Talk:Duane Gish/Archive 1

Wording

I don't think the change from: "creation science, a religious movement that seeks to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution" to "creation science, a movement that integrates science and religion together. The creation science movement seeks to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution" is warranted. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article on Creation Science which says that: "Creation science is described by its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion," clearly shows that editing was done from a creationist point of view. A better revision would be "a movement whose critics say is religiously motivated, and which seeks to challenge the validity of" is more from NPOV.

No it isn't, Ethereal. That's done from an anti-creationist POV that won't allow a description of creationism without a criticism of it. I have removed it and replaced it with something hopefully acceptable as neutral. Philip J. Rayment 15:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your revision counts as a neutral description. While you accuse me of holding anti-creationisit POV, your revision does not take into account the fact that many critics of SciCrea consider it to be a pseudo-scientific and religiously motivated attempt to discredit evolutionary science. A NPOV revision should read something like: "Creation science is a movement whose proponents consider to be an attempt to integrate science and religion together, but whose critics consider to be a religiously motivated attempt to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution in favor of the Biblical account of creation found in the Book of Genesis."

I believe that my edit was neutral, as it was merely describing what creationary scientists believe. But your modified version is balanced, so that's okay too, except that it's not accurate. Creation science advocated don't consider it "an attempt to integrate science and religion together" (which would put them on a par), but rather to use science to study creation. But that wording is a bit ambiguous (creation can mean the original act, or the present existence), so I am changing it to "use science to study the creation" (without the emphasis). If you can think of a better term than "the creation" to refer to the act of God creating, I welcome your suggestions. But the rest of my edit should stand as a more accurate representation of creationist's beliefs. Philip J. Rayment 14:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, I think the end result is more balanced than the original.Ethereal 15:58, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, even though it is no longer there! In case it comes back, I would comment, however, that creation science is not just about the origin of life, but the origin of the universe, the earth, the geological record, etc., as well as the origin of life. Philip J. Rayment 12:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of this article is about creation science and not about Gish. It should be moved to an article about it. DJ Clayworth 15:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, most of the text here is not relevant to the subject (which is deserving, just needs writing properly). Take that out and you have a stub. Someone needs to find Dr Gish's CV and monotonously record what qualifications he has, what's books he's published, what organisations he's become a member of, etc, so it's comparable to (say) Henry M. Morris. Dunc|☺ 16:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I cut this out of the article. Preserved here in case someone wants to put it elsewhere:

I think it is possible to place text you have preserved below into a sub-heading reading "Gish and Creation Science". Any objections? Ethereal 16:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The greatest criticism of Gish's point of view concerning evolution is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, a point that Charles Darwin clearly made in his book. This was called 'On the origin of species' after all, and not 'On the origin of life.' It is claimed by evolutionary biologists that whether life came about by natural or supernatural origins is of no concern for evolution and the theory of evolution.

The best known contemporary evolutionary biologists, the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, refuse to debate people like Gish, by claiming that debate is not how science works. Gould and Dawkins claim that, in science, it is not important who is the best debater, it is important who can come up with a theory which best explains the (observed) facts. Gish agrees with this, however, and claims that the real reason evolutionary biologists won't debate is simply because the theory of evolution ends up looking bad. In debates, Gish always focuses primarily on one central thing, that is, discrediting evolutionary theory.

Publications of Gish and other creation scientists on the subject of creationism have normally been refused by mainstream scientific journals. Creationists claim that the reason for this is that 'mainstream science' is simply not open to alternatives to evolution. For example, Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe emailed some science journals to ask them if they would allow him to refute some articles that were negative towards Intelligent Design in a rebuttal article. He disclosed an email that he received from an editor of a science journal (he withheld the name for privacy issues) who seemed to be open to allowing Dr. Behe a rebuttal space, but later had to deny him on the grounds of a collective board decision. In the first email to Dr. Behe, the editor seemed to agree with what creationists often say, that mainstream science was closed minded to 'non-orthodoxy.' The editor states: 'I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy...' [1].

According to most review boards of the journals, creation articles are rejected because the publications do not contain any science. According to the creationists, they are refused because of the journal's commitment to naturalism, and refuse to consider any alternative. As a result of mainstream journals refusing to give creationists a voice, creationary scientists have established their own peer-reviewed journals that do accept publications about creation science, but these are not accepted as having much scientific value by most of the scientific community.

---

DJ Clayworth 17:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In reply to the interpolated comment above, yes I do have objections. My objection is exactly the same one that caused me to take the text out in the first place. It's not about Gish and Creations Science, it's just about Creation Science. People can read about that at creation science. If Gish has views that differ from the main body of creation scientists, or if he made and particular contribution to it, then they should be noted, but otherwise this is just duplicating information. DJ Clayworth 07:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joyce Arthur article

What has happened to the reference to Joyce Arthur's article, a published reference which points out that Gish continues to repeat the same false claims even after being publicly corrected? Her article, "Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?" was published in Skeptic magazine, vol. 4., no. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93 and is online here: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

The philosopher Philip Kitcher made a similar point about creationists in general (though was also referring directly to Gish, whom he debated at the University of Minnesota, which is one of several debates where the consensus is that Gish was soundly walloped) in his book The Advancement of Science (pp. 195-196).

I also point out numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies in Gish's last major work (Creation Scientists Respond to Their Critics) in my review which appeared in the journal Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith and which is online here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html

There's a wealth of published critiques of Gish's work, but very little of it still seems to be referenced in this article. Chris McGowan's book In the Beginning... is another (criticizing Gish on the fossil record). Lippard 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bullfrog proteins

Some mention should be made of Gish's famous bullfrog comment, in which he claimed that if you look at some proteins, human beings appear to be more closely related to bullfrogs than other primates. When asked to provide his sources (by numerous persons over multiple years), Gish repeatedly failed to do so. It turned out that Gish made his statement based on a misunderstanding of a joking comment he heard at a conference. He has never corrected or admitted his error. This is described in Bob Schadewald's "Scientific Creationism and Error" which may be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html (There is also other good Gish-related material in the sidebar on that page)

I compare Schadewald's account to Gish's account here: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/bfrog2.htm

My review of Gish's book answering his critics also is a source of some Gish-related material: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html Lippard 00:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Plimer

Brian0918, even the talk origins page you gave says, "Note that Plimer, in my opinion, was overly aggressive and mean-spirited in this debate. I don't think that he conducted himself well during much of the debate." It seems like a bad idea to take a debate where the evolutionist used false and/or abusive statements such that even several other evolutionists objected and claim it as a victory. Why don't you use the Saladin debate instead? Anyways, I can't find the Plimer debate's transcript online. It would be nice to use a debate that can actually be referenced and that readers can look at for themselves. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 03:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

And the very next sentence says "However, in my opinion he thrashed Gish....", so, according to that reference, it is correct. -- BRIAN0918  12:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the next sentence say; I just think that since basically everyone I can find who's personally viewed the debate thinks that Plimer behaved very poorly, this is probably a bad example to use. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 22:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I viewed it, and Plimer hardly had anything but abusive ad hominem. He made almost no positive case for his side. One of his main charge was that Gish lied repeatedly in one of his old booklets, which was really only one "lie" repeated about something that had been superseded after Gish wrote. And even Plimer's allegedly devasting argument about the "theory of electricity", donning insulating gloves etc. was easily and dismissively brushed aside by Gish and rejected by the audience.220.245.180.130 04:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a misdescription about the alleged "lie"—Gish made a false statement in a pamphlet about the existence of Precambrian fossils (if I recall correctly); Gish's defense was that his statement was true to the best of his knowledge at the time he made it, to which Plimer responded pointing out that the booklet with the same false statement was still being sold at the very venue. Gish does not often correct himself, as pointed out in the Joyce Arthur piece. I agree overall about Plimer's poor performance. Gish has probably won his debates more often than he has lost, with some notable exceptions being his two debates with Kenneth Saladin and his debate with Philip Kitcher at the University of Minnesota. Lippard 00:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Lippard, with Plimer's propensity to lie for his cause, as you have documented yourself, why should we believe that Plimer picked up this booklet when he said he did? And even if he did, it's ridiculous to accuse Gish of lying so many times when it was one false statement repeated, and one that Gish had corrected in his more serious books. If every book with a mistake were withdrawn all around the world, there would be nothing left! BTW, Gish in his book claims that Kitcher used a diagram of purported fossil intermediates from Kenneth Miller, without mentioning that some were hypothetical. 58.162.245.111 13:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Gish's record is no better than Plimer's, as has been amply documented by many people including Chris McGowan, Rich Trott, Bob Schadewald, Joyce Arthur, and myself.

The booklet was (and perhaps still is) being sold by the ICR, and there were plenty of other witnesses to the booklet's being sold there at the event, as well as afterward (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html, already referenced in this Wikipedia article). I haven't researched Gish's specific rebuttal claim about Kitcher's diagram, but Gish's discussions of the reptile-to-mammal fossil record are extremely inaccurate; see, e.g., http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm Lippard 03:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the height of arrogance simply to claim, "Plimer beat Gish". This is POV. It is NPOV to cite contemporary reports from various angles. 220.245.180.130 04:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Tautology

This sentence seems to be a tautology, and to contain another:

"Another is creationists "loading" the audience with supporters, leading to a tendency for the audience to have pre-conceived beliefs in favor of creationism."

I don't find it surprising that creationist supporters have "pre-conceived beliefs" (and what are beliefs if not pre-conceived?) in favour of creationism.

This doesn't seem to "unfairly slant the debate" either, as the audience doesn't determine the quality of arguments on show.

Finally, this leaves only one example of the "number of factors"

Can someone come up with something better on the debates, or perhaps remove the reference?

• Can you use fewer line breaks next time?

