogma. “polls show that over 70% of the electorate favor teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution” – of course they do, but “Darwin's theory of evolution” isn’t taught in schools, if it were students would know nothing of genetics, which does not appear in Darwin’s theory. Educators teach contemporary evolutionary biology! Just as MPLX/MH says “in America, censorship should be the dirtiest word of all” and the “teach the controversy” movement shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it by the use of clever phraseology and by misrepresenting what educators and scientists do. Ian Pitchford 10:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, on the other hand, with much of the above. Although we have to present the Design Institute's position fairly, when what it says is false or inaccurate, we have to say so. Your comments on intelligent design are more dubious, though; tracing it to Paley seems more than a little arbitrary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ian here, and would support including his points in the article's intro. FeloniousMonk 13:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monk's Proposal II with edits that had growing consensus

Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the on-going debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community. The fact that there are ongoing debates as to the details of evolution's mechanisms and that to describe those discussions as a "controversy" is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of many Teach the Controversy proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design, which they contend is non-theological. In support they point to numerous quotes of principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including the originator of the term and concept, that they believe state just that.

Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate on-going debates in the scientific community. They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference.[1]

How can anyone possibly understand this introduction without concluding that, "oh, 'teach the controversy' means 'teach the evidence for and against evolution'. If the US needs a political movement for that our scientists and teachers must be dreadful liars or incompetents". That's precisely the propaganda effect that these people want.Ian Pitchford 16:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal III

Teach the Controversy is a movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for American public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents, in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community. They argue that to describe the continuing debates as to the details of evolutionary mechanisms as a "controversy" is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of many Teach the Controversy proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design, which proponents contend is non-theological. In support, the critics point to numerous quotations from principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including its originator, that they believe just that.

Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community. They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference.[2]

This is basically Mel's version with Monk's first sentence. You can compare Mel's to Monk's if you compare recent versions of Proposal II. I strongly object to Mel's first sentence, because I think it is false or very misleading. It is a bigger movement than the DI. You can say the DI is the leading proponent. But it is a coalition of groups and individuals. There are lots of little state organizations in support of it that have nothing to do with DI. This insults them and others that may dislike DI for other reasons. DI has a lot of policy positions on a lot of topics.

Also, as noted above, it is not just a "political action" movement. When a biology teacher uses the model plan on her own, she is not engaging in "political action." This is POV labelling that should come out.--VorpalBlade 12:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To cut down on what's already an unwieldy Talk page, could we add whole chunks of articles only if they're necessary (for example as a starting point for debate)?
If you can supply the list of organisations unrelated to DI that are arguing for this, then they can be added to the article. If it wasn't devised and propounded by the DI, then fine; who did come up with it? I can easily make that change.
The summary doesn't say that it's DI's only policy, so I don't understand your complaint.
All political action that has any success has individual effects; the fact that it has such effects doesn't stop it from being political action. Moreover, this is clearly an attempt to change the educational system at the political level, whatever individual effects it may have; I don't see that calling it a political-action movement is PoV. If it were in place, and its opponents were trying to remove teaching of creationism in schools, then they'd be leading a political-action movement. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is the burden on me to prove the converse of something you added? You should make an argument for your change and achieve consensus.

Having said that, you can read the Jay Matthews article in the Wash Post. He supports the movement and has nothing to do with DI.--VorpalBlade 12:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here you go:

Ohio Minnesota

--VorpalBlade 12:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with vorpalblade. calling this a political movement is inappropriate, because it's much, much broader than politics. and as to mel's comment that <<If it were in place, and its opponents were trying to remove teaching of creationism in schools, then they'd be leading a political-action movement.>>, on the contrary, i think we'd find it being promoted by wikipedia as a "grass roots movement led by scientists and concerned parents trying to protect the 1st amendment ..." Ungtss 13:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel, let's put it differently-- what's wrong with Monk's first sentence? If you can't convince all users that your version is better or necessary, we should stick to the version that had the growing consensus. We should keep the first paragraph as simple as possible so we can all agree. Put anything that hints POV in the next paragraphs about opponents and proponents. --VorpalBlade 13:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That dog don't hunt. TTC is a political action movement by defintion. Not to mention as a matter of deductive reasoning. And not to mention it's implicit in Johnson's quotes and DI policy statements. FeloniousMonk 14:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(after two edit conflicts}

I was trying to incorporate the complaint of MPLX (above), that the summary made no mention of the progenitor and main proponent of this approach. It frankly didn't occur to me that it was in any way controversial, and I find the emotion expressed in arguing against it to be perplexing. Why must you see every change with which you don't agree as a personal attack, or an attack on your principles, etc? In what was was the reference to the Discovery Institute PoV? According to the Discovery Institute article:

The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman and George Gilder in Seattle, Washington]], USA to create a think tank based upon the ideas of C.S. Lewis and the concept of Intelligent Design in the creation of all things, versus the random evolution of all things. It is this ideaolgy that forms the core of its programs, and the Discovery Institute promotes the educational concept of presenting both intelligent creation and random evolution as part of one unified teaching process through its Center for Science and Culture. Because these ideas often cause conflict when debated within the same text, the Discovery Institute has called its program Teach the Controversy.

