Talk:The Edge of Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

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

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, The Edge of Evolution, has edited Wikipedia as
Inspectre (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Other "non-theistic theories of complexity"

the view that Darwinian evolution is the only existing form of evolution, and who take exception to intelligent design as well as other theistic and non-theistic complexity theories.

I'm personally not aware of any non-theistic/supernatural theories of the origins of complexity that are not inextricably bound to evolution. The only thing that even possibly comes to mind is panspermia, but that just moves the question one step back. As far as I know, the only naturalistic explanations of the origins of biological complexity are evolutionary explanations. I move that reference to "non-theistic complexity theories" be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanpoet (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but think that the sentence is messy, and would suggest something along the lines of:

...applies the label "Darwinists" to scientists who hold the view that Darwinian evolution is the only unfalsified theory of evolution currently in existence, and who take exception to intelligent design as well as similar complexity theories that require external (and most probably supernatural) intervention.

[edit] Positive reviews & Chuck Colson

I have some problems how these 'reviews', particularly that of Colson are represented:

  • his claim that other reviewers are "anti-theists" is demonstrably fallacious -- as there has been a prominent review by Kenneth R. Miller, and more recently one in The Christian Century by Joan Roughgarden;[1]
  • even more than Wybrow, his 'review' concentrates on attacking negative reviews by scientists rather than offering any substantive evaluation of the book;
  • he is even less qualified than Wybrow to proffer an expert evaluation of the scientific arguments central to this book.

There seems to be an undue weight problem here, especially when Miller's review in Nature (one of the most prestigious journals around) gets a mere mention in passing while Colson's attack-piece in The Christian Post gets lengthy quotation. HrafnTalkStalk 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we remove the theist comment totally, or point out that it's wrong (a la Miller)? Now that we have several postive reviews beyond dustcover endorsements, I think we could also point out the lack of qualifications of both. Unfortunately I can't read the Nature review, I think that's why it ended up so short when if I edited it. WLU (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a Google PDF->HTML conversion of it here. HrafnTalkStalk 15:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Pointing out the Colson is wrong is original research. I'm not in any event that concerned about the undue weight issue since the main reason Miller's review gets so little attention is that there are so many negative reviews whereas Colson's gets a long mention because it is one of only a few positive reviews as will be apparent to anyone reading the article. Still, the fact that Miller's review appeared in nature might merit having a bit more discussion (possibly another sentence?). If Miller's review had noted his religion we could mention it but its a bit hard to do so when it isn't in the review. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
"Pointing out the Colson is wrong" may be OR, eliminating a demonstrably fallacious statement is not. Bashing scientists for offering negative reviews of EoE quite simply is not itself a review. Here is the paragraph with the non-review attacks eliminated:

Historian of religion Cameron Wybrow wrote a review in The Philadelphia Inquirer, stating that Behe's critics' comments are mostly ad hominem rather than scientific, and criticized editors of publications that reviewed the book for choosing "known enemies of ID to trash the book." Positive reviews also appeared in a variety of Christian publications, such as a positive review in the Christian Post by minister Chuck Colson in which he accused the other reviewers as being "anti-theists" who had caricatured Behe's argument. Colson focused on the review by Richard Dawkins in the New York Times saying that having Dawkins review the book was the "ultimate disrespect", demonstrated a severe lack of objectivity by the New York Times and was "roughly the equivalent of the New York Times asking me to review one of Dawkins’s books".

Not much left, is there? If you want to include these as "positive reviews" you should state what they said about the book, not other reviews/reviewers. HrafnTalkStalk 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I just took my own advice and took a close look at what Colson said about EoE (ignoring his attacks on Dawkins) -- I think it would be fairer to call this a neutral review, not a positive one. Colson essentially says that Behe is conceding too much to the "Darwinists". I am hard pressed to find anything in it that is actual praise of the book. HrafnTalkStalk 17:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the review is neutral. The only thing that seems to be negative is where he observes that Behe accepts common descent and that he does not. Colson says "suggest you ignore the forces that would stifle all dissent, and take a look at Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution. Even if you do not agree with everything in it, as I do not, you do not need to follow the Darwinist line that everything you disagree with must be squashed" - the review is overall positive. I agree that simply bashing other reviewers isn't really much of a review but it is still more or less notable in the context of the controversy the book has generated (I'll refrain from discussing how interesting it is that Colson spends about as much time attacking Dawkins in the review as he does actually reviewing the book). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Also one further point, the fact that the closest thing to positive reviews are people who spend the time attacking the negative reviews rather than talk about the book is revealing in itself. Leaving it as it will let readers draw their own conclusions about what that implies. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Let's look at the sentence you quoted phrase by phrase:

  • "suggest you ignore the forces that would stifle all dissent" -- attack on "Darwinists" not praise for the book
  • "take a look at Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution" -- lukewarm positive statement -- "take a look at" is hardly a ringing endorsement
  • "Even if you do not agree with everything in it, as I do not" -- mild disendorsement
  • "you do not need to follow the Darwinist line that everything you disagree with must be squashed" -- another attack on Darwinists

Taken as a whole, this comes out as essentially neutral: two off-topic attacks, one mildly positive statement, one mildly negative.
As to notability -- "member of the religious right attacks Dawkins" is hardly notable -- and decidedly off-topic in a section about reviews of a book that is not by Dawkins himself.
I agree that the most notable thing about the reviews is how much time they spend on attack -- but see no way of highlighting this within the constraints of wikipedia policy. HrafnTalkStalk 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's more or less why I'd favor leaving it as is. Anyone reading our description of the reviews can reach the conclusion that they spend more time attacking others than reviewing the book. You are right that the review isn't really "positive". Is there a possible section title change we could make that handle this? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The very tepid nature of Colson's 'support' of EoE probably reflects the ambivalence that YECs have towards ID -- their support of it is tactical (in being the thin end of the wedge to eventually get more whole-hearted creationism into schools) rather than accepting that it is a viewpoint with any validity in and of itself.

On what to do, we would seem to have two options:

  1. Leave the section-title as is, have it substantially about positive things said about the book, and make only a brief and general reference to the negative-review-bashing. This would seem to be the most easily defensible position under wikipedia policy.
  2. Change the section-title to "Attacks on negative reviews" (or similar) & list the bashing. But this raises the question: how is a section about non-scientists attacking scientists for shredding purportedly scientific claims acceptable under WP:UNDUE?

HrafnTalkStalk 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The first option seems better than the second, but I'm not sure how to phrase it something like "Both Colson and Wybrow attacked the negative reviewers, claiming that editors had deliberately picked foes of intelligent design to review the book"? That's summarizes almost completely the problem as it stands and keeps it down to a single sentence. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That'd be be acceptable. I also think we need a direct quote from Colson, but avoiding the -ve-review/"Darwinist"-bashing, but the best that I can come up with is: "...take a look at Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution. Even if you do not agree with everything in it, as I do not..." -- which seems a tad messy. Maybe the full quote you gave above (even though it spends equal time Darwinist-bashing, which I suppose is fairly representative of his "review"). HrafnTalkStalk 03:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no preference either way. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another review

Review by David E Levin, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. I don't think it adds anything startling -- but may be useful at some stage as a citation on some point or other. HrafnTalkStalk 06:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it just duplicates pre-existing criticisms, it's still a demonstration of the lack of acceptance by mainstream science. I'd promise to integrate it, but, well, you know. Not so good with the follow-up. WLU (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Skell

WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:Inspectre

[edit] Michael Denton

WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:Inspectre

Can anybody confirm that Denton is still "Senior Research Fellow in Human Genetics at the University of Otago"? I can find no evidence that he is still a member of the Biochemistry Dept (which was listed as his departmental affiliation on his article, until I removed it as being out of date), nor at the inter-departmental genetics research page. HrafnTalkStalk 13:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Until confirmed, how 'bout a 'former' WLU (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"Former" is fine -- he turned up in a 2001 UO phonebook & is mentioned in passing on one of the Biochem Dept staff's webpage -- so he was definitely at the university at some stage. HrafnTalkStalk 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Denton is not an "evolutionary theorist" nor can his books be reasonably characterised as on "evolutionary theory". Denton is a biochemist. His books are creationist pseudoscience. HrafnTalkStalk 03:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, it is irresponsible to make comments like this about books you have not read.Inspectre (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Inspectre would have us believe that Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is "not anti-evolutionary". Did anybody see news reports of aeronautic swine? HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Inspectre would not have Hrafn believe anything, since Hrafn is unteachable. But Inspectre would have Wikipedia readers believe the truth, i.e., that it is not evolution as such, but Darwinian evolution, which Denton rejects. Hrafn would of course know this if he had read Denton's books instead of relying on his usual batch of mean-spirited and ill-informed internet sources.Inspectre (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Inpectre, if you want to martyr yourself for your discredited, delusional, 'WP:TRUTH', please go somewhere else to immolate yourself. Your are trite, absurd, often unoriginal, patently false claims would be more at home in Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch than in a serious forum. You are a dead bore. Now go and find a minefield to play in. Korea's DMZ has a pretty one, I hear. HrafnTalkStalk 06:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I added a citation needed tag at the end of the opening paragraph because a blanket statement was made without a source. Then I scrolled down and saw that citations are given under the criticism and reviews section. Is there something we can do about the sentence in the first paragraph (either remove it or include citations there too)? It is adequately cited further down the page, but does that mean it can remain unreferenced near the top? Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is adequate. A lead simply summarises the the body of an article, so do not need separate citations for information already cited in the body, and do not typically have them (except occasionally as a belt & braces approach on particularly controversial articles). HrafnTalkStalk 04:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing blatantly POV edits by Inspectre