C & Criticism

User:Arbusto, the section you added is as long as the rest of the article put together. Wouldn't it be enough to provide a link to talk.origins and add a sentence briefly outlining his arguments they they refute? Ashmoo 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that is the same as a POV Fork. A fuller explanation of WHAT exactly is criticized is more important than just simply noting a criticism. If you have a problem with the length expand the biography instead of removing the criticism. Arbusto 01:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no fan of creationists, so this isn't a POV thing. My problem is that the section quotes large amounts of a single article. Most of Trott's rebuttals come down to pointing to evidence that Gish claims doesn't exist. It seems to me to be overkill to detail individual claims unless Gish is famous for making that specific claim. The reader can always follow the link if they are interested.

Remember, the section shouldn't seek to rebut Gish's arguments, but report on rebuttals of his arguments, which is a slightly different thing.

Lastly, all the external links in the section go to the same place, are they all needed?

I'm going to hold off of doing any editing to the section. But please consider what I've said. Regards, Ashmoo 02:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You being a fan or not is beside the point. Whether your intention is a POV fork or not, that is what it becomes. If you want to trim the section, I have problem, but particulars are important and should be left in where needed. For example, you completely removed Gish's argument about Australopithecus and the criticism and experts surrounding it.

The links may go to same domain, but are written by different scholars in different fields with different topics. They should stay. Arbusto 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the links, on my machine they all go to the top of the same page (Richard Trott Critiques Duane Gish's Presentation at Rutgers University) [2]. Ashmoo 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the external links in general. As for the criticism of Trott, you can lose it in obvious cases, but where there is a quote, the source should be given even if redundant. Arbusto 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article on Wikipedia:Content_forking before accusing me of it. What I'm proposing has nothing to do with POV forking. I'm only concerned about quoting large amounts of text from a single article. (Please don't read this as sarcasm, I honestly think we may be using different definitions of POV forking) Ashmoo 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted "POV fork," but I just meant the equivlent of a content fork. That is, when the reader is sent to another location to read the material rather than in the article. If you want it trimmed feel free to make changes, but your edits took so much information out that Trott's criticisms were too vague to be informative. Arbusto 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But by 'informative' don't you mean 'enough information to show that Gish is wrong and Trott is right'? The biggest problem is, I think, is that Gish uses the famous 'Gish gallop' so any 'full' description of criticism is going to have to detail the hundreds of things he has claimed and the hundreds of rebuttals.

I think the best solution would be to detail one fo Trott's rebuttals, say, the Triceratops one, to give the reader a feel for the style of his criticisms and then just mention the rest in a single sentence with a link. What do you think? Regards, Ashmoo 07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does the quantity matter? Is that your view or wikipedia policy that only one criticism per scholar can be posted on a controversial creationist? Arbusto 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much the quantity. I think an encyc. should be providing a summary of an author's arguments, not presenting the details of their actual argument with multiple examples. Ashmoo 01:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dave Gorman

Dr Gish appears in Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure, when he meets him as he is a Googlewhack. I'm too busy at the moment and am not sure where to insert that information, but it should be there somewhere. — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

sources?

Is there a source for the Sydney debate in section 3? Since the account given does seem to have a slight POV, at least it should be sourced and , perhaps, a few adjectives removed, such as "famous". I particularly ask for a source because thre seems to be something missing, as I cannot decipher "Plimer's obtaining of a live electrical current"

Ditto for the other parts of section 3.

"Opponents object" absolutely needs a source: is this being asserted for opinions of Gish in contrast to opinions about other creationists, or are the opponents characterizing his arguments as a representative creationist argument.

In section 2, are the quotations based on a transcript? or a recording? (or, perhaps, memory?)

Are perhaps the opponents, one person in one book? Again, are these arguements being refuted as peculiar to Gish? Is he perhaps the first creationist to have discussed the Neaderthal and Australopitecus material? Or is it a common argument?

And, this is undoubtedly be my fault, but I do not understand the last section. Is it saying that in the book Gorman met Gish? or in real-life? If it is after. not in, the book, a source is needed.

And in the bio, if he is alive, is he still working for the ICR?

I wrrte as one who wishes evolutionists would write NPOV articles. There is no point in abuse, and no need to show bias. DGG 06:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added some on-line sources for the 'Gish Gallop' which is a well established phrase amongst anti-creationists. I will try to get more respectable sources.

I believe the 'live electrical current' was a bare electric cable which Plimer asked Gish to hold. I'm pretty sure the encounter is detailed in Plimer's 'Telling Lies for God'. I'll try to find it and clarify the sentence.

In section 2, I believe all the quotations are from the talk.origins article that is quoted a number of times in the section. Ashmoo 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the debate between Sidney Fox and Duane Gish, the quotation from Sidney Fox used to establish Gish's scientific credentials is taken badly out of context and needs to be fixed because as it is it completely misrepresents Fox's intellectual orientation. Sidney W. Fox was what is usually called an atheist in the strongest sense of rejecting any notion of deity, supernatural, etc... He completely rejected creationism, intelligent design, and related points of view, although he felt it important to try to engage in dialogue with their proponents, particularl those who employed putatively scientific arguments. Fox was a competent professional protein chemist.

In general Fox's point of view vis-a-vis Gish was clear - he tried to engage in civil debate with Gish on the merits of the claims presented, and he agreed with Gish about very few of the claims Gish made. Fox was also clear to distinguish between scientific credentials and success in doing science.

The unsourced quotation of Fox is an incorrect paraphrase of a passage from page 46 of Fox's book `The Emergence of Life' published by Basic Books in 1988. A complete citation is:

The Emergence of Life. Darwinian Evolution from the Inside. Sidney W. Fox Basic Books, New York. ix + 208p. ISBN: 0-465-01925-0. 1988.

This book was reviewed by Stanley N. Salthe in The Quarterly Review of Biology. Vol. 64, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 343-344.

Fox worked throughout his life to counter the claims made by all who propose what he called `divine action' as a mechanism for observed properties of organisms or chemical systems. While he tried to show his intellectual adversaries respect (perhaps they would not all agree with this), he also would be offended to see his words used to establish Gish as an authority, because he most definitely did not consider Gish an authority. To put it another way. In the book cited above Fox presented Gish's scientific credentials in order to establish why he should be taken seriously as an authority, and to emphasize the importance of debunking the claims that Gish made. The full quotation is

`Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds between amino acids and proteins in size. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeleley. He has been a coauthor of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry. This background coupled with critical perceptions about evolution, which appear to be more accurate than those of many neo-Darwinists, and excellent debating skills have made him a leader in the public contest between evolutionists and creationists.

Morris and Gish do deserve attention in a scientific framework for their arguments that evolution based on a random context is indefensible. This one criticism by them is sound, even though they wish to overcome it by introducing the determinism evident in modern living forms; they do this by invoking divine action.'

On the next page he wrote 'A focus on this group's criticism of prebiotic proteins shows in tandem three especially false statements ...'

In order to properly parse everything Fox wrote it is necessary to understand Fox's own intellectual pecadillos, something for which this is not an appropriate forum. However, whatever the scientific merits of Fox's arguments or Gish's arguments, it is wrong in spirit to cite Fox's words as testimony in support of Gish as a scientist. To say that someone has scientific credentials is not to say that that someone is a scientist, and Fox certainly meant to make such a distinction. (an unsigned comment by User:Royalturkey at 09:34, 7 October 2006)

Fox's letter entitled `Creationism, the Random Hypothesis, and Experiments' and appearing in Science. New Series, Vol. 213, No. 4505 (Jul., 1981), p. 290, which specifically mentions Gish's work, will, if carefully read, reinforce the argument presented in the previous paragraphs.

Gish consistently won his creation/evolution debates

Gish consistently won his creation/evolution debates. Even a evolutionary scientists admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationist tend to win" the creation/evolution debates. [3][4] Also, Dr. Henry Morris reported that Duane Gish, who has had over 300 formal debates, “at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” [5] ken 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Right, random webpages and a fellow creationist are such great references. And no, just because creationists tend to win doesn't mean Gish generally wins. I've removed the statement. JoshuaZ 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC

What is so random about the webpages? That is a spurious comment. Secondly, Gish was the most prolific debator in the creation/evolution debates so the Wall Street Journal article has some import. ken 05:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

If the WSJ journal article doesn't specifically mention Gish, it doesn't belong in this article. Ashmoo 04:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The webpage is random in the sense that it is a personal webpage and thus fails WP:RS. JoshuaZ 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section

I see no reason why the information necessarily needs to be deleted, though if you wanted to tag it for one violation or another, you probably wouldn't have much trouble. Regardless, I've put the section back, as the reason you gave for blanking it didn't hold- trivia sections in articles aren't uncommon. I appreciate the input- I just don't want the removal of "Trivia" sections on the basis that "trivia" doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia to become a common practice. Those sections can be interesting, informative and useful to researchers. Don't want to set a bad precedent, but feel free to pursue the same end via different means. Moralis 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Big chunks appear to have been removed by an editor who has a long history of basically unproductive behavior on page after page, kdbuffalo. People might want to look carefully at how he has altered the article. I have heard Dr. Gish speak on a number of occasions, and there is very little that he says that is of substantive or scientific merit.--ReasonIsBest 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've just openedn an RfC on his actions which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2. JoshuaZ 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Whoever inserted the part about Gish promoting the "false assertion" regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics really needs to check their POV at the door. You may think it's false, but Gish and others do not. I have removed the word "false" and left the word "assertion." Yeshuamyking7 21 June 2007

