Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intelligent design
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1
A 1 2 1 4
B 2 7 10 16 35
Start 7 30 78 115
Stub 7 23 30
Assessed 4 16 47 118 185
Unassessed 1 1
Total 4 16 47 119 186

Welcome to the assessment department of the Intelligent design WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about the Intelligent design and related topics. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject intelligent design}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Intelligent design articles by quality and Category:Intelligent design articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Intelligent design WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject intelligent design }} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject intelligent design
|class=
|importance=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Intelligent design articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criterion Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
Featured list FL
{{FL-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A
{{A-Class}}		 Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Durian (as of March 2007)
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}		 The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B
{{B-Class}}		 Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and references.
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly useful picture or graphic
  • multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage. Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}		 The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)


[edit] Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of the Caribbean.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

[edit] Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject intelligent design}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject intelligent design| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

We are currently discussing which articles should be counted as being of Top-importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Assessment/Top-importance articles.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

  1. Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

[edit] Assessment log

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.


Archive This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.


[edit] June 12, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] June 9, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] June 5, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] June 2, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 29, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 26, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 22, 2008

[edit] May 19, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 15, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 12, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] May 6, 2008

[edit] April 23, 2008

[edit] April 16, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] April 13, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] April 6, 2008

[edit] April 2, 2008

[edit] March 28, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] March 23, 2008

[edit] March 21, 2008

[edit] March 18, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] March 14, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] March 10, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] March 8, 2008

[edit] March 2, 2008

  • Michael Denton reassessed from Start-Class (Mid-Class) to Stub-Class (Mid-Class)

[edit] February 26, 2008

[edit] February 22, 2008

[edit] February 18, 2008

[edit] February 14, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] February 9, 2008

[edit] February 5, 2008

[edit] February 2, 2008

[edit] January 26, 2008

[edit] Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.



Contact with WP intelligent design
Article Import Date Assess Ver Comments
Intelligent design [1] Top February 23, 2007 Featured article FA I think you could improve this page by removing it, this page much like this statement is no more than opinion! These people who support ID really need to reevaluate their belief system! Would you just run around stating how correct you are without having proof? No, in any real science there has to be proof of existence and proof of interaction. These statements have no more depth to them than the question of does my hand really exist; just cause I see and feel it? Two words: Prove it!


It's all faith based, politically correct, propaganda.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asi9 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (edit comment)
Intelligent design movement [2] Top December 16, 2006 A
Intelligent designer [3] High December 16, 2006 A
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [4] High December 15, 2006 A
Pat Buchanan [5] Low July 13, 2007 A
Discovery Institute [6] Top January 25, 2007 B
Irreducible complexity [7] Top January 25, 2007 B This article, though thorough in its contents, seems to be quite biased. It needs to be edited in order that any point of view from the author(s) can be left out as so far as that is possible. As it stands, it is clearly criticizing the ID point of view. (edit comment)
Center for Science and Culture [8] High January 25, 2007 B
Creation-evolution controversy [9] High January 25, 2007 B 0.5 (edit comment)
Darwin's Black Box [10] High February 21, 2007 B
Objections to evolution [11] High January 23, 2007 B
Teach the Controversy [12] High January 25, 2007 B
Wedge strategy [13] High January 25, 2007 B
William A. Dembski [14] High January 25, 2007 B
Fine-tuned Universe [15] Mid January 25, 2007 B
Jewish reactions to intelligent design [16] Mid May 10, 2007 B
Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) [17] Mid May 6, 2008 B
Kansas evolution hearings [18] Mid January 25, 2007 B
List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design [19] Mid September 24, 2007 B
Of Pandas and People [20] Mid July 10, 2007 B
Politicization of science [21] Mid July 13, 2007 B
Sternberg peer review controversy [22] Mid April 23, 2008 B
Teleological argument [23] Mid July 13, 2007 B
Watchmaker analogy [24] Mid February 13, 2007 B
Ann Coulter [25] Low July 13, 2007 B Toward the end of the Coulter article, it sounds as though Coulter has morphed into a comedian. A tough-sounding, but ultimately "funny" person -- sort of the Bernie Mac of conservatives. (If you've heard Bernie's take on beating children in the "Kings of Comedy" movie, you'll have some notion of what I mean.)

So does this mean that Coulter should be identified as something like "political humorist and author." And the fact that she exhaustively documents her books with endnotes would seem to be pointless, if we are supposed to take her personal attacks (blowing up the New York Times) as a "just a joke" and satire. (edit comment)
Bill Frist [26] Low July 13, 2007 B
Ernie Fletcher [27] Low July 13, 2007 B
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [28] Low April 2, 2008 B
Flock of Dodos [29] Low February 13, 2007 B
Flying Spaghetti Monster [30] Low July 13, 2007 B
Haldane's dilemma [31] Low February 13, 2007 B
John Boehner [32] Low July 13, 2007 B
Kent Hovind [33] Low June 20, 2007 B 9/10 This article is fairly comprehensive and well-sourced. The potentially controversial elements for a living person's biography, such as details of Hovind's encounters with the law, are supported by court records and non-editorial newspaper articles. 32.97.110.142 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Extremely well sourced on his legal woes--but nothing at all on anything else he has done. One reading gets the impression that everything Hovind touches ends up in court. I think we need a little more balance here for everyone's sake. Hovind is a controversial figure mainly because he is a Young Earth Creationist and like other religious or politically charged bios it opens the door for a debate on the issues while neglecting the point of the article--to give a balanced biography without the smear.— Possible single purpose account: Lord9Genesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 05:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is too heavily focussed on the negatives of Kent. His theories may be wrong but he is definitely well-meaning and a profound human being that has many exemplary traits, but regardless, I don't find much centraility in this article which is derserved for everyone. - Chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.56.75 (talk • contribs)

9/10 for being well-sourced, researched, and presented. Could use some minor clean ups. The main trouble is the constant attacks from Hovind defenders that enjoy removing his legal problems. Arbustoo 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)
Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism [34] Low September 24, 2007 B
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. [35] Low July 13, 2007 B I made this a 'Start' rather than a 'B' as the article could be organized a lot better -- it doesn't seem to have anything close to a standard biography structure. Also, not enough references. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)
Rick Perry [36] Low July 13, 2007 B (edit comment)
Rick Santorum [37] Low July 13, 2007 B The article is well written and comprehensive, however, some clean up and polish is needed. There are sections of the article that need citations and the references section has many red links that need to be fixed. A peer review would help in identifying these details and go along way toward consisency in style. Nightngle 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)
Sam Brownback [38] Low July 13, 2007 B
Steve Chabot [39] Low July 13, 2007 B
Truth in Science [40] Low May 10, 2007 B
Darwin on Trial [41] High July 13, 2007 Start
Icons of Evolution [42] High July 13, 2007 Start
Michael Behe [43] High January 25, 2007 Start
Phillip E. Johnson [44] High January 25, 2007 Start
Santorum Amendment [45] High January 25, 2007 Start
Specified complexity [46] High January 25, 2007 Start
The Design Inference [47] High July 13, 2007 Start
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism [48] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Academic Freedom bills [49] Mid March 23, 2008 Start
Bruce Chapman [50] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Creationism's Trojan Horse [51] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
Critical Analysis of Evolution [52] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Dean H. Kenyon [53] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns [54] Mid May 30, 2007 Start
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis [55] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism [56] Mid September 7, 2007 Start At best I'd rate the article a "Start" Whether it has any importance, I'm afraid, I'll have to leave to others with more experience to decide!
  • Biggest problem: It says extremely little about the book itself, focusing instead on critics' negative comments about the book and the tactical and strategic reasons why the authors say they wrote it in the first place. --So there is background about where the volume fits in an historical stream of at least semi-similar works, but virtually nothing about the work itself.

Additional concerns:

  • I doubt the article would pass any NPOV evaluation.
  • Most egregious from the perspective of any kind of encyclopedic perspective, the article includes no summary of the book's content. For someone with a bit more experience, may I suggest, minimally, the table of contents at the Explore Evolution website? (Thanks to previous author/editors for providing the link to the home page.)

As for NPOV, however, let me note that,

  • When the article quotes comments about the work, it provides no factual grounds for why the critics make their comments. (For example, on what grounds does Sally Lehrman claim that the book "uses pseudoscience to attack Darwin's theories"?)
  • In the one case where an ostensible proponent (author Meyer) is referenced as making what one might figure was a counter-balancing positive comment about the work, the reader is offered no explanation of the grounds on which Meyer "objected" to Lehrman's claims. Merely the statement that he did, in fact, object. (Strange!)
  • The (misspelled) comment about Biola University's pedigree seems rather gratuitous and pretty obviously intended as a slap at the institution. (When does a university outgrow its roots? According to the Wikipedia article on the school, it has been a university for some 26 years!)

Brightflash 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Start class" sounds about right for this. Feel free to add to the article. Some of the problems you identify relate to sourcing - we are limited by what has been written about the book in reliable sources. Guettarda 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)
Free Speech on Evolution [57] Mid May 30, 2007 Start
Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) [58] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
Henry F. Schaefer, III [59] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Intelligent Design (book) [60] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
Intelligent design in politics [61] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design [62] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents [63] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Lee Strobel [64] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
List of works on intelligent design [65] Mid June 20, 2007 Start
Maciej Giertych [66] Mid June 20, 2007 Start
Paul Nelson (creationist) [67] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
Richard Weikart [68] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Scott Minnich [69] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
Selman v. Cobb County School District [70] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
Stephen C. Meyer [71] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Steve Fuller (social epistemologist) [72] Mid September 24, 2007 Start As a general biography of Fuller, the article rates only a Start because it's too fixated on the intelligent design debate, which is only a small part of his overall work. More needs to be done to lay out his views on social epistemology, Kuhn, the university, etc. and to relate them to the views of others. --Morgan Dorrell 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)
The Design of Life [73] Mid January 7, 2007 Start
The Edge of Evolution [74] Mid July 10, 2007 Start
The Privileged Planet [75] Mid June 18, 2007 Start
Theistic realism [76] Mid January 25, 2007 Start
Timeline of intelligent design [77] Mid July 13, 2007 Start
A Scientific Support for Darwinism [78] Low March 21, 2008 Start
Alliance Defense Fund [79] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Alvin Plantinga [80] Low February 19, 2007 Start
Argument from poor design [81] Low February 9, 2008 Start
Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy [82] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning [83] Low February 13, 2007 Start
Ben Stein [84] Low August 31, 2007 Start
Beyond intelligent design [85] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Biologic Institute [86] Low September 24, 2007 Start
Bob Inglis [87] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Charles Colson [88] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Cheri Yecke [89] Low June 26, 2007 Start
Christine Comer [90] Low December 16, 2007 Start
Christopher Michael Langan [91] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Clergy Letter Project [92] Low October 28, 2007 Start
Creative Response Concepts [93] Low May 30, 2007 Start
D. James Kennedy [94] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Darwinism, Design and Public Education [95] Low November 12, 2007 Start
David Berlinski [96] Low January 25, 2007 Start
David Klinghoffer [97] Low May 30, 2007 Start
Devolution (biological fallacy) [98] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Dick DeVos [99] Low July 13, 2007 Start Is this completely neutral? Although I do not believe in many of Dick DeVos' opinions and actions, the section on his political career before 2006 seems a bit left sided, emphasizing his lack of attendance to meetings for the Michigan State Board of Education and the Board of Control. (edit comment)
Dieter Althaus [100] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Dinesh D'Souza [101] Low July 13, 2007 Start
EdWatch [102] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Edwin Meese [103] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Evolutionary Informatics Lab [104] Low April 23, 2008 Start
Evolutionary argument against naturalism [105] Low February 19, 2007 Start
Focus on the Family [106] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Forrest Mims [107] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Foundation for Thought and Ethics [108] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Francis J. Beckwith [109] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Frank J. Tipler [110] Low July 13, 2007 Start
George Deutsch [111] Low July 13, 2007 Start
George Gilder [112] Low January 25, 2007 Start
George Weigel [113] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Gerald Schroeder [114] Low July 13, 2007 Start In recent communication with Dr Schroeder, he asked this response be given to the critics of his calculation that six days of creation as described in Genesis is approximately 14-15 billion years.

"In calculating the age of the universe based on biblical data, Schroeder uses neither gravity nor velocity relativistic effects. The calculation, based totally on the expansion of space, a concept totally accepted in cosmology, in brief flows as follows. The Talmud (ca. the year 400) in the section HaGigah tells us that the six days of Genesis from the creation of the universe to the creation of Adam form a separate calendar from the time after Adam, the first human but not the first human-like being according to the Talmud, Maimonides (ca. 1190) and Nahmanides (ca. 1250). The Kabalist Nahmanides writes that his teachers taught that the numbering of each of the six days shows that for these six days, the perspective of time is seen from near the creation looking forward rather than back into history as we do. The numbering goes: day one, a 2nd day, a 3rd day etc. So why day one and not a first day he asks. And explains the Bible writes ‘day one’ because for its view, there had not yet been a 2nd day. That is the Bible for these days sees time looking forward from near the beginning. Then Nahmanides proceeds and expands. The clock of the Bible starts when stable matter forms from the energy of the creation. Time is created at the creation, Nahmanides writes, but the clock of the Bible starts only when stable matter forms. (“When matter forms, time grabs hold,” to use his wording). That moment is the energy level of protons. The ratio of the scale or the energy level or the temperature of space between then and now is nominally a million million according to astronomy text books. Projecting the estimated age of the universe as viewed from our perspective back to the biblical perspective requires a compression of time by this million million factor. That compression, blue shifting is the jargon in astronomy, reduces the 14 to 15 billion year age as per NASA to approximately five and a half days. The days remain 24 hours each, as “the days of our work week” again to quote Nahmanides, but “contain all the days of the world.” And they do."

Gerald Schroeder (edit comment)
Giuseppe Sermonti [115] Low June 20, 2007 Start
Godless: The Church of Liberalism [116] Low February 5, 2007 Start
Granville Sewell [117] Low June 20, 2007 Start
Howard Ahmanson, Jr. [118] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center [119] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Intelligent falling [120] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Israel Hanukoglu [121] Low June 20, 2007 Start
John C. Sanford [122] Low July 13, 2007 Start (edit comment)
Judd Gregg [123] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial [124] Low February 26, 2008 Start
Larry Caldwell [125] Low July 13, 2007 Start
List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" [126] Low September 24, 2007 Start
Mae-Wan Ho [127] Low June 20, 2007 Start
Mark Sanford [128] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Michael Medved [129] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Michael Polanyi Center [130] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Mims-Pianka controversy [131] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Mustafa Akyol [132] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Muzaffar Iqbal [133] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Nancy Pearcey [134] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Neo-creationism [135] Low November 12, 2007 Start
Patrick Edward Dove [136] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Percival Davis [137] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Philip Anschutz [138] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity [139] Low May 30, 2007 Start This article is very biased. I think it's pretty clear from the author's comments: "standard creationist strawman of evolution", "This is incorrect" (no citation), "since natural selection is not a random process at all" (no citation), "a misleading nonsense phrase". Surely, if this group is as incorrect as the author claims, he can find some source to support him. (edit comment)
Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [140] Low May 6, 2008 Start
Richard Sternberg [141] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Robin Collins [142] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Rosalind Picard [143] Low June 20, 2007 Start
Roy Spencer (scientist) [144] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Siegfried Scherer [145] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Slade Gorton [146] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Social conservatism [147] Low February 13, 2007 Start
Stand Up For Science [148] Low June 10, 2007 Start
Texas Citizens for Science [149] Low January 22, 2008 Start
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster [150] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Thomas More Law Center [151] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Uncommon Dissent [152] Low July 13, 2007 Start
Universal probability bound [153] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Wilberforce Forum [154] Low July 13, 2007 Start
William Lane Craig [155] Low January 25, 2007 Start
Charles Thaxton [156] Mid January 25, 2007 Stub
Glenn Branch [157] Mid September 24, 2007 Stub
John G. West [158] Mid December 21, 2007 Stub
Kevin Padian [159] Mid September 24, 2007 Stub
Michael Denton [160] Mid March 2, 2008 Stub
Robert T. Pennock [161] Mid September 24, 2007 Stub
The Creationists [162] Mid January 6, 2008 Stub
A War on Science [163] Low December 16, 2007 Stub
Access Research Network [164] Low July 13, 2007 Stub
Bishop v. Aronov [165] Low January 17, 2008 Stub
Bruce L. Gordon [166] Low July 13, 2007 Stub
Caroline Crocker [167] Low February 18, 2008 Stub
Cornelius G. Hunter [168] Low January 25, 2007 Stub
David Snoke [169] Low February 5, 2008 Stub
Evangelical Philosophical Society [170] Low July 13, 2007 Stub
Intelligent design network [171] Low July 13, 2007 Stub
J. P. Moreland [172] Low January 25, 2007 Stub
James Tour [173] Low June 20, 2007 Stub
Jay Richards [174] Low September 24, 2007 Stub
John Angus Campbell [175] Low August 31, 2007 Stub
John Baumgardner [176] Low June 20, 2007 Stub
Leadership University (web portal) [177] Low October 24, 2007 Stub
Marcus R. Ross [178] Low January 17, 2008 Stub
Paul Chien [179] Low December 27, 2007 Stub
Robert J. Marks II [180] Low October 24, 2007 Stub
The Design Revolution [181] Low July 13, 2007 Stub
The Lie: Evolution [182] Low July 13, 2007 Stub
Thomas E. Woodward [183] Low July 13, 2007 Stub
Tom Bethell [184] Low September 24, 2007 Stub
Wethersfield Institute [185] Low July 13, 2007 Stub
List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy [186] Low November 15, 2007 Unassessed
See also: assessed article categories. Last update: June 12, 2008