Talk:The Edge of Evolution/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

References to reviews on Amazon.Com

References 7 and 9 are improperly formatted and/or incomplete. They don't link to anything. It appears they are supposed to link to signed reviews appearing on Amazon.Com. Perhaps an editor who is conversant with the intended references and the correct way to code such a reference can fix this up. Moulton 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Hrafn42 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of View

Shortcut:
WP:DUE

The reviews and summary say nothing about the book's actual content, and is repeating criticism of Behe's first book 'Darwins Black Box' instead. The Negative reviews were expected so they add no real criticism other than this view is different than common beliefs and adds no answers to the questions the book raises. It's doubtful that the authors of this article actually read the book.

The book spends most of its time calculating the rate of mutation of the fastest mutating organisms (ie HIV, Malaria, E Coli) and observes that the rate it would take them to evolve would take longer than the age of the universe by several magnitudes. It then by reduction claims that mammals reproduce many times slower and would never be able to be produced by observed evolution.

I suggest removing the lengthy Review section and putting the comments in the references sections, and instead focus on the arguments relevant to this book. This is a new book that will gain credibility as the public begins to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.155.48.217 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that some reviewers have covered Behe's woeful ignorance of immunology, microbiology and evolutionary biology as applies to HIV, Malaria & E Coli (and in fact seem to remember reading some that do so). It would probably be a good idea if we explicitly mention some of the points these reviews make on these issues. Hrafn42TalkStalk 18:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Critiques of Intelligent Design belong in the intelligent design section, long diatribes aren't necessary here. I think it should only address the issues that are in this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.155.48.217 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Reviews of this book, by prominent scientists, belong on this article, regardless of what you might think of them. Hrafn42TalkStalk 19:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Reviews of Behe's EoE claims on HIV (from "a graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV within patients and within populations"), malaria and the limitations of evolution, as well as his underlying mathematics. These (or similar reviews) would probably be worth working into the article. Hrafn42TalkStalk 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) [Math link added Hrafn42TalkStalk 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)]
These negative reviews are ad hominem or are against Intelligent Design and do not address the book's content. Especially considering the length of these reviews compared to the article. This violates Wikipedia's undue weight requirements, and should be reduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.155.48.217 (talk • contribs)

Additionally, this post has links to a large number of reviews. Hrafn42TalkStalk 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The reviews address numerous failings of the book, which lead towards their overall negative conclusions. They seem fine to me; though there could be some trimming for overall length. WLU 23:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the original complaint has been sufficiently dealt with, in that the negative reviews that are currently discussed in the article deal extensively with the book's contents, and in particular include critiques of Behe's scientific claims. Is it now time to remove the POV-tag? HrafnTalkStalk 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why is it important to note the fact (if it is a fact, rather than an allegation) that Behe's publisher is "conservative", but not to note the fact (which is indisputable) that many of the anti-Behe reviews were published in "liberal" journals, magazines, and papers (e.g., New York Times, New Republic)? From a scientific point of view, it is of course utterly irrelevant (to the truth or falsehood of Behe's arguments) what the politics of his publisher are, and the inclusion of such information smacks of an attempt at argumentum ad hominem (i.e., an attempt to suggest that perhaps Behe's science is tainted by "conservative" goals). This sort of argument by association is not only illegitimate logically, but inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia setting. Further, even if the inference is sound, i.e., that Behe's science is influenced by political considerations, and even if it is legitimate to point this out, then equal treatment must be applied to his critics, i.e., it must be pointed out that their science could possibly be influenced by political considerations. Either this sort of political innuendo is permissible for all parties, or for none. This is an example of a non-neutral POV. The adjective "conservative" should be removed, or balanced elsewhere in the article.Inspectre 06:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No one seriously believes that Behe's work is science, it's a religio-political work which uses the language and forms of science. Much like several other things Free Press has published. Guettarda 07:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, this is not a forum for discussing the truth of falsehood of ID, or the alleged motivations of Behe or the Free Press. It is a forum for the discussion of how articles are to be crafted in accord with Wikipedia principles, which include NPOV. You have given your personal opinion of Behe's work, but you have not addressed the issue, which is how Wikipedia can claim to remain neutral in POV if it employs a subtle form of argument-by-association for one side but not for the other. Editorial integrity requires a principled, not a partisan, answer to this question.Inspectre 08:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I was simply explaining to you that your question is based on a false premise. Edge isn't a work of science, it's pure pseudoscience. That Behe's work is agenda-driven pseudoscience has been solidly established. I'm not expressing my opinion, I'm simply correcting your misconceptions. Guettarda 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hum. If it's accurate, it's not POV, it's simply accurate. However, no source. Deleted. WLU 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, edited too soon. I found a source. [1]. The source says that 'until recently' it was heavily conservative. I can't see a reason to add this to the page though, but I will put it up on the Free Press page. WLU 15:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells

In the interests of collegiality, I will not keep reverting my correction to the P. Z. Myers comment without discussion. My case is simple. Myers made a statement which is false. He said that Jonathan Wells was not a biologist. In normal English parlance, having a Ph.D. in biology makes one a biologist. And if that is not deemed adequate, Wells has published peer-reviewed articles. This information is documented, on the Jonathan Wells page on Wikipedia itself! My correction is therefore in line with any non-politicized definition of "biologist", and cites an acceptable source, and should be included, unless it is agreed to strike out the Myers comment which prompted my correction.

The fact that Hrafn or anyone else at Wikipedia thinks that Wells is not a GOOD biologist is an evaluative judgment that is not for a Wikipedia editor to make. Wikipedia editors are supposed to report the evaluative judgments of OTHERS, not their own. If Myers had said Wells was an incompetent biologist, that would be different. But he said Wells was not a biologist at all, which is contradicted by the information in the public source Wikipedia.