It isn't a matter of opinion. The assertion happens to be false, but I agree that the adjective's presence makes the sentence look POV, and it's better to remove it as you did. =Axlq 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think the assertion is absolutely true, but the point is that the words "false" and "true" set before a statement like that is, by definition, POV. I appreciate that you agree with me on that last point, at least. Yeshuamyking7 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "heavily argued"? It certainly is. MrG 4.225.213.82 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "unnecessarily verbose"? I think simply leaving it as "assertion" is the most economical and NPOV way of phrasing it. Yeshuamyking7 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't someone simply write out Gish's second-law assertion and then write out the rebuttal to his assertion? Then people could judge for themselves whether or not Gish's assertion is false (which I believe they will). Inkan1969 18:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>To do so without reliable sources would be original research, though we can report other people doing the same. WLU 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who decided it necessary to reinsert the word "false", but I've removed it again. We can keep doing this ad infinitum. The word is POV. Yeshuamyking7 19:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Gish did appear to say it, and it is incorrect (see citations I just added). The idea and use of the second law in creationist circles is indeed false, so the word is appropriate. The second law does not apply to life due to the input of energy in the form of sunlight. WLU 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing whether Gish had said it or not, but it's good to have a reference. I've removed false for the third time. In exchange, I've left the source for the rebuttal against the creationist argument, and inserted an explanation of the creationist argument given by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith. I think calling it an assertion and giving people access to arguments on both sides is fair and NPOV. As stated above, people can judge for themselves whether the creationist argument is false. If you think it is, that should stand on its own merit without the forced insertion of the word "false." I've also replaced the word "scientist" with "evolutionist." Using the word "scientist" seems to reflect on the author's POV that in one corner we have creationists and in the other we have scientists. The fact is that there are creationist scientists, one of whom I've mentioned above. Wilder-Smith had three earned doctorates. Being an evolutionist is not a prerequisite for being a scientist. Yeshuamyking7 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not mean that we are obliged to maintain a neutral position between those who have knowledge of an objective fact and those who lack that knowledge. For instance, many people do not know that Nicholas Sarkozy is President of France, but the Sarkozy article doesn't say that some people believe he is President. This is not a "Britney Spears is a talented singer" issue. It is an objective fact that Sarkozy IS President of France: it is an objective fact that evolution does NOT contradict thermodynamics. However, I would prefer to use the word "erroneous", as "false" does sound a little dogmatic: I think "erroneous" better conveys the fact that Gish's belief is verifiably false. And the objection is entirely scientific and not "evolutionist", so I'll put that back. --Robert Stevens 08:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert Stevens on both counts - evo does not violate the 2nd law, it is false and has been pointed out as false many times. Erroneous is good, I think I'd prefer 'factually inaccurate' but not enough to revert. Some other problems include the addition of abiogenesis, which the talk origins article does not mention at all. Abiogenesis and the law of thermodynamics are separate issues as far as I know, so unless there is something linking both to Duane Gish, abiogenesis should be removed. Also, from my understanding the term 'evolutionist' is a loaded one that is used pejoratively by creationists in an attempt to portray evolution as it's own religion - scientist is better term, which Robert has replaced. WLU 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between observable facts and theoretical inference, Robert. Natural selection and genetic mutation have never been shown to increase genetic information, a necessity of molecules-to-man evolution. As for abiogenesis, it is the first step along the path of evolution, with all other steps being a continuation of the same basic process (matter + energy + time = life).

This being said, it is clearly impossible for those of you who are evolutionists to step back from that POV to write an NPOV article. My continuing to modify the article would be an exercise in futility. I won't bother you with the facts. Your minds are clearly already made up.

I am glad to see the "usual scientists' objections" phrase removed altogether, along with the section about Gorman. Personally, I don't see what Gorman really adds to this article except another attempt by the writer to mock Gish in some roundabout way.Yeshuamyking7 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that genetic mutation and natural selection have been observed to increase information many times: there is no theoretical reason why this shouldn't happen, and it does indeed happen. This makes your "I won't bother you with the facts" comment rather... ironic? --Robert Stevens 09:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually have something to contribute to the article or are you going to use the old creationist standbys for your argument. Please read the evolution FAQ I put on your talk page. I guess you won't even bother to read the facts before bemoaning the fact we won't allow you to insert your very, very wrong ideas about science into this article. Regardless, this article is not about the 2nd law or your particular feelings on the issue. It is about Gish. If you wish to discuss the 2nd law, please go to it's page. If not, lets work towards bettering this article. Cheers!!! Baegis 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Abiogenesis and information theory are both dealt with at the talk origins archive, abiogenesis and information. Briefly, abiogenesis is separate from evolution and natural selection/mutations and information is a bit of a word game, depending on your definition of information. You may want to review the entire list before suggesting further changes, as it is a pretty standard reference. Also note that wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, and editors should assume good faith rather than dropping subtle or overt verbal jabs at other editors.

The 'usual scientists' statement has been removed in the article I'm looking at, and Gorman is now only in the trivia section. I'll agree that the Gorman section is a bit off. WLU 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty standard evolutionist reference, and continues to be a pretty standard Wikipedia reference. I happen to feel "the standard" does not reflect the reality, but that's not the point. Gish is a creationist. His page should not be a place to assert evolutionary dogma. If you want to mention that he popularized the thermodynamics argument, I have no problem with that. Calling it an assertion is NPOV. Calling it a false or erroneous assertion is POV, no matter what verbal gymnastics you want to perform.

You'll have to explain to me in what way macroevolution has been verified, because in all my research I've never encountered any empirical evidence. It's conjecture.

As for the "assume good faith" argument, I'm afraid I'm a "trust but verify" kind of guy. I've seen nothing in the disputed sections of this article that leads me to believe "false" is not an attempt to assert a POV. I'm sure it is an honestly held POV, but it has no business in an encyclopedia entry. On a controversial topic, one ought to have the courtesy to eliminate such statements and remain neutral, giving evidence on both sides. We are, after all, trying to convey the life and beliefs of a man. If they're wrong, then they're wrong. Giving people access to the arguments on both sides gives them the opportunity to decide for themselves rather than being spoon fed the answer. Instead we've gone from "false," to "false" plus a one-sided citation, to "erroneous" plus an one-sided citation. That's regress, not progress.

And to you, Baegis, I'm glad you've decided to join us in the appropriate page rather than continuing to "sully" our respective personal pages. As I've stated above, I've been trying to remove POV from this article in an attempt to contribute. Those attempts have been shut down. I'm not going to just lie down and be a good little boy when I see POV on a biography page. I'm not the one who wrote this article, and I'm not the one who added the thermodynamics argument. I'm just the one attempting to add some balance. Yeshuamyking7 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not trying to remove POV from the article. You are trying to make the article conform to your particular stance. This is not the page for proving or disproving a scientific fact. If you want to do that, go to the evolution page and discuss it there. What you are asking for is to give undue weight to claims that are verifiable as being false. You can't dress up the statement by any other means other than to characterize it as false. To try to do otherwise compromises neutrality. Gish uses the 2nd law as a reason to why he believes evolution does not occur. This assertion is false. I don't see what the difficulty is here. The reason that there is a "one-sided" citation is because there is not a reliable source for the "other side". If you believe there is such a reference, please provide it for the discussion. Cheers!!! Baegis 04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so now we come to the crux of the issue. "There is not a reliable source for the 'other side.'" In other words, evolution is not a POV. It's fact. Well, then, we can all just go home, can't we? You've solved it for us, Baegis. Why even have an article on creationism or creationists? Clearly there are no reliable sources on their side, so let's just not talk about them. How about we delete this article, and any others relating to YEC? Although, I guess that would deny us the opportunity to run the theory down, so we can't have that. Thank you for your "reasoned" response, Baegis. You've really cleared things up. Yeshuamyking7 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is not a POV. You are right. And instead of actually addressing what I said, you attacked a straw-man of my comments. In order to clear this up, what was meant by my comment is that there exists no reliable source stating that evolution violates the 2nd law. I did not say anything about there not being reliable sources for the creationism articles or creationists articles. There exists a multitude of sources for these articles. However, they must be tempered with countering reliable sources because otherwise it would give undo weight to the minority view, which in this case is creationism. Again, please provide that reference that mentions evolution violates the 2nd law. Cheers!!! Baegis 04:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I presented such a reference, and said reference was taken out. It was my impression that those of you on this talk page who disagreed and took it out were of the opinion that such a reference does not belong on the page, and so took it out. Clearly you want to keep the word "false" or "erroneous," so that coupled with the removal was adequate cause for me to think this. Perhaps it was removed because the reference was to a video. It was a video of a man with three earned doctorates giving an explanation of why evolution violates the second law, but it also addressed some other topics. I would be happy to find a written document explaining how evolution violates the second law if such a document would be retained on the page. I don't get the impression that your fellow editors are of the same opinion on this, though.

Oh, and I understand that the written word can't really convey this as well, but I was being sarcastic in my comments above. Evolution is most certainly POV. See my comments on your talk page. Yeshuamyking7 04:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to argue in circles, WLU removed the video because it did not to pertain to Gish as it was someone else discussing the topic and not he himself. And using that video was, according to your statement, an appeal to authority. Three earned doctorates does not an expert make. Especially considering the multitudes of scientists who have declared that evolution in no way violates the 2nd law. I am shooting from the hip here, but I bet the total number of doctorates in that case numbers somewhere in the high ten thousands. If you do provide such a document, it can certainly stay if it passes the criteria for inclusion. And say what you will, but evolution is only a POV in your own mind. Cheers!!! Baegis 04:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to "appeal to authority" in the logical fallacy sense. I'm simply stating that the man is a scientist and not a third-grader. His comments on the subject are therefore worthy of reference, whereas those of little Timmy from grade school are probably not. You come back by appealing to what you see as even greater authority. Again, inscrutable, but whatever. I'll try to find something directly from Dr. Gish tomorrow. In the meantime, I think I'll try to get some sleep. Yeshuamyking7 06:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were attempting to use a logical fallacy in your reasoning. Just because he is a scientist in no way makes his opinion any more correct. Especially considering the overwhelming amounts of support and reasoning behind the group of people who do not support this view and instead support the correct view that the 2nd law is not violated because organisms are OPEN SYSTEMS and the law describes isolated systems. Mine was not an appeal to authority as I never mentioned that my people were correct just because they had doctorates as you had done. I merely compared their absolute numbers. The citation, which agrees with the facts regarding the issue, states that the assertion is false and gives the reasoning for such a statement. If you wish, we can add a few more references on that particular point in order to drive it home. But please provide us with your reference that in some way counters this fact. I am sure it will be quite amusing. I look forward to reading the article. Cheers!!! Baegis 09:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> It seems to me that a more detailed explanation of the argument directly from Dr. Gish will be useful, and with proper references can help to clarify the article. However, please note that the following sections of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy apply directly to this article; NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and require that Gish's views be presented in the context of the mainstream scientific consensus. .. dave souza, talk 11:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Baegis - If you'll notice, I didn't use the word "correct." I used the phrase "worthy of reference," in other words, relevant. I have and will acknowledge that in an article about Dr. Gish, Gish's own views would be best to cite. Unfortunately I still haven't found an online example of his argument against evolution as it pertains to the second law. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but it may take some digging. I should hope to think the article will be enlightening, rather than "amusing." That seems to imply that you will be going into the topic with a pre-conceived notion that anything Gish writes will only be good for a laugh. That doesn't sound like the scientific method to me.