Ungtss's argument is based on what Wikipedia would call something if it happened (especially not when i's claimed that Wikipedia would be 'promoting' it); I prefer not to second-guess Wikipedia, but instead say what would be the case. A movement that tries to effect change at a political level is a political movement. Again, why the outrage? What do you see as so PoV about calling something that's aimed at influencing political decision-makers a political-action movement? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I feel very strongly about using Monk's first sentence that is more general and does not say the movement is program of DI. See my cites above to other state groups.

As to phrase "political action" I agree it is. But it is not just a PAM. So a general description in a good encyclopedia should be inclusive of all manifestations of the movement. Saying its a PAM focuses on one aspect.

Having said this, if we can a agree to Proposal III with the addition of the phrase "political action" I can agree with this version. I only ask you consider my point in the above paragraph about what makes a good encyclopedia.

--VorpalBlade 14:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree it is a PAM. Even one of your links above is to a self-admitted PAC, EdAction. "EdAction is entirely user-supported. The continuation of our work is dependent upon individual contributors. EdAction is a political action committee."[3] FeloniousMonk 14:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel, please stop mischaracterizing my posts with phrases like "outrage" and "personal attack." I said I strongly object. I am not outraged, and I certainly don't feel personally attacked. I do strongly object to something is very misleading. Again, it is true it is promoted by DI, but DI is one of many groups. A good encyclopedia starts with a general descriptions. --VorpalBlade 14:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we all agree to Proposal III with the addition of the phrase "political action" ?--VorpalBlade 14:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is your claim that TtC didn't originate with the DI, or that the DI isn't its principal proponent? If not, then I'm still unsure why this shouldn't go into the summary, as it's clearly an important piece of information. It can, of course, be changed in order to characterise accurately the place of the DI, but I don't understand why reference to the DI should be omitted altogether. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. My point is that a good article starts general. The movement is clearly not limited to DI, and the article shouldn't imply that.

Either of the following are fine with me, for the first para. and we can take out the ref. to Johnson if your want. I agree with you, and I think adding it this way is a good change.

Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for American public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically. It is a coalition of various groups and individuals, and the leading proponents are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson.

Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for American public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically. The originators and leading proponents are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson.

--VorpalBlade 15:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moving the new language to the second sentence is fine with me too. --VorpalBlade 15:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If a good article article starts generally, then TtC's being devised and principally propounded by the DI should be mentioned at the beginning, and more specific details (such as who else supports it) should come later, in the body of the article. Also, the proposals would both need tidying (with regard to grammar & wikification). Still, do they have support from other editors? The current version, for reference, is:

“Teach the Controversy is a Discovery Institute program. It is a political action movement in the United States which proposes an education policy for American public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.”

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calm down, and read the complete summary; this is just the first paragraph. Your insistence that the article should be nohting but an attack on TtC is getting you (and us) nowhere. If you can manage to find it in you to collaborate on this, instead of insisting on your own PoV, we might get somewhere. If, on the other hand, both sides keep insisting on getting everything they want, the article won't be unprotected until long after we're all drawing our pensions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could start with the actual description of the proposal from the Discovery Institute as copied above "Since intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins, we recommend that students not be required to learn about it. Nevertheless, we think they should learn about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism." The propaganda elements "biological origins" and "orthodox Darwinism" are much clearer here. I don't see the justification for ignoring what the DI people actually say. Ian Pitchford 16:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mel as to Ian's points. Readers know by saying it is a "movement" that what follows is their position. They learn what critics think in paragraph 2, which is soon enough. They can then read on and decide for themselves. If Ian wants to propose a change to paragraph 2 in some way, that seems like the best solution.

As to the placement of the new language, we can move it to the second sentence. Why isn't that soon enough? The movement itself is bigger than its leaders and its originators, and the article should not imply otherwise. --VorpalBlade 17:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at placement of founders at these sites: Teach for America Greenpeace Save the Children Just Say No --VorpalBlade 17:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is this?--

Teach the Controversy is a American political action movement that proposes an education policy for public schools in the U.S. This involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. The originators and leading proponents of the movement are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically. The originators and leading proponents are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson.

