Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Request for comment response

I'm basically coming in response to the request for comment. So far as I can see, the article lacks some substantiation and restructuring.

• The statement prior to the third citation, for instance, presents the opinion of one academic in one source as being an absolute. I have to question whether that is sufficient.
  • The 'Dissent' is a fairly obvious appeal to authority, so fairly minimal substantiation is required. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • We do not need to even have a single reference for something obvious like appeal to authority. However, we have one here, and we can probably get more. How many do you think we need? 3? 5? We can get them if needed. This is all essentially moot here, because I suspect that consensus here is that we are fine at the moment.--Filll 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, in this case, BLP might potentially be invoked, which would require extremely thorough referencing. As it is, we are taking one outsider's opinion of the actions of living people. That could very easily violate BLP. I don't know if such limited sourcing is required on making similar statements regarding political candidate's actions, and the two are pretty much functionally identical. John Carter 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Huh?--Filll 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Patently absurd! The "living people" are the "authorities" in the appeal to authority, therefore the appellant is the Discovery Institute, which is not a living person. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • In fact, please see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Question regarding corporate entities. I would have hoped that certain editors in this article saw the inherently prejudicial nature of arguments of, to the effect, "they're always like that", which I have basically seen elsewhere, here, but, presumably, I was wrong. In any event, any such attempt to attribute motivations, as per that page, should be referenced, preferably from a neutral party. John Carter 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The discussion there states "An organization may have a purpose for its actions, or a corporate objective." That the DI's "corporate objective" in this case is to mislead via an appeal to authority is perfectly blatant. The 'Dissent' serves no other purpose. Therefore it is not unreasonable to state this, with only minimal citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• The last two paragraphs of the lead, which are essentially statements of opinion of the subject, I really don't think belong in the lead but in a separate section, as they seem to be trying to lead the reader on what opinion to have before presenting the information on the subject itself.
  • These statements are warranted, and probably required, by WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Possibly. Whether they are required before a description of the subject itself is even presented is another matter entirely. As it is, with the extent of those paragraphs, it seems to be expressing an opinion on a subject which hasn't even been introduced yet. I could see a much shorter indication of the negative response to the statement in the introduction, but as is presenting opinion in some length before presenting the facts on the subject themselves is almost certainly a violation of undue weight. John Carter 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I would beg to differ. The LEAD is supposed to summarize all the material in the body, including criticisms and other allegedly negative material. The citations are included because assorted creationist attacks forced them.--Filll 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Incorrect. The 'Dissent' is "introduced" in the lengthy initial paragraph. It's status within the scientific community is mentioned in two brief paragraphs thereafter. Approximately equal length is given to each. This cannot be considered as giving undue weight to the (majority) scientific side. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • In fact, please see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Question regarding corporate entities. I would have hoped that certain editors in this article saw the inherently prejudicial nature of arguments of, to the effect, "they're always like that", which I have basically seen elsewhere, here, but, presumably, I was wrong. In any event, any such attempt to attribute motivations, as per that page, should be referenced, preferably from a neutral party. John Carter 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The discussion there states "An organization may have a purpose for its actions, or a corporate objective." That the DI's "corporate objective" in this case is to mislead via an appeal to authority is perfectly blatant. The 'Dissent' serves no other purpose. Therefore it is not unreasonable to state this, with only minimal citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• The first complete non-quoted sentence of "Statement" presents similar problematic conclusions. I think it might better be phrased, "The statement's use of the word "Darwinism", as opposed to the more commonly used word evolution, makes it hard to determine exactly which theories are being disputed." That seems to me to be much less POV all around. The following paragraph uses "should" as the second word, which is almost certainly a violation of POV. The third paragraph is entirely unsourced and comes across as POV. "...sounds, on the face of it..." definitely requires sourcing or elimination.
  • WP:SPADE -- "Darwinism" is not merely un"common", it is intentionally pejorative & vague. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • It is quite germane and important to make it clear that the use of the word "Darwinism" is meant as a slur, and is widely used as such in the creationist community. We have not misrepresented this aspect at all in our description in the article. We can add sources, to the third paragraph, since this is widely discussed in the literature criticizing this petition. --Filll 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• The opening of the "Discovery Institute usage" is itself apparently to my eyes another violation of NPOV, until and unless the absolutely equality of the words "evolution" and "Darwinism" is established. To my eyes, that has yet to happen in this article. Saying what the list is intended to do, without having a clear and explicit indication of that in fact being the intentions of the group, is another unsubstantiated conclusion. The word "intention" should only be used if there is in fact a reliable source stating that the parties themselves explicitly had a given intention before it is used.

• • That Creationists ubiquitously call evolution "Darwinism" is far too heavily documented to be disputed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • The intentions are quite obvious, and need not have a reference. However, if you want citations, there are many RS sources available.--Filll 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the claim about whether individual signatories are competent in the field of biology to have their opinion carry much weight, I don't think that that should be stressed overmuch, because, as stated above, degrees are not the sole possible criteria involved. However, it can clearly be stated that, as a group, the signatories do not appear to have many degrees or other indicators of competency in the field.
  • Degrees establish a prima facie case on competence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • I think it is quite clearly stated that the signatories often do not have the qualifications required to pass judgement on evolution. We have citations for this. We have examples. What more is needed?--Filll 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Until and unless a verifiable source inside the DI indicates that this document was in fact explicitly intended to constitute an appeal to authority, it might be a violation of BLP to state as much in the article. Also, making any such statement about a living person, which I assume most of these people are, could constitute a violation of BLP on its own.
  • The Discovery Institute isn't a "living person" so WP:BLP doesn't apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • We have multiple RS sources stating that this is an appeal to authority.--Filll 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of the statements in this article are unsouced. The end of the first paragraph of "Affiliations and credentials" should have some sort of reference, even if only placing the existing reference at the end of the paragraph. Actually, that whole section could probably bear tightening up.
• Personally, the article, to my eyes, appears to be rather poorly organized. The article should probably limit its opening to just a description of the document, follow with the text and reference to the signatories, and then go on with the criticism of the document. Alternately, I can see how much of that content, much of which really doesn't deal that directly with the petition itself, might be best spun off into a separate article, or condensed.
  • "[L]imit[ing] its opening to just a description of the document" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • That first paragraph makes it clear where this comes from; the preceding reference. I guess it can be repeated again a couple of sentences later, but if the reader is so Linguistically-incompetent and unfamiliar with English to understand this, they have bigger problems.--Filll 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, I'm officially a member of all the religion based projects, and it was in an effort to try to improve that section of the wiki that I joined the id project. Personally, I tend to take the standard academic side, that the signatories here are presenting a definitely minority opinion, very likely for less than laudable reasons. But that is an opinion based on lack of direct evidence and as such isn't really relevant to the subject of this article. However, BLP standards, which definitely are relevant to many of the signatories here, are.
• The article in general needs a lot of work, possibly even justifying the {{cleanup}} tag. But no statements about the competence of any living person, without direct evidence not only indicating but stating that they are less than competent, should be in any article.
  • You must have worked on a lot of articles on fairly straight-forward and uncontroversial topics then. This article is in a far better state than some I've had to go to work on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Come to think of it, at least one of the worst offenders I've come across recently is from your neck of the woods: Biblical inerrancy, which is part of WP:BIBLE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• I do babble a lot, don't I? Sorry. John Carter 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Hmmm...--Filll 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

older lists

The references seem not to refer to the correct lists

Caption of Ref. 18 says April 1, 2004 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a January 2005 document

Click on Ref. 19 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)

Click on Ref. 20 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)

Click on Ref. 21 does not open any document on http://www.webarchive.org, at least not with my browser (Firefox)

Caption of Ref. 22 says Feb 3, 2007 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a January 2007 document

Caption of Ref. 22 says April 4, 2007 version of Dissent petition, but a click opens a February 2007 document

Do the captions refer to the dates of a press release by the Discovery Institute? If so, captions should be amended accordingly. If not, captions should reflect the dates given on top of each list. As it is now, it is confusing.

Northfox 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The dates in the citations refer to the date associated with the given version of the list as was determined from studying the literature, multiple website references, etc. I stand by these estimates, but of course I could have made a mistake; I only spent maybe 10 hours on this. They are not necessarily the dates of press releases which were not always made. The links open fine on my browser so you might have to use internet archive and do your own investigation, possibly using the addresses that can be found by editing the page. --13:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

Filll -- for the later versions of the Dissent petition the document explicitly lists the update-date (e.g.: "This list is publicly updated on a quarterly basis – last update February 2007."), and at least some of them don't match the date cited in the article. It's likely that Northfox has a point here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you study the changes to the document as recorded in the internet archive, whatever is recorded in the document itself is not necessarily reflected in the updates to the document and the dates at which they are recorded in internet archive. Granted, there can be a delay before an update shows up in internet archive, but in many instances the updates are quite frequent; almost every day. Take a look.--Filll 15:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the the Internet Archive:

• Two, apparently identical, documents dated (inside the document) as Jan05 -- updated Dec 12, 2005 & Apr 04, 2007
• One dated July 2005 & updated Dec 10, 2005 -- doc created 14/07/2005 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• One dated Dec 2005 & updated Feb 06, 2006 -- as an extra check, I looked up the doc's creation-date under Acrobat for this document -- it's 7/01/2006 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• One dated Feb06 & updated Feb 24, 2006
• One dated Jun06 & updated Jul 09, 2006
• One dated Jan07 and updated Feb 03, 2007
• One dated Feb07 and updated Apr 04, 2007 -- created 9/02/2007 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• (I kept getting "Failed Connection" errors when I attempted to download the latest version, updated Jun 10, 2007)

There is nothing here to indicate that the internal dates are inaccurate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok let me look at it again then.--Filll 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Salem hypothesis

Should there be a link to Salem hypothesis at all here?--ZayZayEM 00:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, although we probably should clean up the Salem Hypothesis article first.--Filll 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen versions of this, or very similar, hypotheses around various blogs. I think it's general thrust has some credibility, but would question if it is notable or reliably sourcable. My first question is "who is Bruce Salem, and does he have any standing to propose and/or test his hypothesis?" If not, we need somebody with some semblance of standing to make the hypothesis. I agree with Filll that we should hold off linking to it until it solidifies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Salem hypothesis is currently a low-quality article should not stop us linking to it here. Quite the opposite - the more incoming links to the article, the more people will read it and the more likely it is to improve. I will add the link to this article. Terraxos (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

self-contradictory as usual

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." - I would personally sign that. I know each and every single scientist does indeed endorse this, and always did, ever since Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. The fallacy here is that someone who really follows the notion laid out in the statement acts very much in the spirit of science. Anyone who doesn't follow it acts non-scientifically, because scepticism is the basic premise of all science. If sources can be found for this, a paragraph outlining this (typically ID, I might add) inner fallacy should definitely be included in the article. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 19:48, December 5, 2007

There are no scientists that would agree with this. The sneaky trick that the Discovery Institute uses is to phrase their statements so blandly and vaguely that no one would disagree. Then they extrapolate from that agreement to all kinds of nonsense, like support of biblical literalism, or disparagement of other faiths etc.--Filll (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lemonick paragraph

I edited a paragraph in the expertise section, and here is its present form

TIME senior science writer Michael Lemonick describes A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as "an attempt to divert your attention" by citing the opinions of scientists who have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology, which he describes as "intellectual dishonesty." For example, Lemonick pointed out that one of the more prominently described members of the list is a surgeon with no expertise relevant to evolution.[5] The Discovery Institute responded by labeling Lemonick "Time's Darwinist Thought-Cop ... who writes for a weekly news tabloid" and by questioning Lemonick's credentials by quoting Lemonick himself "I've been covering science in major publications for more than two decades. Consider the fact that I may have actually learned a thing or two along the way"

I changed 'writer' to 'science writer', because that's how he is described in his wikiarticle. I deleted an unnecessary 'another' in the second sentence. Most importantly, I found out that the ID does not question his qualifications. In the DI article is a quote from Lemonick about Lemonick on his TIME blog. He himself describes himself as a non-professional. The quote and the sentence before now really look terrible, but before I edit further, I want to bounce it off this list. Any idea of improvement? How about just chopping off the bit starting from '...and by questioning...'? Northfox (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessarily long and apologist - the page is about SDFD, so we should cite the criticism, possibly the counter-criticism, but we don't need to justify including the paragraph if Lemonick or his publisher (Time) is notable. Both are. I'll have a go. WLU (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. WLU (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does Lemonick describe himself as a non-professional? The quote above is a bit self-deprecating, but certainly sounds like a professional journalist to me. From the usual unreliable source, Michael Lemonick "earned degrees at Harvard University and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He teaches a course on environmental reporting at Columbia." He also seems to be a living person, and the DI is not a reliable source for anything other than a description of themselves. Presumably WP:BLP must be considered. . .. dave souza, talk 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat irrelevant given my edits to the section - have a look now, it's sourced to either the specific organization (i.e. Time or NCSE) or specific bloggers (PZ Myers primarily). The sentence on the DI replies is quite short - not sure if that's a problem or not. WLU (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is too truncated now. I also verified that they did call him Times Darwinist thought cop, not Time's Darwinist thought cop. They might have edited their text subsequently, however.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole shebang is too short, or the DI reply? WLU (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

confusing and misleading, ref 23

Ref 6 and Ref 23 are used as quotes to qualify for the two adjectives 'confusing and misleading' in the last paragraph of "Discovery Institute usage".

Ref 23: http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm | title = Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest Discovery Institute Challenge | first = Steven | last = Schafersman | date = 2003-09-02 | accessdate = 2007-10-30 | format = html | language = english.

I doubt that this is a valid source. First, Schafersman is a geologist, not a biologist, and thus no expert in the field. Second, the article appeared only on the web, and the host, Texas Citizens for Science is a 'grassroots organization' without credentials. Their pages are last updated July 2004 (3 and a half years ago!), so it seems that this was a one-time movement, that is now defunct.

That leaves the Forrest article as a source, but she does not mention 'confusing and misleading'. I suggest to remove both the adjectives and ref. 23

Northfox (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea "their pages are last updated July 2004". Their web page says: Last updated: 2008 January 3 and includes news items dated Dec. 20, 2007. As for Schafersman's credentials, on his testimony to the Texas State Board of Education Textbook Adoption Hearing, he is described as

an evolutionary scientist who for over two decades has taught biology, geology, paleontology, and environmental science at the University of Houston, Houston Community College, Miami University of Ohio, and the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.

Given Schaferman's active role in science education in general and evolution education in particular, and given his first hand presence in the events of which he speaks, I can't see how he wouldn't be a reliable source for the statement that

The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas

Guettarda (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this sort of claim NF just made really is uncompelling and unconvincing. If we had more energy, we would have articles for each of these grassroots organizations in different states. The one I know well in Iowa is active and has regular meetings and events and rallys. Texas is even more active. I have seen SS quoted in the Christine Comer situation frequently as an authority by mainstream newspapers around the country and the world. So this is just silliness.--Filll (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the date of the updates. But, I did not check all pages of the site. Just happened that all link I clicked (press release, speakers, Legislation, News [yes, news!], about TCS), had last updates of 2004.

Sorry to continue to be so silly, but if it is such an active group, it should be possible for Schafersman to get his view into a mainstream citable source. His testimony before the Board is also self-published on the same site. The infidels.com site list his profession as 'geologist'.

Anyway, according to WP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Source#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources

such a source should be avoided. No better source for the claims?

Northfox (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Why does the article make such a big deal about how many people on the list did not receive their degree from a US university?

The article is not objective, as I would have hoped to see from Wikipedia. It lists several 'dubious' affiliations, but ignores the fact that there are many legit, creditable scientists out there who do not accept macro-evolution as fact or truth. This is what the list is seeking to demonstrate, that the statement "99.9% of scientists accept evolution" is false. Note that in that statement Dr. Raff said "scientists", not "biologists". So ignoring the chemists, physicists, mathemeticians etc. who have agreed to the declaration is hardly doing justice to the issue. I also find it amusing that the 'citation' given by Wikipedia to this "99.9%" statement (http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf) is a weekly NIH newsletter which features a long article on eastern religion meditation practices.

--still confused Rob387 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The absurd and embarassing rejection of the scientific evidence of evolution is mostly a US phenomenon, a manifestation of the culture wars of religion against reason. Since it's primarily localized to the United States, with it's peculiar mixture of high education and fundamentalist bible-swallowing, it makes sense that the article would portray it as a largely US phenomenon.

The article can never be objective, though it can be NPOV; in this case, the neutral presentation and discussion of the evidence is that the authors of the Dissent from Darwinism have very carefully and consciously crafted and promulgated a statement designed to allow scientists to be able to sign with a clear and honest conscience a very minor statement that properly expresses the skepticism expected of any educated person within a scientific discipline, then allow the document to be disengenuosly spread by religious fanatics in a public relations, bullshit attempt to assert an argument from authority that somehow is supposed to challenge the scientific basis of evolution. The statement does not allow "many legit, creditable scientists" to "not accept macro-evolution as fact or truth". It's a cunningly worded PR document that is portrayed as expressing doubt which does not in fact exist, which is worthless for anything but pushing an agenda which is empty of all merit except in the minds of those too ignorant to know what's wrong with it, or to driven by religious zeal to be honest.

Physicists wouldn't accept criticism of their theories from biologists, why does it work the other way around? Anyone except biologists expressing doubt about evolution is irrelevant as a pastry chef expressing doubts about the octane rating of the gas in his car. Chemists, physicists and mathemeticians are not credible critics of biological theories.

Yup, the citaiton should be corrected if it's wrong. WLU (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you were not pointing out a flaw in the citation, you were expressing your amusement. Please note that wikipedia is not a chat forum and talk pages are not for discussing amusing aspects of references. If you've no suggestions for improvements that are based on reliable sources, please don't clog up the talk pages. WLU (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Final point - if you're speaking of this section, the 'big deal' is that the Discovery Institute is not giving current affiliations of signatories. It's once again being deceptive about how they represent who signs their petitions. I'll explain why - most people know that MIT, Harvard and Berkeley are good schools. By portraying the signatories as hailing from 'good schools' (schools with high name recognition from the public), rather than the diploma mills and religio-political 'think' tanks they currently are affiliated with (which are completely irrelevant to most people because they're useless and have no name recognition as educational institutions, and if people took the time to look up the signatories true affiliations, they'd realize the statement is a useless-as-tits-on-a-bull religious POV-push rather than a legitemate tool to express skepticism, if not the downright lie that it is) they inflate the face validity of the argument from authority logical fallacy . Hence, they pack the list with as many signatories they can with any link to these high recognition schools in order to once again over-inflate the face validity of the petition. It's yet another example of the Discovery Institute lying to the public to get political support for encroachement into territory that normally blocked to them by the Constitution, or their own inability to publish in legitemate scientific venues (because they don't publish legitemate science anything). Essentially, it's the DI trying to manipulate public opinion using deception that is as close to downright lies as they can get, while still maintaining plausible deniability. Given Darwin on Trial, I'm guessing Phillip E. Johnson had something to do with it. WLU (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

temper temper, the article is not NPOV and it should be. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way does it not express the views within in the rough proportion of their prominence? Darwin dissenters represent less than 1 per cent of the scientists in the relevant fields. And so this article can be more than 99% negative by NPOV. It is far less negative than that, so it is more than fair. Is that clear ?--Filll (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

d'Abrera and British Museum

It seems to me that D'Abrera was at the National History Museum while it was still formally named British Museum (Natural History). For a timeline of names, see [[1]]. Thus it is only correct to state that name. Nothing that merits a confusing and non-related mention in this article here.Northfox (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. This in fact makes the listed affiliation on the petition doubly wrong -- as (i) he wasn't at the NHM when he signed & (ii) it wasn't called the BM(NH) when he signed. It was listing the old name of an organisation he was once at. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree. The article was correct before your change. Odd nature (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

When d'Abrera signed, it had not had this name for many years. As near as I can tell, this was a clear attempt to shade the truth a bit, which if you look into d'Abrera's record, he has done over and over and over. And a good fraction of the other people who have signed the statement have done the same.--Filll (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

POV?

"The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists..."

This sounds too much like POV. No matter whether it is true or not, this statement should not be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.212.14 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. In fact, the entire article seems to have a POV. It is certainly true that the vast majority of scientists would disagree with the petition, but that does not mean that the article should blatantly bias itself against the Discovery Institute. NPOV means that the article should describe the petition and the debate but not engage in the debate against the topic of the article. WP:NPOV should be consulted by all editors, especially for this article. VashiDonsk 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the WP:NPOV policy. It calls for all verifiable and notable views to be covered, not just the Discovery Institute's, in this case. Odd nature (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Discovery Institute compiled and distributed other similarly confusing and misleading lists..."

Perhaps Odd Nature would like to explain how the above sentence is expressing a view. That sentence sounds like a fact to me...Fritleyfrisp (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

References 6 and 26 are the appropriate places to seek the source of the comment. We represent sources fairly, so long as the statement is true to what the sources says, it's OK. WLU (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Category discussion notice

The related Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

Alleged BLP violation

User user:Relata refero has twice removed the following, citing a WP:BLP violation:

PZ Myers further stated that one signatory was "proud" of his ignorance of evolution, stating that like Michael Behe, he was able to ignore contradictory information that had been placed in front of him.

However, I don't see how this is a BLP violation (even if this was a biography). There is no policy which says "we cannot present unflattering material regarding a living person" (indeed, much of Wikipedia would have to be rewritten if such a policy was introduced!). The statement is sourced, and the source is a notable expert. Are you saying that Myers didn't say this? Are you saying that Myers is not an expert? The article doesn't even mention Egnor by name, hence the reader would have to click the reference to find out who Myers is talking about anyhow: whereupon he/she would find out that Myers did indeed say various uncomplimentary things about Egnor, including the stuff we cited. This is not a problem, as far as I can see. I will revert. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." This quote does not even have the merit of trying to talk about his argument, it specifically talks about him. Thus I will remove it; please don't revert me, obvious BLP vios are not subject to 3RR. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP, including "biographical material about living persons on other pages", might not apply in that the quote is referenced as a direct quote from Myers, not a direct OR statement by a Wikipedia editor. However, Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves might be relevant, as the material under that policy cannot be contentious and cannot involve claims about third parties. A blog quote made by PZ Myers, talking about Egnor and Behe, would fit this exclusion IMO. A way around that might be "PZ Myers further stated that one signatory was "proud" of his ignorance of evolution... able to ignore contradictory information that had been placed in front of him". Faith (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Except its Myers talking about Behe and Egnor, right...? --Relata refero (disp.) 16:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is another example of misinterpretation of WP:BLP and an attempt to apply the "big hammer" of BLP on a nonbiography. In this case, the "subject" of this comment is not even mentioned. And Pharyngula is the most heavily trafficked science blog in the world at this point in time (or maybe second, but very prominent). This is a statement by a highly notable person in evolution and in the evolution-creationism debates. A faculty member at a major university and someone targeted by Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the intelligent design creationism propaganda movie, for that very reason. So under the rules of WP:SPS, this is a WP:RS, and linking to it does not violate BLP. If these sorts of rules were applied, as Robert Stevens points out, we would have to remove all articles about all books, lectures, movies, radio shows, magazines, scientific articles, etc from Wikipedia. This sort of extreme view of what BLP covers just staggers the imagination. Unfortunately, this extrapolation has been done over and over. It is starting to approach WP:TE and WP:DE.--Filll (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not about a bloody book at all, or about anything but the man. FGS. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pharyngula is a reliable source - at the very least for PZ's opinion. And PZ's opinion about an unnamed person is certainly not a BLP issue. That's an amazingly silly tack even for you. Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Even for me? What happened to the civility you were complaining about?

Not naming the person - well, except for Behe - is a pretty silly way to get around BLP's restrictions. Whatever, I will take this to the BLP noticeboard in a bit. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, even for someone who asserts that we should delete information from articles that readers are likely to be unfamiliar with. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read my response to that? "It's an argument that has parity with yours in nuance, which is why I made it. WP is supposed to be both useful and not indiscriminate." It was an attempt to demonstrate that your argument was fallacious by inverting it. Sigh. I wasn't serious. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As for "not naming the person" - I don't think that PZ is trying to get around BLP restrictions. Just my guess, but I don't think he feels constrained by your strained interpretations of our policies. Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Myers, doesn't shy away from naming Egnor. We're doing that in order to claim BLP doesn't apply. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a lousy interpretation of BLP and an incredible stretch to claim it applies here.--Filll (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[response to Filll 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)]However, "self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Faith (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't really a factual source, it's PZ's opinion. Which is notable. And for which Pharyngula is a reliable source. It doesn't say "X is Y", it says "PZ says [x] is Y". Slight difference, but it makes a world of difference. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that distinction. Faith (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's PZ about a living person. This is not a statement about PZ, its about the other person. Whatever, I will take this to WP:BLP/N and get the hell out of ID, as usual. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is valid, however, that WP is not making that statement. PZ said X about a person only makes the entry PZ's cited opinion. WP isn't taking a stand that X statement is correct, only identifying it as something PZ said (which should be clearly written as such). If WP stated X about a person as fact, using the self-published blog posts as the cited source, it most likely fall under BLP violation (RS violation, etc.). That is the difference being explained here. It might violate NPOV if it's overly used to lean toward a specific bias (which could be countered with a cited example of someone refuting PZ with their opinion) or violate WP:NOTE if it's not noteworthy, but it doesn't appear to violate BLP. Faith (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with Robert Stevens, there's no basis in policy or fact for Relata refero objection. The source stays as far as I'm concerned. Odd nature (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that while this is a blog, it is a blog on a fringe topic, by a notable expert, so reliable sources are defined with more laxity. Though this is a self-published source, it is overseen by ScienceBlogs, meaning PZ Myers expertise is assured by the publisher. The requirements for SPS are expertise in a relevant field demonstrated by previous publication in journals and other reliable venues. Myers meets all of these in my mind. The statement could be summarized better in my mind, but the source itself is valid. Particularly given the scientific community justifiably ignoring creationism and intelligent design, a blog is a working source per parity of sources in my mind. Please include any link to the BLP/N, though the fringe theory noticeboard might be a better venue. The main statement issue for me is if this is an accurate representation of the source, and could it be better summarized. WLU (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that Myers is a significant figure, and quotable on the nature and tactics of the ID movement. I just don't think his blog satisfies our conditions for quoting him on individual living people. The request is at WP:BLPN#A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. I'd appreciate it if nobody who has already made their mind up comment there just yet, unless they believe that my statement of the problem is irredeemably POV. One wants new eyes from elsewhere, not to move the discussion across venues... --Relata refero (disp.) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of seeing BLP concerns being misused by Relata to delete content s/he's opposed to personally. Plenty have noticed and s/he is not going to be able to continue like this for long; the community has little patience for POV warriors. Odd nature (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Any form of dispute resolution or user intervention, perhaps a community topic-ban proposal, would be better than this sort of vaguely threatening statement. You are, of course, not the first person to call me a POV-warrior.:) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Raising bogus concerns of BLP violations has a way of doing that. This isn't even a bio. And if I didn't want to be known as something I'd do my best to avoid acting like that thing. You really shouldn't act surprised, this isn't The Care Bears article. You inserted yourself into this set of articles on contentious topics by making some sweeping and baseless claims and while appearing to not know the subject material or being willing to get up to speed on it. Odd nature (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer only the more direct statements: BLP applies across all articles and talkpages, so "this isnt even a bio" is irrelevant; I usually edit BLPs and nationalism-related articles, not pop culture crap, so its not as if I am some hothouse flower here; I don't make sweeping claims, and I don't see how my closely argued removal of one line is sweeping; and - not that it matters - but I know more than enough about the subject, as I am a $30 member of the NSCE and have PZ on my rss alerts. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and why replace pretty pony with the care bears? That was the most puzzling thing all day. Is there something about the pony series I should be "up to speed" on? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is at least the 3rd time I have seen RR do this at ID related articles. Only one of the three was actually a biography. In one case, a review that was widely cited and published in Talk Origins was judged to violate BLP because it was a negative review of a book, and therefore would reflect badly on the author of the book. Inspection of the review showed no attack on the author whatsoever, just the content of the book. In this case, we have one of the most well known and highly respected science blogs in the world published by a notable figure and expert, expressing some opinion about someone we do not even name, again not in a biography. If we are to remove all links to all sources that might contain some negative information about someone somewhere, we will greatly impoverish Wikipedia. In any case, even if identifying the subject of Myer's comments constitutes a BLP violation, we do not do this on Wikipedia so where is the problem??? Finally, we have a biography that was edited by someone with an IP address the same as the subject of the biography, and now RR claims that warning notices of the IP editing constiute a BLP violation. I have asked over and over for the policy to back this up, but have received no response. In addition, RR claims that anything beyond bare links in a biography describing the activities in more detail constitue a BLP violation, even when the material we are including appeared in the New York Times and can be sourced in many other ways as well. So the more of this I encounter, the less impressed I am. It is one spurious argument after another, after another. None of them hold water. None of them make any sense. None of them align with WP policy. It is all nonsense.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The first instance is untrue; it was because I believed the review of the book was cherrypicked to become a statement about the man's intellect. The second, current case, we can come to in a moment. The third case is even more puzzling. I never so much as mentioned BLP. You really should actually read what I post sometime.

In this (the second) case, I am not suggesting we remove all links to to all sources which might contain negative information about someone somewhere. I am suggesting we remove references to self-published sources which are used to support contentious information or opinion about living persons. This is not novel, nor in any way out of the bog-standard ordinary.

As for your last oversimplification ("anything beyond bare links"), it is simply untrue. I truly don't see how you strengthen your argument with so much inaccuracy and bad faith.

I edit tons and tons of BLPs. The only places where I ever get this sort of reaction is in ID articles. I would suppose they must already be perfectly balanced and sourced, except the sort of rhetoric that gets used on the talkpages leads me to doubt it. Whatever, on this particular instance, no doubt someone will arrive from the BLP noticeboard in due course who will either tell me I'm an idiot or back me up. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We've already sufficiently established that was no basis for your BLP gripe, so why are still wasting our time and yours here with this? Filll, stop feeding him. Odd nature (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

POint to the place where you actually satisfied my objections, rather than randomly calling me a troll, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"I edit tons and tons of BLPs. The only places where I ever get this sort of reaction is in ID articles". So what are you saying - that it's only on ID-related articles are people fail to tolerate[2] your chronic incivility[3]? Or that it's only on ID-related articles that you are this rude and disruptive? Guettarda (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Its only on those articles that people get defensive, accuse me of sockpuppetry, POV, trolling, meatpuppetry and CoI all at once, and then, mystifyingly, call me uncivil.... --Relata refero (disp.) 07:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are we not naming Michael Egnor in the text, when his name is clearly visible even in the title of the cite? Either we have the balls to name names, or we don't. - Merzbow (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merbow certainly makes a valid point, and we don't generally put BLP violations in external links. I'm not at all convinced that even if we named him it would be a BLP issue since Myers opinion is clearly relevant. Maybe we could instead say something like "Prominent science blogger and biologist PZ Myers called one proponent, Michael Egnore ..." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If it's not a BLP problem (which it probably isn't, given the above arguments), then it's kind of pointless to obscure the name in the text while leaving it exposed in the cite. The alternative to putting the name in the text or removing the material altogether would be to obscure the name in the citation as well. - Merzbow (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree except that thinking about this more I'm not completely convinced that the comment adds much to the article. It isn't really about the list but about someone who happens to be on the list. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

PZ Myers blog entries

Reviewing the sources, it looks like the PZ Myers cite might need to be generally re-written - this and the extant citation should probably both be linked. I may re-write tomorrow. The current version isn't great and more focus could be based on the substantive reasons why Myers thinks Egnor's missing the point rather than just calling him an idiot. Might also avoid the BLP concerns. WLU (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In need of a source

The following statement needs a source that actually verifies it to be true, which I think we all believe it is, yet no source currently validates this belief:

• "... the list is used to lend support to other Discovery Institute campaigns,[13] including 'Teach the Controversy', 'Critical Analysis of Evolution', 'Free Speech on Evolution', and 'Stand Up For Science.'"

When I added a ((cn)) tag I was reverted twice by FeloniusMonk, who then added this source. The problem is that this source does not in any way address the claim. Its only mention of the petition is to say that at the time the source was published the petition had over 470 names on it. Now so as not to edit war I am not reverting FeloniusMonk but I would appreciate it if he self-reverted and found a real source here. Any and all are welcome to do the same. Thanks.04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)PelleSmith (talk)

THANKS Felonius. This source does connect the petition to "other campaigns." Please add more if you have them. I'm going to remove the other source since it does not actually establish any such connection.PelleSmith (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You don't "have" to remove the other source. It seems useful and relevant. Guettarda (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority

"The Discovery Institute presents the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint." cf. "Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".

Pot? Kettle? Black?Fritleyfrisp (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you propose that we gauge this? By the way this figure agrees with two surveys and several other metrics. In addition there is a fundamental difference, if you have not noticed. Alters is an expert in what he is quoted on. The people who signed the petition by and large are not even close to experts. In addition there is a huge difference between a peer reviewed NIH Journal and some random list created by creationist biblical literalists, moonies and similar extremists.--Filll (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New posts go at the bottom. WLU (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not trying to prove anything, we're providing the opinion of experts. Wikipedia can not say the list is complete, utter bullshit, of laughably poor empistemological and logical grounding. That would be original research. But we can report experts who say so. Please note that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the page, not generally discussing the topic at hand. Did you have a specific suggestion? WLU (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change to sentence

""Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" which is also an appeal to authority.Fritleyfrisp (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. No way. --Filll (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Surprise.Fritleyfrisp (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please thread your posts per WP:TALK

Given the utter, utter rejection of any validity of the list itself, as represented by a multitude of reliable sources, to a nearly embarrassing degree (for the Discovery Institute), there's no real need for a qualification. Alters' is representing the majority here, not the majority, so there's no real need to qualify his statement. Though Brian Alters could be identified by name as he is apparently sufficiently notable to have his own page. I think the WP:NPOV policy supports the tone as being a universal statement, particularly since this is the lead, and should be summarizing the body below. This is due weight, the opposite of undue weight, on a majority opinion. WLU (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec, more or less the same as WLU) The phrase "appeal to authority" often implies that there is an informal logical fallacy involved, but not the case that every instance of trusting an expert constitutes such flawed reasoning. The point is that a list of famous names, most of them not subject-matters experts, is an appeal to authority, while stating that 99.9% of the experts in the relevant field disagree is not that same kind of flawed reasoning. Do you agree there is a difference here? Merzul (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't Fritleyfrisp (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a source for calling the list an appeal to authority. Do you have a source calling the Alters quote in a peer reviewed journal an Appeal to Authority?--Filll (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense Fritleyfrisp (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry we cannot use that in an encyclopedia as a source. You are welcome to go visit Conservapedia however.--Filll (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I already have, this site's fascism gives me a headache. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Law and order gives you a sair heid? Try aspirin. . dave souza, talk 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Alters quote is not an "appeal to authority", it is a refutation of the DI's factual basis for making their appeal (where the fact that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is a refutation of its logical basis). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Amusingly, the source for our calling the list an appeal to authority is in fact calling a 2002 sampling of 460 Ohio science professors an appeal to authority and saying that the Institute's list of signatories is an attempt to counter it. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And it seems we can't even use it per WP:SPS, this is a political scientist on his homepage. Anything better? 86.44.28.186 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

not in citation given

Lead, 4th sentence: "Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[2]"

[2] is about a "not terribly productive" Institute researcher which Forrest looks at in light of an Institute statement that “researchers at the new Institute are serious scientists with impressive research records”. Anne Gaugner, with colleagues Axe and Dixon, wrote that “Researchers at the Biologic Institute are convinced that [the theory of intelligent design can lead to good science]”. (Quoted by Forrest)

Forrest says, "A May 2007 search of scientific databases for peer-reviewed articles by Gauger, a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” (Discovery Institute, 2007), yielded only three identifiable articles, written in 1985, 1987, and 1993, all outdated by scientific standards (Gauger et al., 1985; Gauger et al., 1987; Gauger and Goldstein, 1993)." (Forrest, 2007 p. 24)

This is the sole mention of the petition in the source. Is there another source for the assertion in our article? I think it's clear this won't do. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record

Regarding the current edit war between WAS and others. Please have a look at Talk:Rosalind_Picard#Proposing_some_language. There is no reliable source anywhere on this planet that backs up the statement that "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or Dissent From Darwinism, is a petition promoting intelligent design." Before the final language was nailed down on the Picard page I asked repeatedly for such a source and none was ever produced. You should at least consider implementing the language used on that page because it is clearly more accurate. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the consensus we reached at Picard was to say that it was the DI doing the promoting, not the petition. We should migrate that language here as well. - Merzbow (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute is both the author of the petition and the source of ID. The institute came up with ID, then the petition as a means of promoting it. The two are part of the same campaign, not separate campaigns. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I really really hate fighting. I've tried to help this page. I like my earlier edit better than the minimal last one. But I'm done here. I think it is a real shame when some people believe the Discovery Institute lie that people signing this petition signed a statement against evolution. They did not. They signed a statement that suggests there is more to the "complexity of life" than "random mutation and natural selection" and there is as the modern theory of evolution clearly shows. Also, they signed a statement that suggests the "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." What scientist could be against "careful examination of the evidence"? There is nothing in the actual statement that could not be agreed to by every scientist on the planet; except that anyone with an ounce of savoir faire can see that it is designed as a propaganda tool to mislead and so should not be signed on that basis. Why some non-creationists think it is helpful to promote the Discovery Institute's lie that the signers signed a statement against evolution is beyond me. The word evolution is not even in the statement. And "Darwinianism" is certainly not the same thing as evolution to anyone who understands evolution. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Pelle, I agree that the statement is used to promote ID rather than actually "promoting" ID. Note that was its original purpose, whether the first signatories knew it or not, and so it can't be said to be "misused". It's still in use, and is referred to by the Leaders Guide for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The original adverts were headed:

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted

that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction

to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

I've tweaked the intro on that basis. ... dave souza, talk 12:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks good now. - Merzbow (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed.PelleSmith (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

For this I count two sources, by prominent notable faculty members. Both are very well cited. By WP:SPS, these are WP:RS.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As I have said in threads above this:

The source for our calling the list an appeal to authority is in fact calling a 2002 sampling of 460 Ohio science professors an appeal to authority and saying that the Institute's list of signatories is an attempt to counter it. That in itself is problematic for using as a source to say this list is an appeal to authority; that this is a political scientist (not a bio guy, no relevence to ID, not a logician, no authority on argument. maybe you need a rhetorician, that might cover both bases ;)) on his homepage only compounds the problem. It's a crappy source for the assertion in the article.

"Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[2]"

The relevant part of [2] concerns a "not terribly productive" Institute researcher which Forrest looks at in light of an Institute statement that “researchers at the new Institute are serious scientists with impressive research records”. Anne Gaugner, with colleagues Axe and Dixon, wrote that “Researchers at the Biologic Institute are convinced that [the theory of intelligent design can lead to good science]”. (Quoted by Forrest)

Forrest says, "A May 2007 search of scientific databases for peer-reviewed articles by Gauger, a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” (Discovery Institute, 2007), yielded only three identifiable articles, written in 1985, 1987, and 1993, all outdated by scientific standards (Gauger et al., 1985; Gauger et al., 1987; Gauger and Goldstein, 1993)." (Forrest, 2007 p. 24)

This is the sole mention of the petition in the source. There's no way that covers the assertion in our article, is there?

My lead reads better in any case. :) 86.44.28.186 (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your lead omits a significant fact, that the petition is part of a larger campaign. As such it was fatally incomplete. Odd nature (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Get a better source! One that fits the assertion made! Not that this is the way to write articles in the first place, but at least that's info worthy of the lead, unlike the "appeal to authority" editorializing. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well philosophers and political scientists and sociologists are relevant, because they are the people that deal with "appeals to authority", not biologists. But there are lots of other potential sources [4][5] by Matt Inlay, clearly notable in this area, as well as Ed Brayton [6]. I am sure I could find more with a bit of work. Is there any doubt that this is an appeal to authority? It appears to satisfy all the definitional requirements and does note even really need a source in fact.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only does it need a source, but it probably needs to be ascribed to somebody or somebodies in the article. I could take the view that the list is intended to show that some people who are quite clever, or were when they graduated, and trained in thinking with scientific rigour, agree with a vague statement regarding Darwinian scepticism. Perhaps that's not a view that's likely to be widely held, but the point at which an opinion becomes so widely or authoritatively held that we can state it as fact on Wikipedia is murky, and indications are that we are not at that point here. Would any other ostensibly neutral publication in the world characterize the list as an appeal to authority outside of an opinion piece? Do we need to? 86.44.28.186 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And would it be overly optimistic of me to assume your silence on the Forrest cite means assent? :) 86.44.28.186 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Assent to what? I am confused. The list is obviously an "appeal to authority", just as it is obviously a "list". We have 3 sources for it by notable figures. I am sure we can get more. And what is wrong with Forrest's essay? She is a notable figure. The same material is in articles and books by Forrest. We can draw on those as well, but by WP:SPS her statements in such a venue are reliable sources. I do not understand what your problem is. And besides which, we do things by consensus here, not by your dictates or fiats or fatwahs. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

the hell? 86.44.28.186 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotta go with Filll with this one. This list is an "appeal to authority" on it's face, and there's plenty in the sources already in the article to back it up, not to mention other sources like Creationism's Trojan Horse. Odd nature (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about Barbara Forrest, who is a professor of philosophy notable for her criticism of intelligent design? The list is an appeal to authority, an obvious one at that, and we have references that are suitable for a science topic, let alone a fringe topic. Also, an appeal to 'scientists' on evolution, when most of the 'scientists' aren't biologists, is an appeal to authority. A statement by a professor of philosophy s not an appeal to authority, its a testimony by an expert. Even if she were the only person calling it an appeal to authority, that's sufficient. If there's two more, gravy. WLU (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

More than that, it is repeatedly used as an appeal to authority (most recently here). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I just asked for a third opinion right before all you guys showed up. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WLU, you're not even reading my posts, or the article, seems like. Same could be said for Filll. There are two separate assertions sourced to two separate cites. Please read. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The source for calling it an 'appeal to authority' is this:[7]

Intelligent design proponents meanwhile celebrate it as a soon-to-be-mature alternative that will eventually overthrow evolution's status as a dominant scientific paradigm. Author Lee Strobel in a Christianity Today interview said "one of the fastest growing phenomenon is scientists who are doubtful of the claims of Darwinism" as "there's more than 300 scientists with doctorates from major universities who've now signed this statement saying that they are skeptical of the claims of neo-Darwinism." (Science that Backs Up Faith - Christianity Today Magazine) This appeal to authority is coupled with the scientifically recognized fact (since 1965) that the universe has a finite origin now figured at 13.7 billion years ago (from work via Hubble and Keck telescope evidence, among cosmologists). Strobel construes the origin to mean that "whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause." Readers should recognize circular reasoning here; but if not, they may recognize the absence of an empirically testable claim.

...which is clearly calling A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism ("there's more than 300 scientists with doctorates from major universities who've now signed this statement saying that they are skeptical of the claims of neo-Darwinism.") an appeal to authority. This statement is not referring to "a 2002 sampling of 460 Ohio science professors" (which only comes up several paragraphs later). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo. For a start the link in our article is to footnote 12. " 12 See Ohio Scientists' Intelligent Design Poll. The sample of 460 had a response rate of 31% and a sampling error of +/-4.5%. The Discovery Institute would have to counter this poll's appeal-to-authority value, and in early 2006 they attempted that. The result is profiled in CSC - A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, released 20 February 2006 "

Okay, so disregard that and link to Renka's whole paper instead. Fine. Then we find him saying that an ID proponent is using it as an appeal to authority (this appeal to authority refers to Strobel's statement). So it's not a good source for our characterizing the list as an appeal to authority. And the SPS concerns remain, in any case, in my view, as do the concerns about editorializing.

If we had an article on the Ohio poll would you expect to see Renka's characterization of it in the lead as fact? Is it so vital to have this in the lead? You could do it with Filll's sources with "has been characterized by critics of Intelligent Design as an appeal to authority " or something similar. I don't think you're going to find it outside of an opinion piece in a reliable secondary source, hence we shouldn't state it as fact. Why bother with it at all? 86.44.28.186 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)