On that note, I understand the notion of not giving undue weight to a theoretical framework not shared by the majority of scientists. Would it not be more NPOV to state "propagates the assertion ... This assertion is widely held to be false by the scientific community because ...[fill in the blank, cite Talk.Origins]. Dr. Gish argues [fill in the blank, with citation]."

In the page on neutrality, I found the following: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such.'"

From this instruction, it seems valid to write the article in the way I've described above, rather than the way it is currently formulated. Thoughts, anyone? Yeshuamyking7 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The exact form of words will have to be reviewed, preferably on the talk page first. "This assertion is widely held to be false by the scientific community" understates the overwhelming majority supporting the scientific consensus, and gives undue weight to the creationist position. .. dave souza, talk 23:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Would this be better?

"This assertion is held to be false by the overwhelming majority of scientists for [xyz] reasons. [cite] ... "Dr. Gish argues [fill in the blank, with citation]"?

Thanks for the input, Dave. Yeshuamyking7 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "claim" would work better than "assertion". And it is not "held to be false" because it still does not give proper weight to the overwhelming majority. You can hold something to be true or false (ie belief) and that puts you in an indefensible position when you argue, since there is a difference between beliefs and facts. You can't prove your beliefs anymore than I can disprove them. That is why they are beliefs. "This claim is proven to be false by the overwhelming majority of scientists. [cite]" is much more inline with how it should read. Cheers!!! Baegis 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Gish' assertion is false." WLU 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I could get on board with that one. Thanks WLU. Baegis 00:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with Baegis about the word "claim" rather than the word "assertion." Claim means "assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing." Assertion actually can have this meaning "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason." Gish has made a claim regarding the the second law, and backed up that claim with reasons. We may or may not agree with those reasons, but either way claim makes more sense.

As for your point about not being able to prove beliefs, Baegis, I happily concede that. Beliefs can only be shown to be reasonable given the evidence at hand, not proven. I would simply state that your beliefs regarding the second law do not conform to that evidence.

WLU, I like the phrase "overwhelming scientific consensus" as it conveys the same basic thought I wrote, but is more succinct. I do still think it would be appropriate to convey, in as few words as possible, what the arguments are on both sides. Then we have a short summary of the relevant arguments and something on which to peg citations. Yeshuamyking7 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. He has not backed up his claim with any reasoning. His claim rests solely on faulty logic and a misunderstanding of the 2nd law, entropy, and how it relates to biological life. And please stop with your underhanded comment about my "beliefs" not conforming to the evidence. It is not a belief but rather a solidly supported fact. If you cannot tell the difference between the two, please do not discuss the issue. I would like to simply state that there exists NO evidence to support your belief about the 2nd law. That is why there should not be a short summary of the relevant arguments because there exists no argument for Gish's side. Plus, again, undue weight. And the context of claim in this case would mean: "to assert or maintain as a fact" Baegis 04:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Baegis, we've established that you think it's faulty reasoning. We've also established that I think your reasoning is faulty. Acknowledging this gets us no closer to an NPOV article.

My comment was not underhanded. It was decidedly overhanded. I'm not masking my statements. I'm making them clearly. Disagree if you will, but please quit questioning my intelligence. And above all, please stop ordering me around, as you have done repeatedly on this talk page and on my own. I have just as much right to be here as you do.

By virtue of the fact that Gish has a side, and is not a mindless vegetable, it follows that he has a reason for being on that side. You can disagree with his side. You can disagree strongly with his side. You can include the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists back you up. You cannot assert that he has no argument and assume that statement is factually accurate. All you can say is that you do not agree with his argument.

And it is not giving undue weight to the argument. The very fact that this article is a biography about a creationist will mean that in order to present an account of the man, we must present an account of his arguments. A small account. A selective account. An account nonetheless. In order to satisfy the "undue weight" charge, the entire issue is predicated by a statement that nearly all scientists disagree with Gish's claim. That statement puts far more weight on the evolution side that on the creation side. Dave Souza seems to agree above that putting in an explanation of exactly what Gish's argument is would help clarify the article, and Dave doesn't appear to me to be a creationist. All he argued was that we not give it undue weight, and I think the changes agreed to above satisfy that condition. Yeshuamyking7 05:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not questioning your intelligence. I am questioning your ability to make a clear separation between your beliefs and being able to effectively contribute to this article. I wish you would stick to a particular point on this talk page and not meander around believing I have somehow wronged you. I will restate what I have done several times already. Find the source, provide it, and then we will talk. If you want to argue both sides deserve an account, you can't use your OR to argue that point because it just won't work. Gish's claim about the 2nd Law is no different than every other creationists. If you want to push for the account of his arguments, it would be grossly unfair to Mr. Gish if we decided to only include this particular one.

So, it boils down to X things: 1) Find the source or this conversation has only been an exercise in futility. 2) Why only this argument for inclusion? 3) Can you distance yourself from your personal beliefs on the article and edit objectively please? Baegis 07:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this not questioning my intelligence? (Quoted from my talk page for those who care to look)

"Continue being a religious zealot ... who wants to deny fact ... You can believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy if you wish ... I refuse to debate people who wear blinders ... do not sully my talk page with poorly thought out musings."

I started out editing this in an attempt to remove what I felt were POV portions of this article. I raised the issue on the talk page, and I believe the consensus we've reached above (at least in part) addresses the concerns I raised. In return, you've attacked me and issued warnings on my talk page. I did not start the personal jabs, Baegis. I'd be more than happy to continue talking about Duane Gish if you'd quit talking about me. With that in mind, feel free to erase anything and everything you'd like on your talk page. I'm done responding to your unsolicited advice, as it's clearly getting neither of us anywhere.

I find it odd that I'm being accused of being unfair to Mr. Gish. What I'm saying is that if we're going to include a mention of his beliefs about the second law of thermodynamics, it ought to be in the manner I've described above. Obviously in a biography page we aren't going to be able to discuss every minute detail of a person's life and beliefs. Someone, again not me, chose to include his beliefs on the second law. If there are other beliefs you or anyone wants included, do so. I'm simply pointing out that in each instance it should be done in the manner I've described above.

I apologize that I have not been able to track down an online source for Gish's views about the second law. I tried tracking it down last night and today, but got sidetracked by a 9 to 5 job. I will continue digging until I've found it. In the meantime, I think the text should read:

"The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Gish's claim is false."

This is a vast improvement over the "erroneous assertion" phrase in the article right now. You seem to be willing to get on board with that, at least, so are we okay to edit? Yeshuamyking7 08:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please look at his page to get the full context of the above quoted line. Don't you think its a little disingenuous to edit my comment in order to make it appear worse? I do. That being said, I already mentioned that I think the line is fair and WLU did a great job in writing it so it is as accurate as possible. I am not asking for the minutia of Gish's life, I am merely asking why this particular point is so contentious. With regards to the blinders point, I think you have done quite well to reinforce my comment. This is not the place to debate the warning I gave you on your talk page about maintaining a NPOV nor is the place to put blame on someone for the comments we have made. All I was trying to do was help you along so you could better understand why your edit would be reverted. Everything else stems from that. In order to edit effectively to improve WP, we all need to be able to take a step back, leave our personal beliefs and POV at the door and edit. Cheers!!! Baegis 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I rule. The change has been made, neutrally I believe, despite my desire to portray Gish as an inveterate, unrepentant and liar I find him to be. Huzzah for WP:NPOV, another triumph for wikipedia. Let's close this grossly over-long, debate-style thread. WLU 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do look at my page. I highlighted only those sections of your comment I found offensive, and there is no context that makes what you said okay. If what you said was not wrong, then all the "not wrong" things you've said shouldn't look worse all clumped together. You've maintained that same note of smug condescension toward me on this talk page. As for the warning itself, as you'll recall it actually had to do with my right to remove your comments if I so choose, as you have done with my comments on your page.

Back to Gish. The particular point about thermodynamics is a very basic disagreement about what pure chemistry can and cannot accomplish. As the point is fundamental, one might expect contention. As for why the point is particularly important to mention in Gish's article, you've got me. I'm not the one who put it there. I'm just the one trying to improve it.

The wording as it stood last night was the one that was POV. The wording as it stands today is decidedly not POV. Everyone but me seems to have had no problem with the wording as it stood last night. So, who is not able to step back? No worries, though. Thank you, WLU, for the change. I'm happy with it as it stands, although I do maintain that a brief explanation of both arguments with citation would add clarity. As I do not yet have a Gish citation, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Yeshuamyking7 15:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's happy? Great. Let's archive this thread, it's way too long. Agreed? WLU 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks again, WLU. Top notch edit. Yeshuamyking7 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gish Fallacy

Any interest in or objection to adding the "Gish fallacy" to this article as trivia?