--VorpalBlade 17:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking there's no real movement called "teach the controversy" at all. This is just the latest tactic introduced by the Discovery Institute following the failure to get intelligent design taught in Schools. Ian Pitchford 20:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems OK to me. Any objections to it as a first paragraph? Can the rest of the Summary stay as it is? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for US public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. The originators and leading proponents of the movement are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Comments on Proposal 4

I created Proposal 4 so we are all on the same page. This is fine with me. I changed "American" back to "United States" because some of my South American friends get annoyed at using "American" to refer only to the US.

Fine; I was just following usage on most other articles, but it doesn't matter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose we change the active page now (since this is a relatively minor change), and then work out any other changes after. If Ian wants to change para. 2, for example. --VorpalBlade 21:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should wait until all active editors have had a chance to see and decide on this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, I mainly meant before diving into other areas, like para. 2 --VorpalBlade 21:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, this version has a better claim to being a "provisional consensus" version than the existing one. --VorpalBlade 21:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The introduction can't really stay as it is because it doesn't make any sense. We wouldn't have an article stating that "The 'teach the controversy' movement of the Flat Earth Society advocates an education policy for US public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against the idea that the earth is an oblate spheroid, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves."

The article can express the beliefs of the movement accurately without implying that those beliefs are valid, which is what the current wording does. Ian Pitchford 07:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that, as our lazy or cretinous readers won't get past the first paragraph, we need to say everything there? The rest of the article provides ample argument against the (admittedly false and rather silly) claims of these people. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mel. Ian, the flat earth society doesn't have the support of the US Congress, US President, Ohio Dept. of Education, as well as the states of New Mexico and Minnesota (which is the home of Walter Mondale and is a state that went for Kerry), as well as 65% of Ohioans. This education policy is just not as wacky as you want to believe. Regardless, the first para. has to stay "just the facts."

Well, I don't think the support of any of those groups, nor the wackiness, is part of or relevant to what I said. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Mel, I clearly addressed this to Ian, not you. Why take it so personally? It is interesting that you go to the effort of disagreeing with me, even when I am agreeing with you and addressing someone else. Remarkable. --VorpalBlade 12:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a policy about including information about the Cambrian explosion and encouraging students to analyze it critically or witholding that information. Is the Cambrian explosion not relevant information? Why are you so afraid of having it a part of the curriculum? Gould, Chen, Stanley and many others think it is a very important part of the fossil record.

I don't really see the relevance of this.

The actual implementation of the Model Lesson Plan by Ohio is not relevant? That is the very heart of the matter. The failure of opponents to critique that on the merits is astounding to me. --VorpalBlade 12:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I mean that I don't see the relevance of this to the question of the (first paragraph of the) summary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Mel, many Chinese paleontologists doubt evolutonary gradualism much more than do their Western counterparts and resent the imperialism of smug western scientists telling them how to interpret the Cambrian fossils found in China. I hope you read this article from the Boston Globe. [5] I would think your appreciation for African philosophy would make you open to the possibility that we westerners may not have all the answers just yet. The smug westerner medical establishment used to thumb their noses at acupuncture too, and now there is some acceptance of its effectiveness.

Again, I don't see the relevance of this to the discussion.

"But the new fossils have become nothing less than a challenge to the theory of evolution in the hands of Chen, a professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology. Chen argues that the emergence of such a sophisticated creature at so early a date shows that modern life forms burst on the scene suddenly, rather than through any gradual process. According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can’t account for the speed, the breadth, and one-time nature of “the Cambrian explosion,” a geologic moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record."

If you don't see the relevance, I can't help you. --VorpalBlade 12:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's not relevant to what we're talking about now. We're supposed to be trying to deal with one thing at a time. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

It was directed to your comment above about "the (admittedly false and rather silly) claims." It was also an attempt to find some common ground with you, since we both see value in cultures not our own. --VorpalBlade 12:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was a comment to Ian Pitchford, in fact, trying to get him to see that he's not battling a group of ignorant fundamentalists, and that I share much of his view of this — but that that's not the issue.