Does anybody, other than Inspectre, believe that the following is legitimately "rephrasing opening to eliminate inaccuracies":[2]

Intelligent design has been overwhelmingly rejected by the old guard of Darwinian evolutionary biologists, partly due to scientific criticism and partly due to the fact that it has been mistakenly understood as creationism.

HrafnTalkStalk 03:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Inspectre fails to grasp WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. Thanks for changing it back to a reasonable version. .. dave souza, talk 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary; Dave Souza (whose previous edit was quite good and fair), fails to grasp that the entire purport of the section I altered was reeking with POV, and was altered for the sake of balance. For one thing, Wikipedia guidelines warn against huge generalizations like "the scientific community," urging people to use specific sources instead; for another thing, "intelligent design" has not been "found" to be creationism, but only "thought" to be creationism by those who do not know the proper definitions of the two terms. Wikipedia guidelines also suggest using insider rather than outsider terminology for the definition of a group, to avoid the perception of bias. ID supporters continually reject label "creationist", and therefore it should not be applied to them in the absence of a proof (supplied nowhere in any Wikipedia article or in any source cited by any Wikipedia article) that ID is the same as creationsm. Judge Jones's "finding" does not count, because he is a federal judge with no knowledge of either science or theology, and therefore utterly unqualified to say whether or not ID is creationism. In any case, this whole sentence doesn't belong in the EOE article, but in the article on intelligent design. This article is confined to the book EOE specifically, and shouldn't be used to take an incidental shot at ID generally, which is what it has been used for from the beginning.Inspectre (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please study these Wikipedia policies with care. .. dave souza, talk 11:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of Cameron Wybrow's statement to Denyse O'Leary

Is this statement of Wybrow to fellow ID-advocate Denyse O'Leary, quoted on her blog, relevant to the article:

After many failed tries, I hit upon a newspaper to publish a positive review of Behe, and a major newspaper, too -- The Philadelphia Inquirer. It runs about 700,000 copies for its Sunday edition! My review is going to be in tomorrow, Sunday August 19th.

I feel it is (at least parenthetically, in providing information as to Wybrow being a partisan, rather than a disinterested observer), but Inspectre seems to feel it isn't (hardly surprising, given that he's given us every reason to suspect that he is in fact Wybrow himself, and thus has a personal interest in suppressing it -- which would mean that he's WP:COIed on this topic). Any outside opinions? HrafnTalkStalk 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Hrafn misses the point of my edit. My point is not that the information he included is false, but that in no other case was the history of the publication of the book review gone into. For example, The New Republic is a left-leaning, atheist-leaning magazine; why wasn't the possibility that The New Republic commissioned Coyne for his congeniality to its views investigated with the same assiduousness that the Philadelphia Inquirer review was? Further, the way Hrafn's change was worded, "managed to get a review published", is vaguely insulting, and was rightly removed by Dave Souza along with a similar comment regarding Ruse' review. Finally, the typical Wikipedia reader is not interested in trivial gossip about how these reviews came into existence, but only about their purport. Along similar lines, silly amazon wars about whether Behe made a "sexist" comment (to a graduate student who repeatedly talked disrespectfully to him in a very public way) are irrelevant to informing the reader about Behe's book and the criticism of its ideas, and don't belong in the article. The remark about sexism has been deliberately included (as has so much else in this article) to create an unsavory impression of Behe, and thus to weaken the appeal of his ideas through an association technique. If that remark is relevant at all, it belongs in an article called: "Sociological Aspects of the Intelligent Design Debate," where the various pathologies of all the combatants can be objectively reported. So at some future point I think the remark about sexism should be removed.Inspectre (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While the blog does apear informative, I don't think we can regard Denyse O'Leary as a reliable source about anything but herself. ... dave souza, talk 11:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Your wording accidentally accedes my point. The New Republic "commissioned" Coyne to write a review. Wybrow shopped his review to a number of papers before he found one to publish it. Thus Coyne is a prominent commentator of on the subject, whereas Wybrow is an obscure partisan. This is something that should be considered in how these reviews are presented, per WP:DUE. I am amused that you call The New Republic "atheist-leaning" -- I think this clearly demonstrates what a Religious Right culture-warrior you are.
  2. Your claim that my change was "removed by Dave Souza" is false.
  3. "Managed to get published" is a fair characterisation of publication "after many failed attempts".
  4. Behe has invested considerable effort into his Amazon-blogging in defense of this book. That this backfired to further degrade what little reputation he had left after Dover, makes it hardly surprising that you now attempt to trivialise it. Behe's notorious complete lack of intellectual honesty means that he has deserves little respect from any genuine scientist (grad student or not), and that he reacted to a blunt shredding on one of his key points (by somebody who, unlike him, is actually an expert in the field), with a puerile ad hominem attack, gives the reader a very good and fair estimation of his lack of intellectual honesty: Behe is, intellectually, a throughly unsavoury character.
  5. The only "Sociological Aspect of the Intelligent Design Debate" of note is that Creationists demonise, misrepresent and lie -- repeatedly, unrepentantly and often blatantly. It is most probably related to their being, almost exclusively, Right wing authoritarians.