It's the notion most strongly associated with Gish that since computer simulations of evolution are programs created by an intelligent designer (the programmer), then organisms in the real world have been created by an Intelligent Designer as well.

It is possible that Gish has given up on this one since it's so easily deflated: by the same reasoning, a computer simulation of a hurricane would mean that hurricanes are Intelligently Designed (and equivalently unexplainable by science), or a simulation of planetary orbits means that orbits are maintained by Intelligent Design as well (along the lines of the old idea that angels push them along in their paths).

Although he is commonly described as using this argument, I have had some problems finding an exact citation of him on the matter. Anyone have a source on that? MrG 4.225.213.82 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've come across this fallacy before, but from William Dembski & not called the "Gish fallacy". If it can be WP:RSed as originating from Gish, it should be added to the article, but not as 'Trivia'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He gave up

I was impressed when I got my first letter from Gish with all those doctorates and such on the ICR letter heading. Then I found out that you too could become a doctor if you paid the ICR some money. They sold doctorates. This became increasingly obvious as I debated with Gish and others, from their ignorance of all fields of science. After losing so many debates with me, Gish had someone write me that he was at death's door and it worked; I believed and stopped debating with him. It did not matter as I was obviously wasting my time with them since they had no answers. SBQ 14:17 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to 2nd law paragraph

I made some changes to the 2nd law paragraph:

• Reworded opening sentence, I've yet to see a reference stating he's most responsible, but the info could be returned if a source is found.
• I removed the reference to abiogenesis, which is a separate idea from evolution.
• I moved the talkorigins reference to right after erroneous, since it justifies the erroneous nature of the claim.
• I removed the Gorman information - since he's not a biologist, the criticisms of a comedian are pretty irrelevant, and it eliminated the 'usual scientific criticisms' line, which looks like a weasel-word to me
• I removed the whole secton on the reversibility of biotic reactions, since the youtube video was linked to Wilder-Smith and not Gish, putting the two together looks like original research to me. If Gish has a rebuttal to the second law argument, it should be added as a cited addition, not alluded to through another creationist giving an hour-long lecture on the same topic. The page is about Gish, not the reversibility of biotic reactions. WLU 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor change: added link to article "scientific consensus." Thought that might be worthwhile. Yeshuamyking7 03:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found an online version of Gish's arguments regarding the second law of thermodynamics. It's found here: http://www.icr.org/article/2822/ . In the article, Dr. Gish specifically addresses the law as it relates to the formation of the universe, and then how it relates to abiogenesis and the Miller experiment.

I would like to include this article in the reference section. The problem is that in this article, Gish does not specifically reference natural selection and its connection with the second law, as I'm assuming he does in the article already referenced. As this article already referenced is not online, and therefore not as readily accessed as is Talk.Origins by those who might be curious, I think it would be helpful to have an online article. Ergo, it seems appropriate if a reference is to be made to that article, to make separate references to his argument as it pertains to natural selection and his argument as it pertains to abiogenesis.

I would propose the following change to the wording:

"Gish also propagates the claim that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics.[11] Gish further argues that the origin of life through abiogenesis violates the second law. [12 {citation of new article}] The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Gish's claims are false.[13]"

Would anyone object to this change?

As a separate issue, now that we have a reference, would anyone object to a simple explanation of what the arguments are on both sides? Yeshuamyking7 05:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the argument put forth by Gish is that evolution violates the 2nd Law, then the specific article you noted is not fit for inclusion. As you noted, the article deals with his perceived problems with the formation of the universe, the Miller experiments, and abiogenesis. However, biological evolution is not mentioned. The topics are all related, but have vast differences and if we would take the leap from applying his thought about abiogenesis to evolution it could be construed as a case of Original Research. Secondly, the entire article shows such a stunning lack understanding about every process he mentions. It's pretty much garbage. That is why I object to the simple explanation, especially using this article. Rather, we should link to the Evolution FAQ to allow readers to understand the argument. Cheers!!! Baegis 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On a personal, aesthetic and scientific note, there is SOOOOOO much wrong with what he's saying in that article. I'd be embarrassed. Anyway, as I read it, Gish doesn't use the 2nd law to object to abiogenesis, he uses it (incorrectly) to object to the formation of the universe. For abiogenesis, he's more objecting to the experimental conditions than any violation of the second law. Abiogenesis is completely separate from evolution, evolution talks about how life changes, not how life originated. The reference could be used to demonstrate a flawed understanding of the anthropic principle, a misapplication of the 2nd law in general (though not to the evolution of life) and a misunderstanding of abiogenesis, but not for the 2nd law and evolution. It could probably go somewhere in the article, it's a good testemant to his objections to many things science says, but there's not really anything there on evolution. Good find though. I still think an exploration/explanation of the points are better addressed through the use of references and wikilinks, where the articles can speak for themselves. So to speak. Keep digging for a reference that has Gish objection to evolution via the 2nd law, it'd definitely be a good addition to the page. WLU 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The issues are separate but clearly linked. As best as I can tell, those scientists who favor evolution overwhelmingly favor abiogenesis as a mechanism for the origin of life. Life's propagation through natural selection is simply a continuation of the increases in order Gish objects to with regard to the second law. I therefore don't think the leap in any way comes near Original Research, as we would be treating the issues as separate but linked, as I think it's clear they are.

I can acquiesce to the use of references and wikilinks. I do, however, think the article should be cited. With that in mind, WLU, where and how would you propose to do that? I think what I have above would be fine, but if you have an objection to it and would like it phrased differently I'm up for the discussion. Thanks for the input, and I will keep digging for a reference on natural selection. Yeshuamyking7 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate but linked still does not allow for the conclusion to be drawn. SNYTH states that we cannot use this source to further the Gish idea about the conflict between the 2nd law and evolution. Whether evolutionary scientists favor abiogenesis or another theory is irrelevant to the discussion. I am in agreement with WLU that the article could be used to illustrate Gish's incorrect objection to the formation of the universe but not evolution. In a side note, I think it is quite funny that he mentions the Steady State Theory, considering the amount of scientists who believe this theory to be true could probably fit into a small room. Baegis 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Biologists may believe in abiogenesis, but it's still irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned - evolution talks about how life improves, not how it starts. To call Gish's assertions in the article a criticism of the 2nd law regards evolution or abiogenesis is definitely OR as far as I'm concerned, though you could as for an RFC I suppose. 'Clearly linked' they may be, but for us to link them is a synthesis. As far as where the article could go, I guess the section could be changed and retitled to say something about Gish's fallacious beliefs in general, rather than singling out the 2nd law specifically. If Gish has a lot of erroneous conclusions that can be cited, I'd say it's reasonable for the page to reflect this. I agree that the article would be a good addition to the page, but you may have to write a new section to involve it though. An alternative is to just pop it in as an external link.

Baegis - how small a room? {{fact}}!! WLU 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm making the synthesis on the talk page, not in the actual article. As it is written above, the issues are separate sentences and do not draw a separate conclusion through synthesis. Gish clearly argues against both abiogenesis and evolution through natural selection on the grounds of the second law. There is no other obvious place to put this argument other than where I have indicated it should be placed. Therefore, I see no problem including it. If you want to include something indicating they are separate issues, then perhaps I could entertain that. I don't think it's necessary, though, as they would be separate in the article by definition of the fact they are completely separate sentences with no additional sentence drawing a separate conclusion.

Furthermore, I think the Steady State example is apt for another reason. In an article about a Steady State scientist, one would by necessity have to give a brief outline of what said scientist is arguing and why, with citation. This would be tempered, of course, by the inclusion of a statement like the one presently in the article ensuring that undue balance is not given to a position not widely held by scientists. If the Steady State arguments, or those of Gish as cited, show a "stunning lack of understanding" and are "pretty much garbage," then no one should have any fear in citing them alongside "reputable" sources. As Milton argued, the truth should have no fear of standing next to falsehood, as reason will show which is which. Yeshuamyking7 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't argue clearly against both. Reread the article more closely to see what he argues against. With regards to there being no other place to put the argument, a new section could be created to detail the problems Gish sees in science rather than just the 2nd law. This is going with WLU's proposal, which makes a lot sense. Actually, on the three articles about the originators of the SST (Bondi, Gold, Hoyle) only on Hoyle's entry does it come close to giving a brief outline of the Theory due to his proposal of C-fields for appearance of new matter. The reader is left with the option of clicking on the Steady State link in order to understand the theory and the arguments both for an against it. We could easily link to relevant articles on WP that mention the argument, as I already discussed. And with regards to the Steady State theory, it was due to the addition of a key piece of the cosmic puzzle (cosmic background radiation) that caused it to fall into disfavor. It is not that the arguments showed a lack of understanding, it is simply that this piece of the puzzle was unknown to scientists while both theories were in discussion. However, all the pieces of the 2nd law puzzle are known and clearly counter Gish's argument. I would take your argument about including the information much more seriously if I didn't know the underlying reasons for you wanting it included. Baegis 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>A synthesis on the talk page is 'allowed' as in you won't get blocked for putting it up for discussion, but it can never move to the main page. And myself and Baegis agree that it would be a synth to put together the 2nd law, abiogenesis and evolution based on the article. I'd say ask for a RFC if you don't believe us, or bring it up on the WP:OR talk page. If you retitled the section to discuss the plentitude of his faulty assumptions, then you could cite this article, but not regards the 2nd law and evolution. We're not saying they can't go on the page, you'll just have to re-work the page to include a section, perhaps entitled 'False beliefs propogated by Gish' - I think that would be OK, but I'd suggest writing it up on a sub-page first for a couple people to review. We don't draw conclusions incidentally, we present facts. Drawing conclusions is OR.