I've spent a ridiculous amount of time on various articles concerned with video-game characters, teeny-pop bands, etc., carefully improving the English and the Wiki-coding. I could, I suppose, think to myself that it doesn't matter, because the subject matter is silly, and leave the articles in a mess — but I'm trying to be a Wikipedia editor. that's what I'm trying to be here too. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is about an education policy that involves questioning a theory honestly, it is not about teaching belief in Creationism. Do we adopt a policy of not honestly evaluating theories, just because some are afraid it may play into the hands of religious people? It's a sad day (and scary) when it comes to that. --VorpalBlade 11:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, in fact I don't think that it is about that; I think that it's a group of fundamentalist Christians trying to get their unscientific and largely valueless views into the U.S. education system by the back door. That, however, isn't the point either. I've already made my position clear, which is to do with Wikipedia policy, and the way to present the article neutrally, within the Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV. I'm more than happy if people agree with that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If that's what you want to believe, it is your right. I'm glad you finally got your non neutral point of view out in the sunlight. That helps explain your actions on this page. And your personal attacks on me. Thanks. --VorpalBlade 12:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course I have a 'non-neutral' point of view, as do you and everybody else involved here. The difference between you and me is that I'm trying to deal fairly with both sides of the question in an attempt to get a neutral article. You want an article that reflects your views, as does Ian Pitchford. It's the clash of horns over that which has led to the current position. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think my statement is clear enough: the introduction shouldn't tell lies. I hope this is not a radical proposal! This group can claim that evolution is controversial in science if they want to. They can claim evidence is suppressed in schools if they want to. The actual state of affairs is as clear as in the Flat Earth Socity example.

This is not really the place for the debate about the facts of evolution itself, but the Cambrian Explosion is called that precisely because it did take place over a relatively short period of time, geologically speaking. However, 30-40 million years is not a short period of time, evolutionarily speaking. Just compare the Earth now with what we know of it 40 million years ago. There are plenty of websites explaining scientific knowledge about this period. Readers needn't refer to the Boston Globe!

The political support from Congress referred to is that education "should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science" and so you could just as easily claim that this warrants the study of the Discovery Institute as a poltical organization interested in promoting intelligent design creationism as science, i.e., as provisional knowledge open to empirical test, which clearly it isn't. As for opinion polls, these apparently show that 80% of the US public thinks the government is hiding knowledge of aliens. These are not the way forward in constructing curricula Ian Pitchford 12:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The summary should tell the reader (in summary form) what the movement says, what its opponents say, and how it responds. Do you not think that it does that? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's fine for the introduction to say exactly what the movement claims, without any judgement one way or the other, but it shouldn't actually give their slant on this issues. Perhaps this page should just be scrapped and an appropriate entry made on the existing Discovery Institute page. The only thing I really like here is the audio and video references I compiled, which I think are rather useful in evaluating the issues! Ian Pitchford 22:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The difference between 'say what the movement claims' and 'give their slant' is a little too subtle for me, I'm afraid. Given that the article isn't going to be scrapped, we need to make it as neutral (and as clear and accurate) as possible. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As written the introduction censors out the movement's own description of its own intentions. I don't think that is a very subtle point. At the moment the intro makes the movement sound like some sort of philanthropic body devoted to high standards in science teaching. This is clearly false, e.g.,

:::But why would a lawyer be sticking his nose in a scientific controversy? The whole point about Johnson’s lecture was that the controversy over biological evolution and life’s origins is not just about the arguments concerning scientific evidence that the respective sides use in support of their positions (and in order to defeat their opponents). Instead, Johnson explained how the origins controversy in its present form is very much a lawyer’s dispute, in that the philosophical commitments of scientific powerbrokers and the rules of the game that they have set up have rigged the game from the start. The result of all of this is that the only possible answer as to how complex life began and developed must be a naturalistic one that involves the purely mindless, naturalistic processes of necessity and chance. “Science” is thus defined as an enterprise that seeks only naturalistic explanations of events, and since because creation would involve a supernatural explanation of events, it must be excluded from consideration a priori, regardless of the evidence. Evolutionist scientists that exclude the possibility of creation through definition thus do so on the basis of a commitment to a philosophy that seeks to explain all of reality in terms of material causes. For these scientists, science is synonymous only with material causes and science is also synonymous with reality. Thus, anything outside of the closed material world is not real and cannot confer knowledge. Creation is outside of reality, has no epistemic value, and is relegated to the world of “values” and subjective personal preference. [6]

Or you could take Philip Johnson's own description that educators are currently involved in "indoctrination", or "We call our movement the Wedge because a wedge is a tool that can split the toughest and thickest log-Darwinism-which has dominated the 20th century. It seems impenetrable, but one can always find a crack and drive a wedge into it. As one drives the wedge deeper, the crack widens until the log inevitably splits wide open." or "Biology is the great holdout. Some of the most famous biologists went into biology because they want to banish any idea that God is the Creator of life. Cosmologists can afford to recognize a Creator at the very beginning, provided the Creator is thereafter inactive, but biologists find the Creator immensely threatening, because a Creator who takes a role in the life processes is a Creator who is too close to us, who might care about what we do. That's scary, particularly if you are doing a lot of things you know the Creator wouldn't approve of." or "I work hard to keep the debates friendly, because I want my opponents to keep coming back for more. Usually that works, but sometimes they get very upset. After all, I am attacking their religion! I don't expect that people who've lived all their lives off of scientific materialism to give it up all at once. [7]"