HrafnTalkStalk 11:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be said that I did remove "managed to get a review published" after removing similar statements about other reviewers, as rather snarky. The point does seem valid, but without a more reliable source we don't need to give it great prominence. The amazon blogging and Behe's reputation have had wider coverage, and are more significant. .. dave souza, talk 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually Dave you didn't remove my usage of that phrase. It was last removed by Inspectre here, before you started editing this article, and I have not reintroduced it since -- as there seemed to be more blatant issues of POV than this one of WP:DUE weight that needed settling first. HrafnTalkStalk 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of sourcing, I would note that O'Leary blogs for the Access Research Network's official blog "The ID Report]", as well as several other official & semi-official ID blogs (including Dembski's Uncommon Descent]], and has co-authored the pro-ID book The Spiritual Brain. This makes her moderately prominent within the ID community. HrafnTalkStalk 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Denton

I agree with Hrafn that quoting Denton exactly is the way to settle the matter. My allegedly biased phrasing of Denton's point was offered only to counter the grossly biased interpretation of a previous editor. From the beginning I had suggested quoting Denton rather than paraphrasing him in biased terms, so I can't be blamed for the time wasted on this "ludicrous debate."Inspectre (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how nobody seems to see any "grossly biased interpretation[s]" other than those you yourself are producing. You have claimed that Denton is a "evolutionary theorist" (he is not -- he's a biochemist, whose understanding of evolutionary theory is as notoriously superficial and deficient as every other creationist), that his books' fallacious demolition of evolutionary strawmen are male them "on evolutionary theory". You have claimed Denton's mere recitation of Behe's claims as "agreement" with them. The reason why I was more than happy to insert Denton's own words is that they supported none of your points, but rather the previous version. HrafnTalkStalk 12:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to let the reader, rather than Wikipedia editors, decide what Denton's words mean.
As for Denton, he is not a biochemist, at least not by training, as you would know if you looked up the reliable source I originally produced for my entry. He works in a biochemistry department, and I have no doubt he knows a great deal about biochemistry, but his degrees are in physiology, medicine and genetics, and he has become, over the last 20 years, one of the world's leading evolutionary theorists. Further, he has been invited to explain his ideas in "Nature", which no ID proponent would ever be. (See the reference I provided.) Finally, he does not call himself a creationist, and in his first book clearly expresses the idea that creationism (properly defined, i.e., not the way certain Wikipedia editors use the term, but as it has been used in American culture for about 50-75 years now) is no longer tenable. I don't expect Wikipedia editors to be experts on Denton, but if they aren't, they should refrain from basing ANY editing decisions on half-baked impressions, based on rumor, that they have about him.Inspectre (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Inspectre, the "reliable source" you offered for your claim was to a book edited by William Dembski a notoriously unreliable misrepresenter and distorter of the truth. He doesn't work in the biochemistry department at the University of Otago any more (and as far as I can ascertain, hasn't for an number of years -- noir have I seen any evidence that he's moved to another biochemistry dept). Your claim that he has become "one of the world's leading evolutionary theorists" is patently absurd, and wholly unsubstantiated. The whole point of Neo-creationism is not to call yourself a creationist, so the fact that he doesn't call himself one is neither surprising nor informative. The sort of equivocating, ambiguous retreat from full-throated Young Earth creationism that you describe is fully consistent with the position of any number of modern Old Earth, Progressive and Intelligent Design creationists. Your knowledge of Denton, and of the fields in which he pontificates, does nothing to inspire confidence in you. HrafnTalkStalk 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, you even misnamed your "reliable source" when you attempted to introduce it -- it is Uncommon Dissent -- "Uncommon Descent" is the name of Dembski's blog. HrafnTalkStalk 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling error almost immediately, as you will see if you check my subsequent version (which was almost immediately trashed). In any case, you are making a personal judgment about reliability based on your dislike of the editor of the book, whereas Wikipedia guidelines state that published books are considered reliable sources. And you are hardly in a position to dispute the reliability of a published book when you regularly employ as sources angry, foul-mouthed bloggers on self-published websites, which are discounted by Wikipedia policy guidelines as reliable sources. Further, even if Dembski is unreliable, it doesn't follow that the biographical information on Denton in Dembski's book (which was undoubtedly supplied by Denton, not Dembski) is unreliable. For all of these reasons, your disbelief in the information on Denton is therefore willful, not principled.