On 'my' wikipedia, a scientists's erroneous views on the Steady State would appear on the Steady State page, with a line saying 'X scientists believes Y. The consensus is against him.^[1][2][3]' On the scientists page, you would say 'X is a supporter of the steady state hypothesis, which is not believed by most scientists.^[1][2][3]' But it all depends on the notability and relevance of the information. I wouldn't single out Gish on the 2nd law page unless it's pretty small and light on references, though I might reference creationists in general. Have another read of WP:OR and you might better see why myself and Baegis are objecting to the info. Eventually if we keep disagreeing, WP:CONSENSUS will rear it's ugly head, then we get into blocking territory. Creationism-related pages are notorious for contributors who push and push and push to the point of pointless trolling, then get blocked. Your suggestions to date are reasonable ones, but circling on the talk page without moving to the next stage of consensus (at this point a RFC) bodes grimly for ye. Course most creationism-supporters don't gun for making a major creationist figurehead look like a douchebag, which is why we're being patient methinks. WLU 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good points, WLU. Baegis 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

subsection to ease my preview

It seems prima facie POV to title a section "False beliefs ..." Is it not more reasonable to say "Gish's beliefs" or something to this effect?

I certainly don't see how I'm in danger of being blocked. If someone has a legitimate gripe against me, then feel free to suggest it to an admin, if that's how we want to play it. I haven't written in my changes to the page without discussing it on this page, so I am not attempting to force my own changes on anyone without prior discussion. I'm perfectly willing to change the article in the way you've outlined above in order to include this reference.

As for the contention that I'm making Gish look like a "douchebag," you all have already concluded that he is. I don't have a problem with the arguments he put forth in the article, and seemingly neither do most creationists. From an evolutionist perspective the entire argument for creation is nonsense. Logically, of course, this doesn't make it false, just not widely accepted as true. Yeshuamyking7 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You raise a point about the section title; they are patently false but it's a bit much for a section title. Seems like something to be worried about when the section itself is written.

I didn't mean to suggest you were about to be blocked or such the like, my apologies for giving that impression. It's more to let you know that many do end up blocked because they continue to press for changes which will never occur despite suggestions that their efforts could be taken elsewhere or that they review some policies. The greater problem with these contributors is solely editing talk pages and never providing references, or continuously changing what they are arguing for just to waste other editor's time. The idea I want to get across is, suggesting specific changes (or even making them) is more useful than trying to back up your points with logic. You're not doing badly, but I think you'd understand some of the objections we've got were you a bit more experienced on wikipedia in general, and on a wider variety of articles.

I'll leave the question of the falseness of creationism to the gods - this is not the place to debate it. WLU 18:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I take your point regarding my inexperience. I have only personally made small changes here and there, mostly to articles about places I've been or lived. I'm happy to read in more depth the articles you've suggested. You've been very gracious on that front, and I thank you for the suggestions.

I'll work out a restructuring and make the changes when I get a chance, which probably won't be until tonight. Yeshuamyking7 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Debates

I'd say the debates section requires a good looking at by both sides - Gish doesn't look good and neither do his opponents, and it looks like a weaselly-way of hitting both. WLU 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think some restructuring is required. At present, the first thing we read about Gish (once we're past the basic biographical info) is essentially "Ian Plimer is a nasty man". This is the Gish article, not the Plimer article. The Plimer stuff needs to move down the page somewhat (i.e. stuff more directly applicable to Gish should come first), and maybe trimmed a little (there's stuff which lacks citations). Shermer's comments regarding Gish's canned presentation could come up into the "debates" section from "controversy and criticism": it's not exactly controversial or especially critical (using the same material over and over again isn't necessarily "wrong": refusing to correct the errors IS wrong, but that's a separate issue not addressed by Shermer in that quote). --Robert Stevens 07:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes sound good. WLU 23:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Having not personally been to any of these debates, or done much research on Gish himself outside of the little I've done in connection with talking about this article, I wouldn't feel comfortable as yet making any corrections to this section. Still, I would agree with you that it seems as if both sides don't come out looking very good in this section. It seems that to be fair, there should be at least a positive and negative thing to be said for both sides to present some semblance of balance. What we have in the section now seems to be mostly negative on both sides. Also, Robert is absolutely correct that Plimer's position in the section should be subordinate to Gish's, whatever we say about either man. It would be nice to get some people from the evolution side and the creation side who have actually been to these debates to get together and write a more balanced section. Anyone out there who fits that bill?

Perhaps we could talk some more about debates Gish has had with people other than Plimer. Surely they didn't all involve people telling him he should electrocute himself. That should not be the representative case, although I do think it bears mentioning in the article.Yeshuamyking7 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now made the restructuring changes outlined above, but I haven't added or removed anything except the citation-free paragraph at the end of "Gish/Plimer". As "Gish/Plimer" probably says less about Gish than any of the other examples in "Debates", I moved it to the bottom of that section. If anyone does have info on other debates by Gish: yes, that would be good: I don't anticipate my changes as being "the final version" by any means. --Robert Stevens 09:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Imbalanced

About three quarters of this article is either direct or backhanded criticism. That strikes me as a bit excessive given the topic. Most of the criticism looks to me coming from skeptic websites-especially talkorigins which sure looks like it posts a lot of self-published materials. I think unless the criticism is found to be much more generally widespread, outside the skeptic "clique", there is far too much weight given to critical claims in this article. In any event, if these criticisms are launched from other sources as well, they should be referenced. Talkorigins is a great online resource, but it should not be given this much weight as may be defensible coming from a survey of more neutral sources.Professor marginalia 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

TalkOrigins has been judged by a multitude of editors to be a valuable resource and it's use is allowed in sourcing information. It is a completely neutral source, as it relies on actual facts. I can't even imagine what sort of source you would rather use. The article definitely needs some work but Gish generates a good deal of criticism for his claims. I am not sure what "clique" you are referring to but I imagine it includes everyone who doesn't give two hoots about creationism aka scientists. Am I right? Baegis 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been editing a month and you've already seen a multitude of editors support this source? It's a usenet discussion group. Those are almost never allowed as published sources at WP except in the most select circumstances. And the skeptic "clique" is exactly that. I'm a fan myself. Never miss the Skeptics Guide; I even keep a checklist on which rogues answer correctly on science or fiction. I read a couple skeptic magazines, I participate on a few skeptic related blogs. But I won't deny they're the same handful of "celeb skeptics" appearing on every skeptics "channel". Skeptics as a group complain how outnumbered they are. The skeptic view is not the same as the mainstream view, to the regret of most in the skeptics movement. Back to the point: there are problems with undue weight in this article since there is a preponderance of "criticism", and much of it, if not most, from the same website. And since this website source is also usenet discussion group website, the article needs to broaden its sources of criticism to achieve legitimate NPOV.Professor marginalia 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been editing for a month. What's your point? Do you think that I haven't done my homework during that month or perhaps I was reading through WP before I began to edit? It still stays because it is an invaluable resource. Frankly, what you do on your own time has nothing to do with this article. TalkOrigins stays. Why do you want it removed so much? Baegis 05:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You asked me a question what I meant by "clique", and I gave you an answer. The support given by "multitudes of editors" is a wild exaggeration. Wild exaggerations aren't helpful to the article. I do not argue I "want it removed so much". However it is not such a significant source that warrants using it to write nearly half the content in the article, all of it critical. There are other kinds of sources. For example, books, newspapers, journals, magazines.Professor marginalia 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

www.talkorigins.org is not a "usenet discussion group". It is a collection of articles, many of which originated on a usenet discussion group. But it is also probably the largest collection of articles which present the mainstream scientific view regarding the evolution/creationism "controversy". Most mainstream scientific sources don't bother to address creationist claims, as they are considered to be too far-out to deserve attention: when scientists DO address such claims, they generally do so on TalkOrigins. It is considered to be a highly reputable source. --Robert Stevens 09:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening line on the website reads, "Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins." If the source of the articles in the archive come from self-published writing in newsgroup, isn't that splitting hairs? Not everything at talk origins is unpublished. Articles or excerpts that first appeared in books or other publications are okay; but some of those cited here are obviously self published messages intended for circulation to other members. Gish is someone who has had much written about him from "outside the tent", so this is a no brainer for a BLP article. The article is imbalanced and relies too much on a single source as well as texts that don't meet WP:RS. A few are so sub par they need come out without further discussion.Professor marginalia 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

TO has also accumulated an impressive series of awards from a variety of sources. This includes Scientific American, the National Academy of Sciences, the Smithsonian, The Encyclopedia of Evolution (by Oxford University Press), the Geological Society of America, [[Science (journal}]], which is Science for God's sake, it's referenced in biology textbooks, university courses, and every single entry I've seen is sourced for both the criticism, and the rebuttal. And, Science (Science!) said it was good. Science! I say reliable. This very site was topic for a discussion quite recently with now-blocked User:Imbrella, where it was judged more than adequate by a variety of contributors. See here for instance. It's a lengthy read, but educational. So yes, at this specific moment in time,a contributor with a month's history would indeed have seen several references to TO and it's usefulness/reliability. WLU 15:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Somehow my argument is being misinterpreted as an attack against talk origins. It's a great website, a great resource. Full of great information. But it is largely an archive of self-published user group messages, is it not? Some of it has been published and meets WP:RS. Much of it does not. One of the reviewers in the link above admits that the website publishes only critiques of creationism, not support. That's not a criticism of talk origins, its a fact that editors here need to bear in mind when giving over to that one source half the territory in this article. Of course Gish is a notable figure even outside the talk origins usergroup. I hope this clears things up. I am not saying that talk origins is a bad source of information. But editors can't use everything on it because much of it is self-published material, and relying almost exclusively on this one source creates problems in terms of WP:Undue_weight and WP:NPOV.Professor marginalia 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you fail to understand the purpose of TO. It is an invaluable source for documenting the rebuttals to creationism, intelligent design, among other ideas. Simply put, it is like the Britannica of such knowledge. Why do you want it taken away so bad? What is the underlying motive here? It doesn't violate Undue or NPOV with regards to using the source. By the way, your argument is an attack on TO because of your insistence on saying it is "a usenet discussion group". Baegis 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