So make up your mind. Does Wikipedia want an article describing the intentions of a movement that members of that movement don't accept in their own writings? It's possible to summarise the real perspective of this group in an equation that Johnson et al use all the time: evolutionary theory = Darwinism = atheism [8] Bottom line: they want to teach kids that evolutionary biologists are atheists and so is every Christian who doesn't accept their interpretation of what theism implies, i.e. commitment to the belief that there is physical evidence for active intervention of a Creator God that can be uncovered by science. Ian Pitchford 09:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised by your conclusions based on your quotes. I don't think they follow logically, but are your own spin. They don't contradict their stated intentions. Defeating philosophical naturalism as an a priori bias in interpreting evidence is one goal. Balanced and fair education (not dominated by a priori naturalism or any other religion or philosophy) consistent with the Constitution is another goal.

Dawkins has nothing but contempt for Intelligent Design proponents and wants to crush them. I also believe he honestly wants to do good scince. I don't presume that the former is his primary reason for doing everything.

People and groups have lots of different goals and motivations. A good encyclopedia doesn't question people's stated motives in the intro paragraph. --VorpalBlade 10:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could we leave Dawkins out of this? He's embarrassing to most intelligent atheists and anti-creationists, and there's certainly no reasoin for him to be included either in the article or in the Talk page. (He doesn't, incidentally, want to do good science; I doubt he's seen the inside of a laboratory for over a decade. he doubtless wants good science to be done.)
I agree that Ian Pitchford's last paragraph doesn't follow from what went before.
On the other hand, the problem with your last comment is that Ian Pitchford has quoted statements, not questioned statements. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This proposed intro looks good to me. i think it states with facts and povs without spin -- excellent work, gentlemen:). Ungtss 14:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Final comment

I'll make this my last comment as this controversy is taking too much time away from other contributions I want to make to Wikipedia. I vote for deletion of the article because it's propaganda; in the absence of deletion I vote for wording along these lines:

The teach the controversy movement describe their goals as blah blah blah [insert however they want to describe them]........ Critics point to the movement's own teachings as reason to believe their goals are other than as stated.

To give the most vivid example I can think of for adopting an introduction with this wording I think most would find this unacceptable:

"The Nazis advocated and enacted policies to eliminate members of inferior races such as gypsies and Jews." [which implies that the context of action against gypsies and Jews is valid].

but would have no problem with this

"The Nazis advocated and enacted policies to eliminate members of races they considered inferior, such as gypsies and Jews." [which makes it obvious that the context is the belief of this group, not the status of gypsies and Jews].

Good luck! Ian Pitchford 14:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are aboslutely correct, Ian. The opening paragraph of the currently protected page is actually still somewhat problematic as the advocacy is done with respect to people who believe that they have scientific evidence against evolution while there is no consensus whatsoever that such "scientific evidence" exists. On the other hand, there is consensus that scientific evidence for evolution exists (even though the advocates of the Teach the Controversy idealization don't believe it). What should be made clear is those who advocate teach the controversy have an agenda -- in particular they are opposed to evolutionary biology. An invention of a "controversy" is an important step in begining the process of ridicule of an idea. For all intents and purposes there is absolutely no controversy in the scientific community involving evolution. The "controversy" advocated is therefore extra-scientific. Joshuaschroeder 16:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting POV, but it is your POV. It is not mine. We have to find consensus here. All these points are fully addressed in the second paragraph. The first para. should simply describe the movement neutrally, if we want an NPOV encyclopedia. Readers can read the first, second and third paragraphs, and hopefully the full article, and decide for themselves.--VorpalBlade 23:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Vorpalblade. With this in mind we should reword the bit about "scientific evidence against evolution". Joshuaschroeder 02:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary of comments on Proposal 4

I am in favor.
I understand Mel Etitis is in favor.
Ungtss is in favor.
Monk has not commented directly but drafted the original version (and Proposal 4 has very few changes from that).
Ian thinks it needs more work, but has bowed out of the discussion.

JoshuaSchroeder thinks it needs work, but only recently came to the discussion.

Based on this, I am going to edit to replace the current intro with Proposal 4 (which is a fairly minor edit). This seems to be the version closest to full consensus.