I was always open to having Denton's geographical location updated, if he has moved. The point was that he held a serious research position in genetics at that time, and therefore was regarded by his employers as a competent geneticist. As for his degree information, that would remain untouched by any moves he made. As for the fact that Denton is an evolutionary theorist, that is evident from the contents of his two books, which you have evidently not read. Whether he is a good evolutionary theorist is of course a matter of interpretation, but that he is an evolutionary theorist is undeniable. Also undeniable is the falsehood of the charge by Gross that Denton writes "anti-evolution books". Denton writes anti-Darwinist books, which is not the same thing, but Gross cannot grasp the notion that evolution might proceed by non-Darwinan means. Gross's inability to rise beyond his own dogmatic training in neo-Darwinism belongs to the study of psychopathology and is no concern of mine. But it's Wikipedia's responsibility not to promulgate his falsehoods. The line about Gross should be amended.Inspectre (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The article on William Dembski is replete with instances of his dishonesty, as well as of his "foul-mouthed blogg[ing]" (including making fart-videos of Judge Jones).
  • Your interpretation of WP:RS is simplistic -- it does not baldly "state that published books are considered reliable sources" per se.
  • Creationists are well known for spinning their, and their colleagues, credentials, so I am perfectly justified in being skeptical about what they say about themselves. Your own continual spinning of your own credentials are a perfect example.
  • Denton's writing is explicitly anti-evolution: "...all the variation exhibited by the individual members of a particular class [is] merely a variation on an underlying theme or design which [is] fundamentally invariant or immutable"
  • Denton's understanding of evolutionary processes have been widely derided as superficial, and he tends to make the typical creationist mistake of arguing from over-simplified (and often highly-inaccurate) analogies, and misunderstanding the complexities when he does attempt to deal with them. It is clear that he is out of his depth with modern evolutionary theory, and thus very easy to deny that he's "an evolutionary theorist".
  • I find your unwarranted ad hominem attacks on Gross to be completely contemptible. He is a genuine expert in the field, whereas you have no qualification with any relevance to modern biology. I would suggest you go back to teaching your students Hebrew (and no doubt indoctrinating them in Biblical inerrancy). To call scientists "dogmatic" just because the results of their research contradicts your religious dogma is both dishonest and pathetic.

In summary Inspectre/Cameron Wybrow/whatever-else-you wish-to-call-yourself, please take your fanatical Creationism elsewhere. Your continual and blatant POV-pushing is not welcome here. Nor is your continual demonisation of legitimate scientists in the defence of proven charlatans. HrafnTalkStalk 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please concentrate on questions of article editing -- which is what this talk page is for -- and save tirades about creationism and about me for your own talk page. I have provided evidence from numerous sources, including anti-Denton sources who cannot be accused of being on my side, that Denton accepts the fact of evolution but disputes the Darwinian mechanisms. Are you saying that dozens of Amazon reviewers have all misunderstood Denton's books, and that only you know what Denton meant? But then you are putting your own opinion forth, and this is the dreaded WP:OR that you are always upbraiding me with. No matter what *you* think Denton means, the sources I cited think otherwise. You must provide a source that shows that Denton is "anti-evolution", i.e., denies that evolution has occurred. (You won't find one, but you can try.) If you can't, you should just grant my point, and my correction. I'm not in an ego-battle here, nor am I in a battle over ID versus Darwin. I'm trying to make sure there are no lies and falsehoods in the article. Gross and Myers have stated falsehoods which were uncontradicted by anything in the article, and I provided sources to correct them. I'm sure you don't like that, but facts are facts and sources are sources. Why don't you start acting like an editor instead of a partisan, and admit when another editor has made a useful correction?Inspectre (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
When you cease employing inflammatory and dishonest Creationist rhetoric, I will cease calling you on it. I am saying that "dozens of Amazon reviewers" are not a WP:RS, even if your characterisation of them were accurate (and it is not). I have provided a source -- a quote from Denton himself. You are repeatedly introducing "lies and falsehoods". That you hate what Gross and Myers have to say does not make it false, it merely makes you appear out of touch with reality. HrafnTalkStalk 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of tirades... Amazon is not a source we can use. Sorry. And all modern scientists dispute the "Darwinian mechanisms". Even Darwin disputed the "Darwinian mechanisms". The exact role and contribution of each of the mechanisms is still an area of current investigation. So what? That does not mean we have to subscribe to people who misrepresent the current situation. --Filll (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fill, you are incorrect. Please check your facts before you write. Amazon has been cited several times in the notes to the EOE article! But even if Amazon book reviews are disallowed, I can easily find statements in Denton's books which directly affirm the fact of evolution, and given time, I can find them on the internet, if you insist on internet sources. Hrafn's quotation from Denton is clearly out of context, and Hrafn illegitimately supplements Denton's meaning; Denton doesn't mean what Hrafn says he does. Anyhow, Hrafn's interpretation of Denton would be OR, so he needs someone else who says that Denton denies the fact of evolution. But let me put it to all the editors-- if I can find a reliable source that shows that Denton is pro-evolution (while anti-Darwinian), will you allow me to make the correction to Gross's false statement? Or do you intend to stonewall and find some other excuse to neutralize Denton's opinion?
I would point out that there is a difference in reliability between Amazon reviews (which every Tom, Dick & Harry can submit) & blogs that Amazon makes available to authors (such as Behe himself). Please read the policy more carefully.
Also, Fill, with all due respect, you are not paying close attention to the detailed intention of my edit. Gross alluded to Denton as "a writer of anti-evolutionary texts". I am saying that this statement is false, that Denton has written no such texts. Your remarks about Darwinian mechanism are interesting, but they aren't pertinent to this dispute. The dispute is over Gross's mischaracterization of Denton. This mischaracterization is indisputable; it's simply a question of finding a source which even Hrafn can't cavil about. And the question is, once it's found, are you guys going to let me make the change, or defend Hrafn's continued vetoes of everything I write?Inspectre (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. Spew away, history boy. Want to make the argument in Greek?--Filll (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also we have clearly used Behe's blog on Amazon under the WP:SPS rule. So what? You going to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin now?--Filll (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And who cares if you find some aspect of evolution affirmed by one creationist or another. Ken Ham argues for both microevolution and super evolution. So what? That does not mean his arguments are accurate or current or supported by evidence or are judged to be currently accepted scientific theory. It is a meaningless claim. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And about Gross: Did gross write that or not? If he did, then he did. If he did not, then he did not. And that is all that concerns us. Whether it is accurate or inaccurate is irrelevant. Just like stating the arguments Behe makes. We describe the arguments. It is not up to us to judge them as true or not. That is up to the reviewers and others. Not us. For us to do it violates WP:OR.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to test your sincerity on this OR thing. Suppose an unimpeachable source (a major journal, magazine, or book published by a good press) contained this statement about the critics of Behe's EOE: "Behe's critics cannot be taken seriously, as most of them -- Matzke, Smith, Gross, Miller, Coyne -- are third-rate biologists with an axe to grind, and hence no scientific credibility." If I find such a source (not written by me, by the way), and enter it into the relevant spot of the article, are you saying that all of you guys would be powerless to do anything about it? That you would let it stand there? That you would not try to qualify it or present a counter-quotation? I'm not threatening to do this, I'm speaking hypothetically. If you really believe the stuff you wrote above, your answer has to be that you would let the quotation stand, unaltered and unchallenged. If you really would do that, then I suppose the distortions introduced by Myers and Gross should also be allowed to stand. But I have my doubts. How about an honest, non-lawyer-like answer? Would you allow such a statement into the article or not? And if not, why can't you see my point about the false charges of Gross and Myers?Inspectre (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure I would include a comment like that. It is not that we are powerless to do anything about it, but if it adds information, then I would put it in. For example, look at my articles on Beyond intelligent design or Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. If there is something interesting on any side of an issue, even if I personally disagree with it, I include it. So I have all kinds of extreme views of one type or another in my articles. I think it makes them more interesting and more useful.--Filll (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that both Kenneth R. Miller & Jerry Coyne are prominent Biologists, independently of their criticism of creationism, WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources would seem to apply (WP:UNDUE would also be at issue). For such criticism of them (and numerous lesser figures) to have any validity, I would suggest that the opinion of a biologist more prominent than either would be required, as well as an impeccable source. HrafnTalkStalk 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Although Denton is now out of the article, I hope I can be forgiven for noting that Denton's PhD was in fact in Biochemistry. Given that there's widespread confusion over its field on the net, I thought it worth while to track it down for inclusion in his article.[3] I also tracked down an excerpt from Uncommon Dissent, it turns out that Dembski doesn't baldly state that it's in "developmental biology", he merely strongly implies it. HrafnTalkStalk 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing Errors in Dustcover Endorsements

Hrafn, once again you have reverted a change of mine, reflexively, automatically, without considering it on its merits. By now, even those editors who share your view of ID must be wondering about your objectivity.

You demanded that I always provide sources. For these changes, I have, including an institutional web-site which documents Tony Jelsma's teaching and research fields, a link to a Wikipedia article on Jonathan Wells which acknowledges his Ph.D. in biology, and a link to dozens of reviews of Denton's books, pro- and anti-, all of which acknowledge that Denton accepts evolution. If you have specific reasons to doubt the accuracy of these sources, bring your reasons to the discussion pages before mindlessly reverting my researched additions. Simply disliking the fact that I caught Gross and Myers with their pants down is an insufficient reason for a reversion.Inspectre (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Um try to calm down. What I saw you were trying to push into the article did not look encyclopedic, frankly.--Filll (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That Jelsma has made a dustcover endoresement has not been verified, the only mention I can find of him is in an acknowledgement as an "adviser" to the book.
You haven't read the EOE article carefully. I never said Jelsma made a dustcover endorsement. I was speaking of his role as an advisor. If you read Myers's comment, you will see that he was referring not to the people on the dustcover, but to the people on the acknowledgments page. Jelsma is on that page. Myers says that NONE of those people are biologists. Even setting aside Wells, Jelsma is. Myers is wrong. Just for once, admit an appropriate correction.Inspectre (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I missed that, for which I apologise. However it would not be unreasonable for Myers to consider somebody whose PhD is in Biochemistry, not Biology, and who teaches in Dordt College, which appears to have a commitment to creationism, as not a "real biologist". HrafnTalkStalk 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you speculate on what Myers might have thought. That is OR. All you know is that he denied that anyone on the acknowledgments page was a biologist. The most likely reason is that Myers was sloppy and didn't check all the names. In any case, your usual petty evasion, that someone has a degree in a different subject from his department, is ludicrous. It's not up to you to decide whether a biochemist knows enough biology to teach biology and do research in it. For you to know this would require OR concerning Jelsma's specific training. The point is that his current employer feels him qualified to teach and do research in biology (see the summary on the link provided). The science faculty at an accredited university considers him, in effect, a biologist. They have said so on their website, which according to WP rules is a RS. You may personally disagree, but as an editor you should accept it.

In your accusations against Myers, you are indulging in WP:OR speculations. No WP:RS is accusing him, you are. As such it has no place in this article, and I can ignore your tendentious arguments in support of it. HrafnTalkStalk 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a further silliness in your reply. Since Behe is a biochemist, and his book is heavily about biochemistry, Jelsma's biochemistry training makes him MORE competent to advise Behe, not less, according to your wooden and artificial notion of specialization. And your same wooden notion of specialization casts doubt upon the qualifications of all the biologists who have criticized Behe; it could be argued that they "aren't qualified" to grasp his biochemical arguments, since their speciality is biology, not biochemistry. The double-standards you employ are astounding.

No, Behe is a biochemist, and displays a woefully ignorance on all manner of subjects (e.g. virology, immunology, parasitology, evolutionary biology, population genetics) that have no immediate relationship to biochemistry, that he ignorantly bloviates upon in the book. Jelsma, also being a biochemist, lets him expose his ignorance. If Biochemists were experts on all these subjects, then why on earth would we need virologists, immunologists, parasitologists, evolutionary biologists, etc?