Again I have to politely raise the question of apparent bias. Nick Matzke has an M.A. in GEOGRAPHY, yet his incompetence to write against Behe has never been raised. Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. and publications in biology, yet a slur against his competence by Myers (who is rabidly partisan, as even he admits) is allowed to pass, even when I point out the factual error. Further, the comment from WLU which decides Wells's qualifications on the basis of a reference to Creationism's Trojan Horse, shows a willingness to believe a rabidly partisan book written by ideologically committed enemies of ID. Once again, I ask the editors concerned to look inside themselves and ask if they are being fair, or even playing by the strict Wikipedia rules, which say that my reference and comment, which are properly sourced and stated in an even and factual tone, should stand.

Also, for future reference, I did not intend my signature to appear on the final edited page. I thought we were supposed to sign everything, so I did, but I did not expect it to appear on the final page, as opposed to the preview page. If someone would instruct me as to how to sign an article edit without making my name appear in the final copy, I will comply in the future with the appropriate procedure.Inspectre (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the phrasing somewhat to be clear who PZ is (i.e. that he's a biologist critical of ID). Whether Wells is a biologist or not is not relevant to this because the argument "Wells is a biologist therefore PZ is wrong" is original research. (Incidentally, Wells is not a biologist by most reasonable standards. If someone gets a PhD in _ology a topic and then does no research in _ology for 10 years we don't call them a _ologist. Obvious example, consider all the people with biology degrees who do investment banking with pharmaceutical companies. They aren't biologists. They're investment bankers). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Inspectre is POV-pushing again, and again attempting to whitewash another of the DI's notorious and discredited pseudoscientists:

  1. Wells is primarily a Unification church theologian -- his first PhD is in theology, and he has taught at a UC seminary.
  2. Wells is on record as only gaining his PhD in Biology to aid in his efforts towards "destroying Darwinism".
  3. Wells has never worked as a biologist -- his "publications" are in a notorious pseudoscience rag edited by an Italian creationist with documented links to the DI.
  4. On this basis, it was decided by a consensus at Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)‎ that he should not be described as a "biologist"
    1. Therefore it is not unreasonable for Myers, who both teaches and researches in the field of biology, to consider Wells to be a theologian rather than a biologist.
      1. Your claim that "Myers made a statement which is false" is therefore not substantiated. It is also in violation of WP:OR.
  5. Contrary to your off-topic rant, Nick Matzke has a BSc in Biology (meaning that he knows more about the subject than Behe, who has no degree in the subject), acted as a consultant for the plaintiffs lawyers at Dover (where, as a result, they absolutely skewered Behe on cross), and is now doing a PhD in ... [drum roll] ... Evolutionary Biology. To say that he has "incompetence to write against Behe" is an outright falsehood!
  6. Contrary to your spewing of the DI line (which Judge Jones explicitly rejected at Dover, when he ruled her to be a legitimate expert), Barbara Forrest is a widely acknowledged expert on the history of the ID movement. Her opinion thus has more weight than every one of that incompetent bunch of dishonest clowns at the DI combined.

To be blunt, if we want to hear DI unsubstantiated & tendentious propaganda repeated verbatim, we can go to their website -- your repeating of it here adds absolutely nothing. HrafnTalkStalk 05:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


I would like to point out that my comments were level in tone (in no way a "rant") and completely focused on editing principles, i.e., on the point that my proposed correction was (a) factually sound and (b) properly cited in accord with Wikipedia rules. I would like to point out that, once again, Hrafn has replied with anger (in what looks much more like a "rant"), and that, once again, he is justifying the unjustifiable, i.e., an editorial double standard, by which pro-ID writers are treated like trash, and anti-ID writers get quoted with approval by Wikipedia even when they say things that are false or materially misleading.
The lack of objectivity in Hrafn's comments is astounding, and should shock even anti-ID Wikipedia editors, at least, those who have a commitment to intellectual and editorial integrity. Jonathan Wells earned a legitimate Ph.D. in Biology from a major American university, which apparently thought that his knowledge of biology warranted granting that degree. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to declare that they were wrong to do so. Matzke only started graduate school this fall, which means he has not yet completed even his course work in biology, let alone his comprehensive examinations or dissertation. His last-earned degree in any life science relevant to evolution is a Bachelor's degree, which is academically far below the level at which the ID/Darwinian battles are fought. And no one with a degree in any life science would make the ludicrous assertion that a bachelor's in biology is worth more than a Ph.D. in biochemistry when the subject in question is the structure and function of cellular macromolecules like proteins. This tells me that Hrafn has very little background himself in the life sciences, and that his opinions about Behe and ID are derived by hearsay rather than firsthand knowledge, which confirms my opinion that he is unqualified to be the lead editor on the Behe article (as he appears to be, based on his continual assertiveness and vetoing of changes). Finally, Barbara Forrest's degrees are in Philosophy, and she has no more scientific knowledge than (if even as much as) Cameron Wybrow, whom Hrafn has repeatedly criticized as "incompetent" to review Behe. Yet he does not hesitate to invoke her name when he needs to trash Wells, who actually has a Ph.D. in biology.
Wikipedia articles are read by the general English-speaking public, not by a cabal of Wikipedia editors who have come to a "consensus" to use the word "biologist" in their own private sense. Any normal English-speaking reader would understand Myers's quotation to imply that Wells does NOT have a Ph.D. in biology, and thus Myers's quotation is materially misleading to the general readership of Wikipedia. That is why my change must be allowed, or else the word "biologist" must be stricken from Myers's list. (It also must be stricken from the list because Tony Jelsma, another biologist, a practicing one, too, is mentioned by Behe as a reviewer.)
Just for the record, I have "repeated nothing verbatim". I use my own words. Having earned a Ph.D. and being rather on the literate side, I find my own words are quite adequate. And as for POV-pushing, I have done none. Every change I have recommended has been NOT to actively praise or promote ID or Behe, but to remove or qualify false, misleading, or unfounded statements about ID or Behe. There is a difference between aggressively cheerleading for someone and merely asking that the person in question has a fair day in court. An encyclopedia article, in an encyclopedia which loudly boasts about its "neutral point of view" policy, should strive to give all sides their fair day in court, a point which Hrafn does not appear to grasp.
My understanding of the discussion pages is that they are for the purpose of discussing how to fairly edit the articles, and not for debating the merits of ID. Yet though I continually try to concentrate on the fairness issue, Hrafn continually draws the discussion back to the truth or falsehood of ID, and lashes out at every ID proponent that comes to his mind. I have not raised the question of the truth of ID. I have never said that ID is correct. I have never said that Behe is right. I have never said that Wells is a great biologist. I have only argued against biased editing practices. It seems to me that Hrafn is unwilling to keep the discussion on that level.Inspectre (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


I will ignore Inspectre's personal attacks (which are par for the course from those defending the creationist side of things) and concentrate on his substantive points:

  1. "It is not up to Wikipedia editors to declare that they were wrong to do so." I did not "declare" this -- I have never objected to his PhD being cited merely that, particularly given the unusual circumstances of his earning this PhD, it is insufficient for calling him a "biologist". I am not alone in this, the consensus on Wells' article agrees with me -- that Myers likewise agrees with this viewpoint does not make his comment "false".
  2. It is not a "ludicrous assertion that a bachelor's in biology is worth more than a Ph.D. in biochemistry" -- when the subject matter is Evolutionary Biology and the academic in question's background is heavily biased towards the "chemistry" side of biochemistry and away from the "bio-" side of it, as well as having been moribund in terms of research for over a decade, and has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ignorant of research in the areas that he is pontificating upon.
  3. "Finally, Barbara Forrest's degrees are in Philosophy, and she has no more scientific knowledge..." yadda yadda, yadda! This tired piece of nonsense has been trotted out over and over by the DI and their shills ever since Dover. No, Forrest is not a scientist -- unlike Dembski, Meyer, Richards, and the other charlatans at the DI, she doesn't pretend to be one. She is however a Philosopher of Science and a noted historian of the intelligent design movement -- and it is on that subject (and not scientific claims, unlike Wybrow) that she ventures her expert opinion -- an opinion that was accepted as expert by Federal court.
  4. "Any normal English-speaking reader would understand Myers's quotation to imply that Wells" does not do biology -- he doesn't. He does pseudoscience and religious apologetics.
  5. "Just for the record, I have "repeated nothing verbatim". I use my own words." Then stop parroting their talking points -- as you did again on Forrest above.
  6. "My understanding of the discussion pages is that they are for the purpose of discussing how to fairly edit the articles, and not for debating the merits of ID." It is, but part of that debate is assessing the credibility of sources -- and when you recommend accepting Behe, Wells & Wybrow above Myers, Matzke & Forrest, you are trying our credulity.

Oh, and please don't edit the indentation of my posts -- it merely detracts from the legibility of this debate.HrafnTalkStalk 09:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wells did a PhD in Biology because God told him to, with the express purpose of criticizing evolution and pushing creationism. This is documented in reliable sources. He's not a practicing scientist and any expression of his opinion on any scientific aspect of anything related to evolution is WP:UNDUE. Jonathan Wells wrote The Icons of Evolution; this pretty much automatically disqualifies him from getting any weight on scientific matters. Inspectre, please stop signing mainspace pages. If you can't be bothered to invest the time into figuring out how wikipedia actually works, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it. One thing you should look up is WP:SPA. WLU (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't really feel that a long rebuttal is needed, and feeds into Raspor-style time-wasting on these articles. Inspectre - Wells is out. That's all. If you've got anything new, post it with a source, and keep it to a single paragraph of less than 10 sentences (no more than five sub-clauses). WLU (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WLU: Thanks for replying. I won't address the Wells matter again. Let me close on it by saying that I never once tried to endorse either Wells's arguments or his motives, but was merely making that point that his Ph.D. in biology was being deliberately concealed, and that this was neither necessary nor honest from an editing point of view. And it's editing that we're supposed to be discussing here, not the truth or falsehood of ID, which you and Hrafn again both get into in your replies above. I also don't know who gave you personally the authority to settle matters, since you denied having such powers in an earlier exchange, declaring yourself to be merely an editor who tries to edit fairly. The alleged collegial democracy of editors at Wikipedia is apparently really something more like 1984, with you being, apparently, O'Brien. (Based on your time zone, it may be that you actually live in Oceania.) Anyhow, like Winston Smith, "I hate Big Brother", so I leave you and your fellow anti-ID editors enjoy your cyber-oligarchical collectivism. And don't forget to watch "Expelled" on Darwin Day. The activities described in the film may seem vaguely familiar to you.Inspectre (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ID Expelled? No.
Flunked? Yes!

HrafnTalkStalk 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and they seem very familiar, not "vaguely" so -- the film looks to be a mere rehash of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Campaigns claiming discrimination. Neither particularly original nor particularly accurate -- but then that's been the problem with Creationism for a very long time. HrafnTalkStalk 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a shortcut applicable to all ID/Creationism pages you will encounter on wikipedia Inspectre: ID is a verifiably political issue, not a scientific one. Don't try to justify or portray any of their arguments, actions or practitioners as scientific. They are not. If this bothers you, go to Conservapedia. Creationism gets a lot of POV-pushing vandals and sockpuppets who waste our time. Don't be one of them - go edit other types of pages, there's more than 2 million of them. WLU (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't try to justify anything any more. There is no point trying to debate with partisans who have already made up their minds and don't think they have anything to learn from anyone. Or with people who are such slow learners that after years of "studying" the issue, they still can't correctly distinguish between ID and "creationism". And in answer to your remark above, you aren't qualified to decide whether ID is "verifiably a scientific issue", because neither you nor Hrafn know the slightest thing about science (as is evidenced by your numerous uninformed comments and judgments about biology, biochemistry, degrees, qualifications, etc.) In fact, you don't even know the proper meaning of "verifiably", since in your Wikipedia world of popular sophism, "verifiable" means "determined by the opinions of the majority of sources" (however biased or mean-spirited the sources), whereas, as Plato has taught every educated person for the last 2400 years, opinion is not truth, and it's only people who don't understand a subject matter themselves that decide truth on the basis of counting hands. Finally, don't accuse me of an agenda when your own words on these pages reveal you to be completely politically motivated in every word you write about ID. Your goal is plainly to inoculate readers against ID, not to present its concepts and arguments in a fair light. You wouldn't know a "neutral point of view" on ID if you tripped over it. If you can live with the fact that you are knowingly and joyfully slanting all the articles on ID for your own purposes, you have an editorial conscience much different from mine. As for me, you can be sure that I will be telling everyone I know to steer clear of Wikipedia articles for any purpose whatsoever, since I now know from first-hand experience that the process of producing the articles is highly politicized, that the biggest bullies (and those with the most time to waste policing the articles) always get their way, and that the articles are written by unqualified hobbyists with an inflated idea of their own knowledge and importance.Inspectre (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So you won't post on this, or other evolution/creationism-related pages? Great, thanks, that'll save me a bunch of time. WLU (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More info

Here's a Q&A with Behe from Simon & Schuster, could have some useful information in it. [2] WLU 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul R. Gross review

Paul R. Gross has a review of Edge in the October 2007 issue of The New Criterion: Design for living. I think this section from it might be worthy of inclusion in the article, as it's a good summary of Edge's scientific flaws:

The scientific flaws are of two kinds: errors of the model itself and in the associated calculations, and (as in Behe’s earlier book) ignoring important conflicting material in the primary literature.

...First, the calculated probabilities, upon which the main argument of the book depends, come from a single report in the literature on the frequency of spontaneous resistance to a drug in the malaria parasite (Plasmodium). That frequency was in the first place a mere guess by its author, and it does not anyway measure the likelihood of what Behe thinks it measures. Reviews swiftly explained this mistake. The facts of drug resistance in this and other pathogens illustrate—by measurement, not just theory—vastly greater probabilities.

Second, Behe assumes simultaneous mutations at two sites in the relevant gene, but there is no such necessity and plenty of evidence that cumulativeness, rather than simultaneity, is the rule. As Nature’s reviewer (Kenneth R. Miller) notes, “It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics.” Third and finally, the book’s grand argument ignores the known, frequent appearance, by Darwinian pathways, of protein-protein interactions in small populations. There is a vast experimental and theoretical literature on protein evolution.

I also liked this bit highlighting the shortcomings of those endorsing the book:

Writers of the dust-cover endorsements include, however, no evolutionists. Instead they are a chemist, a psychiatrist, a writer of anti-evolution texts, and the physicist co-author of a paper with Behe.

HrafnTalkStalk 04:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dustcover endorsements versus positive reviews

I've renamed the current "positive reviews" section to "dustcover endorsements" as they come from the book's dustcover (as Gross mentions above & as listed on the book's Amazon listing). As far as I know, there's been only one positive independent review: Pa. scientist again attacks evolution in The Philadelphia Inquirer by Cameron Wybrow. HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wybrow's doctorate is in the History of Religion: broken link; Google cache HrafnTalkStalk 08:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[*This is a librarial classification, misleading as to contents. Dr. Wybrow's books touch on historical aspects of religious thought, but both are heavily concerned with the philosophical foundations of the modern view of nature, and hence of modern science, as he indicated in his P.I. byline. This goes to show that Wikipedia editors should read the primary print sources, not rely upon internet summaries or library entries about them.]Inspectre 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a "librarial classification" specifically for the classification of dissertations. As such, it offers reasonable [prima facie]] evidence of the field of Wybrow's thesis. The only other reliable classification I can see for Wybrow's field of expertise would be the department that he presumably received his PhD from, "Religious Studies", which would presumably lead to him being characterised as a "scholar of religion". Regardless of the exact characterisation, any meaningful characterisation would demonstrate that Wybrow has no qualifications whatsoever to evaluate the scientific pretentions of Behe's book. HrafnTalkStalk 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wybrow's comments on this review of Edge (in which he engages in a lengthy and acrimonious debate with Jeffrey Shallit) should give some context to where he's coming from in his view of Behe & ID. HrafnTalkStalk 08:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[*This is not the place to debate the Wybrow-Shallit exchange, which has nothing to do with the correctness of Wybrow's statements in the P.I. review of Behe. Readers of the above comment, however, may well, upon consulting the exchange, decide that the "acrimony" came from Shallit, and that Wybrow's original purpose in criticizing Dodd's review was not to side with Behe or ID, but only to establish that Dodd had argued unfairly and ad hominem. It's apparently Wybrow's view, based on his published comments, that the whole ID-Darwinism debate is poisoned by ad hominem remarks and arguments, when it should concentrate on reason and evidence. If that is where Wybrow is "coming from", I would think that any objective Wikipedia editor would be glad of it.]Inspectre 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Readers are more likely to draw the conclusion that Wybrow is a crank with an axe to grind on this topic. HrafnTalkStalk 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Inspectre 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cameron Wybrow

The abstract of Cameron Wybrow's PhD dissertation can be found here & here (there's also a longer 24 page preview). As you can see, his subject is only tangentially related to the history and philsophy of science, being primarily about Christianity's historic view of science and nature. His PhD was awarded in History of Religion -- hence my calling him a Historian of Religion. HrafnTalkStalk 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read not just an abstract, but both of Wybrow's books in their entirety, as I am myself a scholar in the area of religion and science. I also know the university where he graduated, and his Ph.D. was not in "History of Religion" (which is not a category there). Theses in the area of "religion and science" there are under the category "Western Religious Thought". His thesis was in the area of "religion and science". It contains an extensive discussion (which editor HRAFN has not apparently read) on Francis Bacon, a central figure in the philosophy of science, and of other important figures in the history and philosophy of science, including Jaki, Collingwood, Foster, and Duhem. Since I have read the sources, and not just abstracts, my edit should prevail over HRAFN's objections, which are not based on the sources. This is not a matter of personal ego between HRAFN and myself, but of familiarity with the facts. I therefore feel justified in undoing the reversion. I seek in good faith HRAFN's assent to my reversion of his undo. Inspectre 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. "The Bible, Baconianism, and mastery over nature: The Old Testament and its modern misreading Richard Cameron James Wybrow, McMaster University ... Subject Area RELIGION, HISTORY OF (0320)"[3]
    1. [*This reference explains why you made the (innocent) error, but does not justify retaining the error, now that you have been informed of it.Inspectre 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)]
      1. No Inspectre, it is a WP:RS for the field in which Wybrow received his doctorate. Unless you can provide likewise reliably sourced evidence to the contrary, no error exists. Your say-so is WP:OR and has no weight in this forum. HrafnTalkStalk 03:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Francis Bacon lived before science, as we know it today, even existed. The Baconian method "is an early forerunner of the scientific method". Expertise relating to the relationship between Bacon and religion is hardly relevant to evaluating claims made in the fields of evolutionary biology and microbiology.
    1. [You are now arguing that Wybrow doesn't know enough biology to review Behe, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is an editorial error: Wybrow's expertise was mischaracterized and must be corrected. Once the reader knows that Wybrow's Ph.D. is in the history/philosophy of scientific notions of nature, rather than in science itself, the reader can decide how to weigh Wybrow's comments. It is not your job as Wikipedia editor to try to steer the reader one way or the other on that question.Inspectre 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)]
      1. The point has always been that Wybrow is unqualified to review Behe's book. This is important because it explains why Wybrow's review offers no critical analysis of Behe's book -- it merely bashes Behe's opponents, then recounts Behe's claims uncritically. As such it is questionable whether it can legitimately be termed a genuine "review". You have offered no evidence that "Wybrow's expertise was mischaracterized" -- just your own unsubstantiated assertion. Until you offer some substantiation, no "issue" exists. HrafnTalkStalk 03:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is what Wybrow wrote about Behe's malaria thesis:
“ In the case of malaria, the creative limits appear quite low. Over the last few thousand years, several thousand billion billion malarial cells have been unable to develop an evolutionary response to the sickle-cell mutation, which protects its human bearers from malaria. On the other hand, malaria has proved able to develop Darwinian resistance to the antibiotic chloroquine. This resistance is based upon two simultaneous mutations affecting a malarial protein. Yet this rare double mutation has occurred fewer than 10 times since chloroquine was introduced 50 years ago, during which time a hundred billion billion malarial cells have been born. If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe. ”
It contains no critical evaluation (hardly surprising given Wybrow knows nothing about the subject matter), but merely repeats Behe's thesis -- thus it is an uncritical repetition of it. [*How do you know how much Wybrow knows? Have you examined him for biological knowledge? It is unwise to jump to conclusions. I see no biological errors in Wybrow's review, and it is unlikely that someone with zero biological knowledge could write so clearly in summarizing Behe's arguments. You shouldn't bring preconceptions to your editorial work.Inspectre 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)]
I think this provides sufficient substantiation for my characterisation of Wybrow's review.HrafnTalkStalk 18:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be having a look at Wybrow's contributions to the page, honestly I don't see how an unpublished thesis can be considered a RS; were it published in a journal then yes, but just a thesis floating around the internet seems kinda iffy. WLU 23:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I've re-written both the negative and Wybrow's reviews sections. I can't see Wybrow's thesis being a reliable source, but the Philadelphia Inquirer review is perfectly good. The review is mostly a summary of the arguments, but I don't think it's up to us to decide if it's accurate, overly positive or deserves any other adjective, without another reliable source to point to. Both sections are now much shorter, but the references are there and include external links if readers wish to read the original content. WLU 23:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm about done for the night, how about rather than edit warring, we discuss changes on the talk page first? Including Wybrow's qualifications on the page looks like an apology or some sort of justification for having him there - it's in a reliable source, there's no need to justify it. I believe I've edited out the areas that the changes were occurring in so hopefully there's no further need for conflict. WLU 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Replying to a since-removed comment - I'm not a moderator, I just try to edit as neutrally as possible. If Wybrow's thesis is published somewhere, we should refer to that publication, not the thesis proper. WLU 02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WLU: I offered Wybrow's doctoral thesis merely as substantiation of his field of expertise, and that it was unrelated to the subject matter of Behe's book, raising legitimate questions over Wybrow's review -- and offering context as to why it was a combined attack on Behe's opponents and uncritical recitation of Behe's theories, rather than any serious attempt at evaluating the book's merits. HrafnTalkStalk 03:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn: The point is that, by substituting the very sketchy information from a library's electronic call number card for the information provided by Wybrow himself in his byline, you implicitly denied Wybrow's claim of expertise in the area of the origins of modern science. (Otherwise, you would have characterized him as a scholar in the history of religion AND in the origins of modern science.) It is a natural question why you did not trust Wybrow's self-description in the first place, and why you thought you had the right to simply omit it just because his thesis was in a different area (an odd procedure, given that academics frequently acquire new competencies after writing their dissertations); but assuming that you had legitimate doubts about his expertise, it would have made sense to check out the two books he claimed to have published. A simple Google search would have turned up dozens of hits for Wybrow's two books, and some of the links contain enough information to verify that he did indeed have two major scholarly publications in the area he indicated.Inspectre 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to add your own comments, Inspectre, put them on their own lines, with correct indentation, instead of tacking them onto mine. I'm sick to death of tidying up the mess you're making of this talk page. HrafnTalkStalk 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Inspectre: Wybrow's byline gives every appearance of exaggerating the relevance of his expertise to science. I have yet to see any of his work characterised by anybody other than himself as being squarely in the field of "History of Science". His very phrasing "history of modern science" is deceptive -- particularly when you consider that the periods he writes about were long before "modern science" exists. This is like calling an expert on Tamerlane an "expert on the history of modern Iran". Besides which, his writings seem to be more on the religious aspect of issues than the scientific aspect (several references to the Bible in their titles, none to science).
Hrafn, my point is not to establish how much science Wybrow knows. He may know a little, he may know a lot. His Ph.D. doesn't indicate knowledge of science, but doesn't preclude it, either. Nor is my point to complain further about the current section on Wybrow as edited by WLU, as I think WLU did a good job of taking into account both our points. My point was about your editorial decision to suppress Wybrow's own characterization of his books. It appears from your remarks that you did not consult either of the two books that he indicated, or any reviews of these two books, before deciding on the relevance of their contents for the origins of modern science. You thus ruled out a priori the possibility that a religion scholar might have a research area overlapping considerably with the history of science, and might have acquired a considerable knowledge of the origins of modern science. I think this is procedurally illegitimate. Based on the very limited information you had, the most neutral description would have been something like: "a religion scholar who has done some scholarly writing on the origins of modern science". That would have incorporated your own discovery about the religious studies degree, without passing any judgment one way or the other on the contents or quality of Wybrow's writing about science. It would leave the reader free to adopt your doubt whether a religion scholar knows much about modern science, without imposing your own conclusion on the reader. I would never have complained if you had written something like that. And just as an aside, since I am trained in intellectual history, let me inform you of common scholarly usage: "modern science" is regarded by intellectual historians, including historians of science, as starting in the 17th century -- the period Wybrow wrote about.Inspectre 22:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>His PhD subject doesn't preclude some small level of "knowledge", but it does preclude the expertise that would qualify him to offer a scholarly evaluation of Behe's book. It would seem excessive and unreasonable to expect me to track down these books and read them simply to characterise Wybrow -- especially as neither book appears to have any relevance whatsoever to Behe's book (the topic of this article). As to reviews, there appear to be none available online. Taking their stated subject matter (and the abstract of Wybrow's dissertation, which is the basis for one of them), his expertise is highly tangential at best to science generally, even taking it in the widest possible context. As to the topic of Behe's book (involving technical matters of evolutionary biology, microbiology, parasitology, etc), it is utterly irrelevant, as any nuetral characterisation would show. A neutral description would be something like a "scholar of the history of religious thought, with some emphasis on how religious thought may have influenced the early origins of scientific thought". As such, the "scientific" aspect of his scholarship are irrelevant and potentially misleading (it probably would be even under your characterisation) to his potential expertise to review Behe's book. As such, it should be suppressed. Wybrow is not an expert scholarly evaluating Behe's book, he is an inexpert partisan blindly boosting the book and bashing Behe's critics, who unlike Wybrow (or even Behe himself) are experts on the subject matter. HrafnTalkStalk 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with Wybrow's discussion of Behe's book is that Wybrow's specialty is the sociological and historical treatment of science as a social phenomena. He's interested in the fact that Behe's pissing off a lot of scientists and not wether Behe's accurate or not. But what is really needed is a source that states this. As is, the Wybrow bit is kinda at the limit it can go without breaching WP:OR. Wybrow is out of his depth on the science, but we can't just say that. Because he knows about the origins of science doesn't mean he knows anything about actual science. WLU 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you are contruing Wybrow's speciality more broadly than even OR can support, WLU. I have seen no evidence that Wybrow is interested in wider "sociological and historical treatment of science as a social phenomena", beyond the influences of religious thought on the early origins of scientific thought, back in the time where philosophy and theology were far more closely entwined than they are today (making discussing the former without discussing the latter rather difficult). Regardless, Wybrow is too minor (and too irrelevant) a player for there to be any likelihood that anybody will attempt to analyse, in a WP:RS, his thrusting of himself into this debate. Additionally, his discussion of "Behe's pissing off a lot of scientists" is not neutrally sociological but polemicly partisan. As such I don't think we have any grounds for offering this as grounds for scholarly legitimacy for his review. HrafnTalkStalk 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

May I ask a naïve and hopefully not rude question? WLU has mentioned, and Hrafn has gone on at great length about, Wybrow’s alleged lack of “qualifications” in science, and about the “qualifications” that one should have to write a book review of Behe, and so on. May I ask whether similar standards apply to writers of Wikipedia articles? Does the writer of a Wikipedia article have to prove that he or she is “qualified” in the subject area of the article before being given the go-ahead? In the case of this article on EOE, since the author, Behe, has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and 35 peer-reviewed articles (not counting his writing on ID), shouldn’t the person who writes the Wikipedia article be at least as qualified as Behe is, in order to do justice to the contents of the book, and in order to be able to comprehend the sometimes technical critiques of Behe written by people who themselves have Ph.D.s in biology? So can I take it that Hrafn, and all others who have worked on the article, have Ph.D.’s in biology? I would be interested in hearing what degrees Hrafn has, and where he got them, and what his subjects of scientific or intellectual competence are. (I’m not trying to identify Hrafn personally; I couldn’t care less who he is in real life; I just want to know the intellectual basis upon which he forms his opinions about evolution, ID, Behe, what is and what is not “science”, and who is or is not “qualified” to write book reviews.)Inspectre 05:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is no. In fact we are forbidden to apply our own original research to the article. It is useful of course to have an understanding of the subject matter, but the expert 'depth' is meant to come from the sources that the editors cite, not the editors themselves. If we want to have our own research included, we need to have it published in a WP:RS first. Behe does not have a Ph.D. in molecular biology -- his PhD is in biochemistry, with a heavier emphasis (undergrad degree, former teaching position and department he gained tenure from) in chemistry than in the 'bio-' aspect of it. How many of the "35 peer-reviewed articles" were written since he became an ID advocate? The only one I know of is the discredited one he wrote with Snoke (which was shredded in cross-examination at Dover). Unlike Behe, Richard Dawkins, Kenneth R. Miller, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne and Sean Carroll, which this article cites for its expert review opinions, all have PhDs in biology. Their opinion counts, Behe's counts considerably less, and Wybrow's counts not at all. Note, I am not saying that these are the only fields relevant to Behe's claims, merely that biology, and particularly evolutionary biology, are central to them. HrafnTalkStalk 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP moved to User talk:Inspectre HrafnTalkStalk 02:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another soap moved over 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC) - WLU (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cameron Wybrow, imposed break - thread is getting too long + next bit isn't in chronological order

I also don't think it is legitimate to have Wybrow "stating that Behe's critics' comments are mostly ad hominem rather than scientific" without offering some indication that his own review included numerous ad hominem attacks and no scientific comment (or expertise) whatsoever. HrafnTalkStalk 03:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn: I see no ad hominem remarks in Wybrow's review at all. He merely reports or paraphrases the criticism (or lack thereof) of Behe's adversaries. Outside of one partial sentence containing a brief rhetorical flourish on Wybrow's part which could be deemed over-interpretive (but not ad hominem), Wybrow's statements about the behavior of Behe's critics are entirely factual. In contrast, Behe's critics frequently make ad hominem remarks and arguments -- i.e., remarks and arguments about his intelligence, personal associations, intellectual and personal honesty, alleged religious motives, alleged political agenda, etc. These utterances range from crude to slyly insinuating, Dawkins's rather nasty review providing examples of the whole gamut. And the printed reviews, however savage, are polite in comparison to the blogger reviews, many of which are written by scientists with Ph.D.s, yet descend to a sub-Neanderthal level. Wybrow's point is that Behe should not have to take this personal abuse, and that criticism of his work should be limited to criticism of his reasoning and evidence. I am satisfied with WLU's revision, because it restates Wybrow's position neutrally, neither endorsing it nor trying to undermine it. It is left up to the Wikipedia reader to decide if Wybrow's complaint is justified. And that is the way it should be.]Inspectre 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>No Inspectre, what Wybrow does is not "paraphrasing":

  • "self-styled defenders of science" is pure ad hominem
  • "insolently refusing to genuflect before the Darwinian consensus", is putting words into Behe' opponents' mouths with the dishonest intent to portray them as dogmatic "priests of the religion of Darwinism" -- a round-about ad hominem, but an ad hominem nonetheless (and also one that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the modern scientific method)
  • "known enemies of ID to trash the book" is likewise ad hominem -- and fails to mention the fact that these "enemies" know a heck of a lot more about biology than Behe himself. [Come to think of it, it'd probably be hard to find a prominent biologist who wasn't an "enemy of ID" HrafnTalkStalk 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]

As for the "ad hominem attacks" on Behe, I would regard them as a refutation of an appeal to false authority. Behe pretends to still be a real scientist and to be a real expert on what he writes about. Therefore puncturing those dishonest pretensions is a legitimate part of evaluating the book. In legalese, Behe "opens the door" to these attacks by wrapping himself up in unearned scientific respectability. HrafnTalkStalk 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add your own comments, Inspectre, put them on their own lines, with correct indentation, instead of tacking them onto mine. I'm sick to death of tidying up the mess you're making of this talk page. HrafnTalkStalk 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with WLU that constant undos and reversions are counterproductive, and that differences should be talked out. The current arrangement just invites Darwinist and ID factions to try to thwart each other's attempts to be heard. Revisions that seem moderate and fair to one side are often violently rejected by the other. I gave up trying to correct some of the biased and misleading statements in the Wiki article about the Discovery Institute, because no matter what the time of day or night, within twenty minutes someone would revert all my changes, not even bothering to try to distinguish between good and bad suggestions, just reverting them all. It was clear to me that on Wikipedia, no defense of anyone or anything associated with the Discovery Institute, no matter how cautious or qualified, was going to get through. The watchdogs were guarding the article 24/7, and they were not going to budge an inch from its one-sided account. This way of handling things turns Wikipedia into a mere tool for whichever side has the most free time to sit in front of a computer screen; the side that has more honest work to do, and cannot play at the keyboard all night, will always lose. I wish that Wikipedia had a listserv sort of gathering place for all the editors who are working on an article, with one editor appointed as Chair of the proceedings, so that they could debate approaches and come to a consensus about how to present information stripped of propaganda from either side.Inspectre 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the inclination to let the source speak for itself, let the reader look into the reviews themselves, and then draw their own conclusions. I think adding the specialties is an apologetic nod towards having to justify the reviews - in my mind, the justification for the review comes from the reliable source rather than the reviewer. Were we to have a PhD without a wikipage, who published a webpage, I don't think I'd be inclined to add it to the page, even were we to agree with it. The reviews from noted biologists are sufficient to establish the scientific consensus against the book. I particularly dislike the inclusion of Wybrow's thesis information. I think the additions edge closer and closer to original research, bordering on saying 'these reviews count and these do not'. Not enough to revert, but enough to be uncomfortable. Incidentally, wybrow's article led me to another review, so I'll be putting it into the text. WLU 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the The Philadelphia Inquirer a reliable source for the evaluation of purportedly-scientific arguments, independent of the reviewer's personal expertise (and thus reliability) in the field? To be blunt, a random science-PhD with a blog would seem to be a more reliable reviewer than somebody writing for a newspaper who lacks any qualification in science. A newspaper is reliable for reporting facts, the opinions that are expressed in it are only as reliable as the person making them. In which case, we should either accurately characterise the opinion-giver's qualifications to proffer the opinion or leave out the opinion entirely. HrafnTalkStalk 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Inspectre: If you want to have any hope of being taken serious here, I would suggest that you refrain from using the word "Darwinist" -- it is widely perceived as being both pejorative and highly inaccurate (as nobody now accepts Darwin's original theory). Your edits on Discovery Institute went against WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. The breadth of the DI's dishonesty has been so heavily documented, that there are few, if any, defenses that can legitimately be made of it -- "no matter how cautious or qualified" they may seem. If you want to fight their battles for them, then I suggest you find other fora. They have already lost (and lost pretty near all credibility by their manner in doing so) in both the scientific arena and in the courts. As such, it is up to us to document these defeats, not to refight them. HrafnTalkStalk 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn: Thank you for your note on how to indent. I have practised with it, and I think I have got the hang of it now.
I meant nothing pejorative by "Darwinist". When typing quick back-and-forth comments not for publication, I find it a handy short form for "neo-Darwinist". However, if it bothers you, I can type neo-Darwinist, or neo-Darwinian, or Darwinian, or ND, or whatever you like. And yes, I am aware of the difference between Darwin and later adaptations of his thought. I've actually read (not skimmed) the 6th edition of the Origin in its entirety, and large chunks of Darwin's other writing, and am an admirer (though not an uncritical one) of his thought.
I apologize for messing up the page. I attached some of my above comments so closely to your own comments because I was having the technical troubles I mentioned. Now that I know what I am doing, I will try to undo the mess above. If I fail, you can just delete all the material that you put the strikethrough on. If I succeed, you can read the material struck through, for whatever value it has.
I carry no brief for the Discovery Institute. I am not a member of it. It was, however, my sense that the entire article about the DI was written with the deliberate purpose of trying to make the DI look bad, not simply to report objectively on the DI's activities. As someone trained to the Ph.D. level in the Humanities, I am fairly good at detecting rhetorical devices, biases in presentation, and so on, and I don't think I was wrong in my perception. My own attempts to correct the perceived excesses in the DI article were my first editing attempts, and probably overcompensated, but my heart was in the right place. Whatever the faults of DI, there should be no inaccuracies in the article, however small. I was not indignant that some of my proposed changes were rejected, but I thought it was unreasonable that all of them were, since at least one of them was meant to correct a misleading way of phrasing something. But this is not the place to discuss the DI page. If I ever decide to try editing it again, I will take up my disagreements with the people working on that article.
I appear to have been successful in separating out my two long earlier comments with new lines and indents. I have removed the strikethrough. Please read the comments now, and if they are useful, take them to heart. If they are not, ignore them. I merely wanted to point out possible biases. Part of my complaint about bias has already been taken care of, by WLU's re-write, which I think is pretty good.Inspectre 14:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I reformatted. One indent and one signature per edit. An objective report of the DI does make it look bad, because it perpetuates a series of discredited statements which have basically now become essentially lies because they have failed to address criticisms and rebuttals yet persist in disseminating them. If you do edit pages to be neutral, it will pretty much have to be a matter of making the wording slightly more neutral. Discuss on the talk page first. WLU 15:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Inspectre: why talk about whatever-Darwin-whatever at all? Do we refer to Relativistic Physicists, and those who accept their work, as (neo-)Einsteinists? The Theory of Evolution isn't an '-ism" and those who accept it aren't "-ists" (other than perhaps "scientists"). The only defensible usage of Darwin's name in this context is in the form of 'Darwinian evolution' where it is being contrasted to earlier paradigms (most notably Lamarkian evolution). "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" are used almost exclusively these days by Creationists, as perjoratives -- so people using it will tend to be regarded as rude Creationists. HrafnTalkStalk 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Behe's blog

Behe's amazon blog really should have a place on the page, I think the external links section would be best. Grating as it is, smug and self-aggrandizing as he comes across (to me), it's an appropriate external link, unless someone can think of a reason not to put it in. WLU 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable inclusion. HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

While I don't disagree with with the more summarised form on the reviews that WLU is introducing, I do think there are a few important things to keep in mind:

  • It should clearly indicate the fields of expertise (with WP:RS where the reviewers aren't themselves sufficiently prominent to have their own wikipedia articles) for reviews that we explicitly mention, to allow readers to evaluate how credible their opinions are.
  • Given that we hake given full affiliation for Snoke & Skell, it seems reasonable to offer the same courtesy to Dawkins.
  • Behe's characterisation of Malaria (& of HIV) have been heavily criticised. Given that this is in neither Behe's nor Snoke's area of expertise, I think at least equal (and probably greater) weight should be given to this criticism as to Snoke's inexpert praise of it (per WP:UNDUE). I'm trying to track down a WP:RS for this.

HrafnTalkStalk 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Further on malaria, PZ Myers criticises Behe's claims here, and another blog goes into greater detail here. The criticism of Behe's HIV claims come mainly from ERV, "a graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV" -- [4][5] (as well as many lesser postings). HrafnTalkStalk 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if Behe had a wikipage on his 'theory', so they could go there. Putting them up here would be iffy, depending on what the entries themselves say; they could be a further extension of his critical reviews perhaps. I don't think I have time to have a look at them right now, but if you add them, I'll have a look later. Regards adding the fields of expertise, I think it's OK when they don't have their own wikipage, but a waste of space when they do. If you can track down a reference for Snoke's spurious praise, I think a "However, X has pointed out that this is not Snoke's area of expertise" and any other relevant info. I do think however, the page is moving away from a page about Behe's book towards the fine line of attempting to disprove the book. Something we should be aware of. WLU 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think including 1-2 words on fields (or in the context of many other articles, a few words on who the person was, to give them context) is "wasting space" or against common editing practice, and think it unreasonable to expect readers to look up articles on each and every person to find out who they are. I'm not calling Snoke's praise "spurious", merely inexpert (he's a physicist, not a microbiologist). Given that I've yet to see anybody with any relevant expertise who has anything nice to say about Behe's characterisation of malaria, it struck me as unbalanced to include only a physicist's opinion of the matter. HrafnTalkStalk 16:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Has this been offered up for inclusion? WLU 15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No, probably because three of the four paragraphs in it are simply summaries of reviews already referenced by the article. HrafnTalkStalk 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I only read the Ruse info, I just read the rest. Agreed. WLU 16:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Due weight

I've added more reviews (negative ones) that give WP:DUE WEIGHT (ha! Wikipedia joke!) to the status of Behe's book per science and scientists. I've tried to include only sources that have some notability, either actual publications from book reviewers or national-circulation periodicals, or websites with wikipages that accordingly have passed WP:N. I also think that the sunclipse page that compiles all the reviews for EoE could possibly be a valid EL as it's got basically all the reviews ever published on-line for the book, positive (1) and negative (many more). The negative reviews obviously comprise a significant portion of the page, about as long as the contents summary. I think this is actually a pretty good thing, since it demonstrates the substantial negative reception the book has received from the scientific community, and documents the flaws in the book. I think this nicely tailors the page to WP:UNDUE - the view that the book is anything but substantially flawed is by far the minority.

Also, I've lost track of the objections previously posted on the talk page - if anyone would like to propose further, possibly controversial changes, could you do me the favour of either popping a message on my talk page to point it out, or start a new section below this one? Thanks. WLU 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)