I propose that we follow Wiki policy going forward and that large or controversial edits be worked out in the discussion room before they or done. If an edit causes controversy, we should agree to go back to the previous version until we can get a consensus.

Thanks for your cooperation in working this out.

--VorpalBlade 13:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford's claim that Congress is not government

[Some of this was copied from the archive.]

I am speechless.--VorpalBlade 11:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? That's pretty elementary political theory. No one part of the political system is the government, except in dictatorships and the like. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The heading didn't say "the government." It said "government action." US Congress and Ohio Dept. of Education are parts of the government, and what they do is government action. See Congress.--VorpalBlade 11:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the bill that contains the Conf. Report was signed by the President. --VorpalBlade 12:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

________________________________

New Comments

Since I haven't gotten a response to this, I am going to change back to Government Action, which was the heading before Ian's changes that started the previous edit war. He changed the heading without adding any comments here. Let's please discuss so we don't get in another edit war.

"Political" more commonly refers to lobbyists. The text is consistent with the heading "Government Action." "Intervention" suggests that it is a realm that the government normally isn't involved with. It is strange to say that the Ohio state Dept. of Education "intervened" to set education policy. This implicitly questions the legitimacy of it, which is not neutral. --VorpalBlade 14:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. the government is a legal entity. agencies, departments, and congresses are subsets of the government. official acts made by agents of the government are acts by the government itself, unless they are illegal (i.e. USC 1983). when the government acts, we should correctly note that it does so, rather than adopting the rather strained interpretation that the government intervenes on its own policy. Ungtss 14:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An unacceptable first sentence

Here is the first sentence as it now stands:

"Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for US public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves."

There are two problematic parts to it. First of all, it is making the non-neutral claim that there is evidence against evolution without stating what that evidence is. Of course, Teach the Controversy doesn't explicitly mention any evidence either. I propose that we make explicit the fact that Teach the Controversy doesn't actually make suggestions for content but rather makes claims about content which may or may not be substantiated. This would be an honest way of presenting the idealization. Secondly, many of the Teach the Controversy documents refer to debates that are extra-scientific -- that is they are not explicitly about debates within the scientific community. If they only wanted to include debates within the scientific community, as defined in scientific community then there would be no debate about the merits of evolution but only the details.

I propose the following change to the first sentence:

"Teach the controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for US public schools that invovles presenting to the students the scientific basis for both sides of the creation-evolution controversy."

Comments? Joshuaschroeder 15:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you've done excellent work, Josh. I agree. Ungtss 15:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. As discussed at length above, just stating what the movement is about does not affirm or imply anything about the validity of what it is about. It just states it neutrally. Then the second paragraph says what opponents think. I understand Monk and Mel and Ungtss are in agreement with this.

We need to describe it neutrally without any hint of bias. To state that there is scientific evidence against evolution is very biased. It needs to be eschewed. Claiming that there may be scientific ways of looking at the controversy isn't biased and is, as I understand it, the nuanced view that is coming out of the Teach the Controversy camp. Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To invoke the creation-evoltion controversy is not what the movement wants to do. That is precisely what it wants to avoid on Constitutional grounds. Therefore it is false or very misleading.

This may be a matter of definition. If it isn't wanting to invoke the controversy, then why is it called "Teach the Controversy"? Maybe it believes that there is a separate controversy, in which case, that controversy needs to be explicitly stated. If it isn't the creation-evolution controversy, what controversy is it? Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It only wants to look at the theory of evolution and the evidence that tends to confirm it and the evidence that tends to falsify it and the on-going debates in the scientific lit.

What ongoing debates? I read three biology journals on a regular basis, I see no evidence for a debate there. I do see evidence of a debate with regards to the published works of creationist and IDers, but that is hardly "scientific lit" or a debate within the scientific community. To be perfectly neutral on the subject, we might point out that Johnson et al. think taht there should be a scientific debate on the subject, but to state that there is one is very misleading. Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Evidence against evolution" is shorthand for any evidence that could be reasonably viewed as tending to falsify the theory of evolution.

Reasonably viewed by whom? Evolutionary biologists? Members of DI? Students? This seems to me to be a poor definition because the people that think there is a controversy have a very different definition of "reasonable veiwed as tending to falsify" than those who think there isn't. To be honest about this, we have to refer to a controversy and that the rules of the controversy are that evidence should be considered scientifically. To state that there exists evidence or not is a highly problematic insinuation for an encyclopedia trying to be NPOV. After all the "controversy" surrounding "Teach the controversy" is over that very thing. Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may think that the Cambrian explosion does not, in fact, falsify evolution, but scientists have had to come up with explanations, because it does not easily fit the Darwinian predictions. It could reasonably be viewed as evidence tending to falsify evolution.