The argument about Dordt College is guilt by association, the usual sort of logically invalid argument I encounter around here. Besides, while he teaches there, he got his Ph.D. at a secular university, so apparently his "creationism" wasn't an issue for his supervisors.Inspectre (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant because it is entirely possible that Dordt hired a non-biologist to teach biology because he would be more willing to teach Creationism than most biologists would be. HrafnTalkStalk 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The policies and guidelines, which I have recently read, make it clear that "consensus" of editors cannot overthrow them. Myers's remark about Wells is inaccurate or at the very least debatable, and to leave it standing, merely because you guys don't like Wells, is a violation of the fundamental policy of NPOV. That you guys have the power to ignore the Wikipedia policies (whereas apparently I don't), doesn't make it right. You may think that Wells is a bad biologist, but to deny the existence of his Ph.D. in the context of Myers's claim is blatant slanting. Maybe you can live with that kind of editorial dishonesty. I'm challenging it.Inspectre (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that nobody can see this "overthrow" of policy except for yourself. We do not "deny the existence of his Ph.D.", but we most emphatically deny that, given Wells' circumstances, it automatically makes him a "real Biologist". HrafnTalkStalk 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me put it to you this way, Inspectre. I know the Greek alphabet very well. I can even puzzle out a few words. I was exposed to it plenty in many classes, many years ago. I have a bunch of graduate degrees. However, I have never used my Greek professionally for more than equations. I have not read any Greek books. I have not taught any Greek classes. Should I be allowed to demand that I be treated as someone with as much knowledge and background in Greek as you? I think not. And same with Wells. He is a smart guy; no question about it. But he never worked as a biologist, or at least not for a long time. No one would hire him to be a biologist. He makes statements that are completely nonsensical from the view of biology. Other biologists treat him as a loose canon who knows no biology. Wells is a theologian who acquired a little academic boilerplate. That does not mean he is competent to judge things as a biologist.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument, if it shows anything, shows that Wells is a rusty biologist, or lab-inexperienced biologist, not that he is not a biologist. When a physician serves as a Senator for 10 years, we don't say he's no longer a physician; we still call him "Dr. So-and-So." You are missing the point, which is that in common parlance, a Ph.D. in biology would often be called a biologist, and also that Wells calls himself a biologist (and also that he has published at least one essay in a refereed biological journal, regardless of what you might think personally of the essay or the journal). There is therefore some dispute over whether he should be called a biologist. Maybe not at Wikipedia, but in the world at large. Given that there is dispute, Myers's statement requires qualification, e.g., a footnote. You are still free to regard Wells as incompetent if you please, as long as you are honest about the facts. The article currently conceals the facts, and let's be honest, the concealment is deliberate. You don't want the Wikipedia reader to be able to compare the two claims (Wells's and Myers's) and make up their own mind. You want to decide for them, by presenting Myers's statement without comment. That's dishonest.Inspectre (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a further point. Most people would concede that Ph.D. in biology, even if he published nothing for ten years after graduating, is still likely to know much more biology than someone with a Bachelor's degree in biology knows. Yet you people have steadily maintained that Matzke, with a Bachelor's degree, is competent to criticize Behe. So how can a bachelor be competent to criticize Behe, and a doctor incompetent to defend him? If you are going by paper qualifications, you have no argument for your policy. And if you go by your own personal judgment as to who is the better biologist, you are in effect doing OR. Detachment requires that you either discount Matzke as a biologist, or include Wells. And if you include Wells, then you should note the disputability of Myers's claim.Inspectre (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I would suggest you find some WP:RS where someone else is commenting on Myers' comment. Find someone else who says it, if it is so egregious, and quote them. That is what I would do.--Filll (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You have done nothing that ctaches either of them "with their pants down", rather you have been indulging in a contemptible litany of tendentious slander, in a vain attempt to defend Behe, a notorious incompetent who has himself been repeatedly "caught ... with [his] pants down", both at Dover and in this book.

HrafnTalkStalk 17:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing something here. Myers' comments are Myers' comments. Do you deny that?--Filll (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is more or less irrelevant without a reliable source pointing out these supposed errors. As it is right now this is WP:OR. If some notable source makes comments about these errors then we can include them. Until then this is irrelevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dust cover reviews

I have a real problem with discussing the dust cover reviews at all. I do not think dust cover reviews qualify as WP:Reliable sources. Publishers will cherry pick positive comments to place on the dust cover of any book. They do not include the entire review, however. Thus, the comments quoted are taken out of context. We have no way of knowing whether the comment appearing on the dust cover is accurately reflecting the full opinion of the reviewer. In a wost case senario, it is possible for a review to be essentially negative, but for the publisher to pluck out the one positive comment and place it on the dust cover. This sort of puffery can be a gross misrepresention of the review. I am not saying that this has occured with The Edge of Evolution... only that it could happen, and that effects the reliability of dust jacket reviews in general. If you are going to discuss the positive and negative reviews of this book, you should cite to the actual, original reviews, and not snippets quoted on the dust cover of the book or on Amazon.com.

In addition... if you drop discussion of the dust jacket reviews... there is no longer any reason to discuss the qualifications of the reviewers. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problems with ditching them. HrafnTalkStalk 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. It might also discourage some trolling around here.--Filll (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK... to be BOLD, I have removed the section about the dust jacket endorsements. As stated above, if the endorsements are important to include, you should find the actual original reviews that the endorsements are quoted from, and cite to them... such discussion can be placed in context of other positive/negative reviews (which already have sections). Good luck with the article. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)