From previous debate, TO appears to be regarded as a reliable source for the mainstream scientific opinion regarding evolution and creationism's critiques; it's easy to link to, it's stable, it cites it's sources, it's very readable, and it's well-regarded by numerous respected bodies that are considered prestigious within the scientific community. It's reviewed by scientists, sourced, and it provides both the source of creationisms criticism as well as the rebuttal. It's quite natural that it would only publish the critisms of creationism - it's a website critical of creationism and creationism has essentially no support within mainstream science. The source and support for creationist science will have to come from elsewhere. We can't removed articles or prevent them from being sourced because they don't address both sides of a debate. Sources that rebut the scientific points are welcome, they presumably have many of them on the ICR or DI websites. I'd say if you have a problem with talk.origins, I'd bring it up for comment at Talk:WP:RS, or perhaps ask for a WP:RFC. WLU 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I'm having a go at editing the article, hopefully when I'm done it'll be a bit more neutral. WLU 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the man, WLU. I am still working on that passage I mentioned to you, alas it has been a hectic few days here on my end. It's coming, don't worry. Baegis 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about. After 13000 edits, I lose track :) I hope it's not for Duane Gish, and I hope it's not arriving in the next hour or so. Also, though this is a very touchy subject, please watch the assumptions of good faith and borderline personal attacks. WLU 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's go back and start over. Beginning with this: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The article does not represent all significant viewpoints. It doesn't represent opinions of his followers, or a mainstream view of him, and concentrates very heavily on the opinions of a handful of his skeptic leaning opponents. It gives disproportionate prominence to those views and almost no attention to other views. These problems can be remedied to large degree by broadening the sources used beyond the skeptic and talk origin circuit. Neither of those sorts of sources represent all points of view sufficiently.Professor marginalia 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the mainstream that you mention? Do you mean how he is perceived by the general public? Or how fellow creationists view him? The reason for the large amount of criticism is because this is a man who claims to be a scientist and who also is trying to further ideas that run counter to evidence. So naturally, we have to refute those claims, as per FRINGE. Since this is, I guess, a science related article, the majority of the viewpoints are going to be from those with a scientific background. I would not expect to go to, for example, Hans Georg Dehmelt, the '89 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics and expect to see part of his biography devoted to explaining the popular opinion of him along with how his fellow physics researchers feel about him. Do you see what I mean? Baegis 17:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. FRINGE does not pertain to wrong theories. It pertains to the lack or degree of notability of a theory, not its validity. The guideline concerns itself with the problem where the act of there simply being an article at WP about some obscure theory, or citing as reference some obscure theory, lends more notability to that theory than otherwise exists. Gish's theories are not obscure. Creationism is a topic which has been widely written about--by scientists, sure, but also by nonscientists, by historians-I found 10 cites at the New York Times alone. Those kinds of sources determine what content has to go in this article. Not us. We just give the overview, and summarize what's already been written with equal proportion given to diverse published views. And I'm not sure I understand your point with this Dehmelt example. That article says almost nothing about his science, and the only sources identified are a press release, an autobiography, and the man's totally empty webspace reserved for him by the university. The article is about his bio, not his science.Professor marginalia 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WLU - Thanks for the addition of the abiogenesis article. Meant to do that over the weekend and got bogged down. As for the discussion above, I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with the article. Perhaps broadening the sources to groups other than TO would be good. I'm sure you can find many other mainstream evolutionist sources from which to choose. It would be nice to get some more discussion of how Gish is perceived among fellow creationists. Yeshuamyking7 17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Trott

Thank you, WLU, for tackling the NPOV issues raised. Before things get too far along, though, I wanted to ask about Richard Trott, a source mentioned 7 times in the article. Who is he? Has he ever been published anywhere besides his college student newspaper? All of his claims stem his opinions from a single speaking engagement of Gish's hosted at Rutgers. It makes good points, but it's a bit of a rant, isn't it? Trott is used as a source here not only of his opinions about Gish, but also as a source of fact claims about science, and I question what his credentials are in this area. One of the examples chosen here is particularly weak--about the Neanderthal issue. I'm not sure that Gish would disagree that Neanderthals had brow ridges, etc. Gish is quoted as saying Neanderthals are "homo sapiens", and of course they were widely considered so by many scientists. It wasn't until maybe roughly 10 years or thereabouts after Gish's appearance in 1994, that Neanderthal scientists firmed up more to one side that it was a separate species rather than subspecies (it continues to be widely called homo sapiens neanderthalensis). I guess I'm asking, what are his credentials for sourcing fact claims about science. And does this one person's opinion from one Gish presentation warrant 7 mentions in this article?Professor marginalia 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Trott should indeed be verified to see if he has notability or reliability beyond talk.origins, I don't have the time right now. Really though, his reliability is asserted through it's prominent placement on talk.origins - that's like asking every single reporter of a newspaper to be justified, when really the reliability is through the publisher. WLU 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the effort you've put in. This is one of the potential problems with talk origins with so much self-published content. Trott appears to be completely self-published through the user group, and the only other publisher mentioned is a student newspaper. I self-publish some of my opinions on internet sites and listservs too, but that doesn't make me a qualified cite at wikipedia. But thanks for offering to look into it further when you get a chance.Professor marginalia 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Trott appears to be contained within TO as nearly all of his articles are posted through TO. From this press release [6] it is mentioned that he is a computer scientist but he was recognized by the NCSE for his work in contributing to articles in NCSE publications and the TO archives. It also mentions that he is a copy editor on the Reports of the NCSE. I am in agreement with WLU though because being published through NCSE and TO asserts his reliability. Baegis 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The oversight and fact checking comes from the pedigree of talk.origins itself in my mind, you'd have to take this to WP:RS or possibly a RFC to discount the source. The fact that Gish replied to Trott's criticisms means he's had the chance to reply and correct any factual erros, both for the evidence itself and the events of the debate/discussion. The merit of finding out more about Trott is to add further weight to his opinion, barring some heinous information that discounts the substance of his contributions completely I think they stand on the basis of talk.origins. That the NCSE has recognized him and his contributions further adds to his credibility. Though a usenet site is self-published and ineligible, talk.origins is not. WLU 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-write done

I'm done the re-write, the only section I couldn't integrate was the following on googlewackiness. It's kinda irrelevant anyway, but perhaps can be salvaged:

Duane Gish is mentioned in the best selling non-fiction book Dave Gorman’s Googlewhack Adventure by the British comedian Dave Gorman. In the book, Gorman had been challenged to find 10 googlewhacks in a row. This journey led him to the googlewhack "Dripstone Ingles," AKA Dr. Gish. However, after Gorman met him, Gish could not comprehend the concept of a googlewhack and that chain ended with Gish:

"Imagine trying to telephone your grandmother, and over the telephone explain to your grandmother how to set the video recorder if you knew that she didn't have a video recorder, but she did have a cake."

Coincidentally, Gorman met another Googlewhack, "Hydroids Souvlaki," AKA Dr. M. Dale Stokes, who is a prominent and vocal critic of Dr. Gish. Stokes had even written a paper which debunked a pamphlet which Gish had given Gorman when they met.

WLU 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I honestly don't see the point in including this information. It seems more related Gorman than to Gish, and still smacks of a backhanded attempt at criticizing Gish.

As for the edit itself, it doesn't look too bad. My one immediate criticism is that you went with the "Erroneous Claims" heading that I thought we both agreed was over-the-top. Can we not go with "Claims" instead? Yeshuamyking7 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be possible to integrate the Gorman info, but I'd have to think about it. I somewhat stand by the erroneous claims title - his claims are erroneous, were there correct or justified ones they could be included. Unfortunately for Gish, they're all bunk. However, feel free to present suggestions for alternatives. The unfortunate thing about creationist claims is they contradict basically everything science has found out about evolution, human history, geology, etc, such that to present them as true is in fact POV in my mind. However, were there reliable sources showing there is merit to their claims, then it could certainly be reflected on the page. I just doubt they exist 'cause creationists don't actually do research. Incidentally, I've changed the referencing from Harvard to simpler ref name tags. I see what the Harvard templates are trying to do, but I've never seen it work. WLU 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Harvard referencing worked for me in Safari, maybe a browser issue. It's a good system if you want to refer to page numbers or make individual comments on a particular reference, without repeatedly giving the same reference in full. It's proved very useful at Charles Darwin (using the older Harvard reference templates rather than the current Template:Citation which works in the same way with inline Template:Harvard citation no brackets used with ref tags). There, each Harvard reference provides a link down to the full citation, as well as the page number which in many cases is an external link to the relevant page at DarwinOnline. Where there are fewer references to the same document, and page numbers aren't needed, the other system of footnotes using the cite book etc templates as at Wikipedia:Citation templates may be preferred.. ... dave souza, talk 10:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried it on mozilla on a mac and IE on a PC, both gave me the same thing - hyperlinked references in the footnotes and in the references section a series of nested curly brackets containing page numbers. I can see why it would be good to use them but I've not invested the time in figuring them out. If you can make it work, I could dig up the old page numbers and refs from the history. I can see why it'd be good on Darwin's page, but I can't see Gish turning into a FA any time soon :) D'you think it's worth it for this page? WLU 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I'm not asking that his claims be presented as true, which would clearly be POV. The reverse, presenting them as false, is by definition POV. Calling them "Claims made by Gish" or something to that effect is not the same as saying they're true, which is what you seem to be implying above. They are claims. That is not in dispute. Whether or not they are true is a matter of opinion, regardless of whether one can present evidence to back said opinion up. One side has a framework and evidence; the other side has a framework and evidence. Different people will come down on different sides. It doesn't seem responsible for us, as encyclopedia writers, to come down on one or the other. This is simply a rehashing of the erroneous/false debate we've had regarding the second law. Saying the vast majority of scientists reject the claims is NPOV and factual. What you've done is come down on the issue yourself by inserting "erroneous" into the title. That doesn't seem appropriate. Yeshuamyking7 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as POV if his claims are actually false, which they appear to be. His claims have been refuted, and he has not presented any true claims that I've seen. It's not a matter of opinion if his statements are correct or not - they've been analyzed, they're not true. It's a common creationist trick/pattern to ignore criticisms and recycle old arguments, quotes, and evidence long since refuted. Creationism doesn't have a scientific framework, it fights a continual rearguard action against the constant, endless debunking and advancement of the juggernaut that is mainstream, peer-reviewed science, boooo-YA! But shameless propaganda aside, I will acknowledge that the section could be re-titled, though I'm totally uninterested in doing it (and obviously somewhat biased). How 'bout you suggest a couple and let's see if we can choose one that represents the section a bit more fairly.

I'll take your comment as a tactic endorsement that the rest of the process worked out well and the current version is acceptable, which is good. WLU 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

His claims have been analyzed and refuted by those who do not agree with him to begin with using assumptions that are not agreed upon. So, let's leave the shameless propaganda aside, and get back to talking about the actual article.

As you'll see above, I suggested a very simple edit. Just remove the word "erroneous" and leave it as "Claims made by Gish" or "Gish's claims". Or, if you prefer, we could say "Disputed claims made by Gish" or "Gish's disputed claims". Yeshuamyking7 03:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I like disuputed claims or some version thereof, that works for me. Go ahead. WLU 12:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Baegis 16:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the end of the first sentence in the "Disputed claims" section. The phrase "for being incorrect" reflects the original heading. If there is a more neutral way to phrase it, I'm all ears. Yeshuamyking7 04:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Baegis, would you mind telling me in what way my revision differs at all from the general thrust of what has already been changed in this section? We've gone from "erroneous claim" in the body of the article to "scientific consensus ..." We've gone from "Erroneous claims" in the title to "disputed ..." The section I removed draws the conclusion that the the claims are erroneous, precisely the POV conclusion that has been eliminated. Yeshuamyking7 05:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I undid your change because, while I agree Disputed claims is much more neutral, a disputed claim does not always mean that the claim in question is correct or incorrect, it simply means, well, as it implies. People dispute his claims. It is still important to note that the vast consensus is that his claims are incorrect. Do you see what I mean? If not I can think of a better way to explain it but I am a little tired right now so it may not come out correctly. Baegis 06:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"A disputed claim does not always mean that the claim in question is correct or incorrect ..." That sounds like my point exactly. We should not be in the business of saying the claims are correct or incorrect. As I said above, if you wish to rephrase the sentence in a neutral way, have at it. Until then, the way it stands is POV. It states explicitly that the people disputing the claims do so because they are incorrect, precisely the matter in dispute, thereby "settling" the debate in favor of those who claim his position is incorrect. The way it stands does not clearly delineate between the objective reality that the "vast consensus is that his claims are incorrect" and the subjective opinion that they are, in fact, incorrect.

I could, for instance, write the sentence in the following way, drawing an opposite and equally POV conclusion:

"Gish's arguments against evolution have been criticized by various members of the scientific community, although he is correct and they are not."

I'm assuming you would not like that. Guess what? Neither would I. It's POV, and has no business on this site.

Again, if you would like to submit a phrasing of the sentence that retains the factual information that the evolutionists are in the majority, be my guest. Until you do, I am removing the section again. Yeshuamyking7 06:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason scientists "dispute" Gish's claims is because they are incorrect. You are deleting the reason given by the scientists themselves. I will revert, with a slight change of emphasis: "Gish's arguments against evolution have been criticized by various members of the scientific community as being incorrect". I think this properly conveys their justification for rejection, without committing Wikipedia to explicitly supporting that justification. --Robert Stevens 10:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I agree with Robert Stevens, this portrays the scientific reason for disputing the claims whereas leaving it out means no reason for the claims being disputed. There are reasons, Gish's claims do not jive with the evidence. You have to read the text and come to your own conclusion, which is less helpful for an opening line. Please leave it as is. Gish's claims, as far as (wikipedia's definition of) the most reliable sources that can be found on the subject, are incorrect. Yeshuamking7 - though you do an admirable job of navigating between your point of view (I'm assuming creationist or leaning towards that) and everyone else's, creationism in general is at a disadvantage on wikipedia because they have no reliably sourced counter-claims. Creationists do not publish in reliable sources, and there is verifiable evidence that they are wrong on every single point they've raised. Your contributions have been good ones, non-trolling and non-baiting, and Baegis is pushing things more than a little (redacted, Baegis' post above looks fine) but the page should not cover up the fact that creationism is essentially wrong, and should not become an apologist front for it either. I think the current version is admirable, and definitely would not like to have to report a 3RR. WLU 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What is less than helpful is for the author to draw a conclusion for the reader about the actual dispute, rather than the reasons for the dispute. As it read last night, it was the former, not the latter. And all it took was Robert's simple preposition change. I have no intention of reverting, so you can call off the implied 3RR threat. I asked for a rephrasing. I got one. I reverted because Baegis reflexively reverted a phrase that was a POV that agrees with his own POV. What Robert has done puts the conclusion on the source, rather than the author.

As for the middle section of your reply, I'm really not going to get into any detail about that as it doesn't directly address the problems with the article as it stood, but more general problems with Wikipedia itself. I will say briefly that the definition of reliable sources as it pertains to this issue is more than a little self-serving. It's okay to quote from creationist sources merely to showcase what they're saying, but Darwin preserve us if we actually think they're reliable.

If I wanted to cover something up or be an apologist there are any number of things I would have removed and added long before the things I've actually done, so there is really no need to hint at that charge. For that matter, if I wanted to promote a POV, I wouldn't start with this obscure biography, and likely wouldn't start with Wikipedia at all.

What I'm actually trying to do is make the article more neutral and balanced than the way I found it. And, lo and behold, it is. Yeshuamyking7 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3rr wasn't a threat, and it was directed at both of you. If you've a problem with wikipedia's policies supporting NPOV and RS, you can either attempt to change them (good luck), or there are other wikis that are more obliging to creationism's POV. Reliability depends on the topic - peer-reviewed journals always triumph when it comes to 'the truth' or reality, other sources are good for reporting on what people have said. It's in WP:RS, and it's there for a reason. If you had taken the actions in your second-last paragraph, you would be banned by now. It's a credit to your intelligence and patience that you've taken the route you have, with the result being you've actually helped improve a page rather than cemented a bunch of editors against you. Which is why you're a valuable contributor, and User:Raspor is not. Though I disagree with your fundamental epistemology, I do think you're a valuable counter-point to the tendency to be overtly hostile to creationism. Stick with us, and for God's sake, put something up on your user page! No-one takes a redlinked user seriously :) WLU 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact more than one peer-reviewed creationist journal. I can say that for sure because I personally subscribe to one and have sourced another in a paper I wrote a few years back.

As for your other comments, I very much appreciate the vote of confidence. I have been meaning to add some user page stuff. I'll get to it this weekend. Thanks again, WLU. Mr. Valuable Counter-point signing off for now. Yeshuamyking7 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to know about this peer-reviewed journal. Could you give the name of it? Even without seeing it, I would question if it is the same type of a peer-review that scientific journals utilize. Baegis 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested as well, but peer review is peer review. It'd still be considered a reliable source. If there were a dispute over science versus creation science, it'd be interesting to see what [[Talk:WP:RS]] had to say about it. WLU 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is similar to the "peer reviewed" journals that published some of the ID stuff and are now displayed proudly by the DI. Baegis 18:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The one I subscribe to is called the Journal of Creation. It's put out by Creation Ministries International, and you can find out more about it here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/91/ . It's had several different names during its publication history.

The other one I know of is called Creation Science Research Quarterly. I cannot tell from a web search whether it's still in print. I know it was a few years ago when I cited it in an essay, but their website isn't up anymore. In my search, I also found a few more journals that seem to no longer be in print. I'm guessing many of the scientists who wrote for those journals now write for JoC.

As for the ID question, I'm not sure if you are aware, but there is a big difference between YEC and ID. Many of the most prominent ID promoters accept in whole or in part the long ages of evolution and evolution itself. It tends to be more along the lines of theistic evolution than creationism. If you look at YEC publications and websites, you'll see a great number of articles critical of ID as a weak compromise position. Yeshuamyking7 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Thanks for the weblink. You're probably aware, but you might get some objections to using it as a source. Agreed BTW, saying YEC and ID are the same thing is like saying botany and bacterial genetics are the same thing - some overall agreements in paradigm, but essentially two separate ideas. Like many things, we see monolithic and the reality is disagreements and schisms. WLU 20:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I am well aware that they are different and never implied that they are the same. I just thought that each camp would use similar "peer-reviewed" studies and I was proven essentially correct. Baegis 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making a pointed comment (yet another apology!), my comment was more a use of the page as a forum. Which is worse. I'm the worst editor ever! WLU 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Duane Gish/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This article is biased in it's overall wording against the subject's point of view. Example: "Gish is also one of the creationists most responsible for propragating the false assertion that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics." The author is making his own assertion as to the validity of the debate, not as to the facts of the person's biography, thereby attempting to stealthfully prejudice the reader in the debate rather than discuss the person who is debating. The author states the subject makes a false assertion though the assertion itself is the unresolved subject of the debate itself, making the author biased and unqualified to write an objective article on the subject. It's just a plain false assertion, what are you talking about? Are we being biased by saying that the earth is spherical? Richard001 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC) == Evidence == Young earth creationists ought to be marginalised in our society, for clinging to a belief system that is so patently false ... not to mention stupid. Asserting things without facts to support it is simply not the way of science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniezarsoff (talk • contribs) 07:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)