It isn't reasonably viewed as scientific evidence that is tending to falsify. Opinions about an observation is not evidence one way of another. The Cambrian explosion can be seen easily from the context of evolution as shown by most every evolutionary biologist who has studied the issue. To claim it doesn't "easily fit the Darwinian prediction" is making a claim that there is a universally accepted "Darwiniain prediction" with regard to the supposed event. Since this isn't the case, it isn't really evidence in the same way. One might describe a controversy over the Cambrian expolosion and taxonomic definitions, but to be perfectly honest, to claim that the Cambrian explosion is evidence that is "reasonably views as tending to falsify evolution" is a view best left to be considered on pages dealing with creationist argumentation. It is an opinion about implications. It is not evidence against. As such, your claim is not considered by most in the scientific community to be a scientific view. It may be a view about scientific observations, but it is not "evidence" in the same way that healthy offspring of mutated animals is evidence against Lamarckian evolution. (Incidentally, the Cambrian explosion is something of a misnomer [9]). Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many, respectable scientists view the Cambrian explosion as at least a paradox or a mystery that has not been fully explained. Some view it as falsifying macroevolution.

Here's the issue: currently the Cambrian explosion is mentioned in many biology texts and as a part of class. However, since the evidence for its implications on evolution are inconclusive at worst and in favor of evolution at best, there really is no cause for this to be paraded as "scientific evidence against evolution". This would be akin to claiming the Pioneer anomaly was evidence against gravity. That's just not part of the scientific consensus on the issue. The Cambrian explosion manifestly is not scientific evidence against evolution. It is an observation, but the extra-scientific speculations on this are hardly considered scientific material. Since the Cambrian explosion is already taught in many biology classrooms, it is clear that the Teach the Controversy idea isn't just advocating for teaching about the Cambrian explosion. It is advocating for teaching that the cambrian explosion has a "reasonable" interpretation that it is "falsifying evolution". Those are two very different endeavors and the second one is not neutrally described as simply offering evidence "against evolution". It's not "evidence" in the scientific sense. Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you want to make the claim that there is absolutely no evidence tending to disprove evolution. If you do, it starts looking more like pseudo-science.

The analogy I made above to the Pioneer anomaly is illustrative here -- altough there is consensus in the scientific community as to how to view the Cambrian exposion in the context of modern biology while the Pioneer anomaly remains a controversial mystery. "Evidence tending to disprove" is just not the way scientific progress works. In fact, this language is only used in a post hoc sense when describing old theories that have been rejected after scientific revolutions. There hasn't been a scientific revolution yet that has replaced evolution with either creationism or ID. If you disagree with this, then you should start your own endeavor, but it will not be science. As such, to claim it is science in the first paragraph of this article is highly controversial, to say the least and should be reworded. Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read the Ohio Model Lesson Plan that is cited in the third paragraph. That gives more examples.

I did read it, and frankly, find it unimpressive. Just what do you think it proves with respect to the first sentence? Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--VorpalBlade 15:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You make excellent points. we should definitely take the movement on its own terms, rather than our personal research interpretation of it. however, i think schroeder has a good point, tho, with regard to the implicit assumption that there is actually evidence against evolution. while i agree with you and johnson that there is, i don't necessarily think it's appropriate for the sentence to assume that there is. is there some way we can attribute this more effectively? Ungtss 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with "taking the movement on its own terms". What I do have a problem with is making neutral claims about the existence of external idealizations outside of the movement. Let me try to reword it again. (see next section) Joshuaschroeder 17:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sentence three does it adequately as does paragraph 2. We could move sentence three up to sentence two, but Mel thought the sentence about the leaders should come next (see discussion above). Either order is fine with me. --VorpalBlade 16:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, i think you're right. i can't think of any way to attribute it without making it incomprehensible, and that is indeed the stated purpose of the movement. in the absence of any realistic way to remove the assumption from that first sentence, i think the second and third sentences do a fine job:). Ungtss 17:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite see it the same way. The first sentence has some rather major assumptions that are not explicitly pointed out. Writing a sentence that makes assumptions clearly biased toward one side is not NPOV, even if subsequent sentences/paragraphs knock down the idea. We need to be clear that while the "Teach the controversy" proponents believe that there is a controversy, it is actually a controversial belief that isn't widely held in the education or scientific spheres. Please see my above proposal and comment. Thanks. Joshuaschroeder 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal II -- to replace the first sentence

"Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes a education policy for US public schools that presents arguments for and against evolution and then encourages students to evaluate the arguments themselves. Its advocates believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence against biological evolution that is systematically ignored and downplayed in current curricula. The movement is designed by its proponents to present an alternative to the paradigmatic hegemony of evolutionary biology without specifically invoking the creation-evolution controversy. "

Comments? Joshuaschroeder 17:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about this, which is entirely in the Discovery Institute's own words [10]

The “teach the controversy” movement in the United States is described by its advocates as an approach to science education in which competing perspectives held by credible experts in the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution are presented to students along with explanations of the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. Promoters of this cause cite constitutional law, federal education policy, public opinion polls and the potentially salutary effect on students’ ability to assess evidence as sufficient justification for the approach.

Ian Pitchford 18:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think "credible experts" is problematic. In the DI's proposed lesson plan they include resources that are, in my science education opinion, far from credible. Joshuaschroeder 19:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but at least this describes the argument as they would have it, makes it clear that its their view, and acknowledges the credibility of their "experts" as a legitimate issue. Ian Pitchford 20:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the phrase doesn't make it clear that it is their experts. It also doesn't make it clear that the debate is only scientific in the eyes of those at DI and their supporters. Can we reword it so this is clear? Joshuaschroeder 00:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can comment further on your proposals, but for now I thought Ian's first sentence had potential. Why not use that intro to make clear it is their position, but keep the rest the same? We could lose the third sentence which has some redundancy.

The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States, as described by its advocates, proposes an education policy for US public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. The originators and leading proponents of the movement are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson.

I think it makes sense to keep as much of the consensus intro as possible. --VorpalBlade 03:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any description that describes itself as the position of its advocates. What the introduction shouldn't do - and what it does now - is to present a point of view as though it's fact: the only fact is that it's a POV and that fact is not made clear. We must have a NPOV introduction. The Discovery Institute is welcome to claim that there is scientific controversy and that their contributions to the debate over that controversy are scientific. I do have one important proviso though: the advocates of this movement have to make it clear whether they are questioning Darwinism, neo-Darwinisn, Darwinian evolution, orthodox Darwinism or the theory of evolution. These terms are not interchangeable! Meyer refers to Darwinian evolution not to the theory of evolution. The former isn't accepted whereas the scientific consensus on the latter is that's is fully supported by the scientific evidence. Ian Pitchford 08:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any introduction will also need to address the fact that the movement is a political action movement and a not grassroots movement, etc. FeloniousMonk 16:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit to Mel's change

I thought Mel's edit wasn't really accurate, because it implied that only what they claimed to be the evidence for and against would be used, whereas, they want to teach all the relevant evidence from the scientific literature. The first change I made was to use the way Ian formulated the first sentence, which I thought was more accurate and more neutral. --VorpalBlade 18:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The English didn't support that implication, in fact. As the summary stands, we're presenting what they say as if it were the truth. Later comments might well state criticisms, but that's not the point; we should remain neutral, and thus we should make it clear that they're appealing to what they claim to be the existence of scientific evidence against evolution. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renewed call for dialogue on opening sentence

As we stagnate below with the discussion on whether this article should be kept, can we come to a consensus about whether a new sentence can be written that's not as problematic? No one has made a specific criticism of my suggestion, so I suggest we work from it (since the DI's definition contains at least two problems as yet unresolved). To remind everyone, my idea was as follows:

"Teach the Controversy is a political action movement in the United States that proposes a education policy for US public schools that presents arguments for and against evolution and then encourages students to evaluate the arguments themselves. Its advocates believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence against biological evolution that is systematically ignored and downplayed in current curricula. The movement is designed by its proponents to present an alternative to the paradigmatic hegemony of evolutionary biology without specifically invoking the creation-evolution controversy."

My claim is that the so-called "consensus" intro isn't really a good consensus because it isn't clear about what is opinion and what is fact. This opening sentence (to be followed by the sentence two and three of the opening paragraph) is very clear about what people believe what. We aren't making any claims about "scientific evidence" in the policy itself since that is definitely disputed, but at the same time we are clear that the movement leaders believe that there is scientific evidence that is ignored. I don't think it is overly unfair to anyone, but will be happy to edit according to appropriate arguments against this thought. Please comment. Joshuaschroeder 16:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, I could comment more, but will not be able to do so today. My short answer is this: I think the current intro, which reflects the consensus version, plus a small change to the first sentence that Ian suggested, is pretty good. Procedurally, I think it best reflects the views of the five main participants on this page over the last few days. Since we worked pretty hard to develop consensus, I would prefer to work from that language, rather than start fresh. However, there are aspects of your intro that I like. What exactly do you think is wrong with the current intro? I think it does a pretty good job of stating what the movement is, without stating the views of the proponents or opponents as if they are "fact." --VorpalBlade 18:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives