Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

signatories affiliation

the DI list clearly says that the signatories are listed either by affiliation (at the time of signature) or university were they earned their PhD degree. Thus I removed unsourced criticism sentence. The list is not updated with present affiliation. The assertion that the DI choses which one to incorporate cannot be made so clearly. Usually it is the signatory who gives such information. Also, that this practice is criticized is not backed up by a citation.

Furthermore, the statement that this kind of list is 'confusing' is a mere opinion of the editor and not NPOV.Northfox 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "confusing" could be changed, but frankly I do find it confusing. The word confusing could be replaced by even more negative descriptions, however. The evidence presented in the article is prima facie evidence of a confusing situation and even misrepresentation. This is never done in academic and professional circles, and therefore the ambiguous affiliations of the list signatories is somewhat suspicious. For example, someone who is operating in an appropriate manner would never produce a list claiming that Gish is at UC Berkeley, even though that is where he obtained his PhD, many years ago. If we have a problem with sources or copying a source too closely, this can and should be corrected.--Filll 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll wrote: revert: you have to make a case for this on the talk page and get consensus if you want to make such a claim. Sorry.

Northfox answers: First of all, I appreciate you recent changes to this article on June 5th. It improved quite a bit. Of course I do not appreciate you reverted of my change :-)

I always thought that somebody who makes an assertion has to do the explaining. Even though you might not have added the sentences in question, you reverted my change back to the original, so I assume that you agree with that assertion in the old version.

1. Thus please explain to me how you know that it is the DI that does the choosing (alma mater vs affiliation at the time of signature). Any sources? 2. How do you know that in case a person has had several affiliations, DI choses the most prestigeous one? Any sources?

3. being confused is a very subjective statement. Please explain why I should be confused by DI's policy to either accept the name of the alma mater or present affiliation. Both should be a valid option (e.g. for retired professors, academics who went to industry, and vice versa, etc). Please make a convincing case that the general reader should be confused by this.

I also find it very interesting that I am the first editor of this page that needs permission to change some contents. Up to my entry, the discussion page was empty.

Finally, it is definitely not me who is making a claim, I was just reverting unsubstantiated claims of others.Northfox 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is pretty in line with WP policy and one of the basic WP pillars

from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Burden of evidence

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.

In line with this, may I ask you to provide references?Northfox 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the main article

Another criticism was that though such statements such as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" commonly include the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification, the Discovery Institute often chooses the most prestigious institutions to list over the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Similarly confusing lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.

is a near verbatim quote of ref 21:

Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe ministry for Rana, and the CSC for Wells. During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated.

I always thought it is WP policy to mark quotes accordingly and to use quotes sparingly.

see Wikipedia:Citing_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Why was this not done here? Ref 21 is not a verifiable source for the claim that similar lists (and the original referenced article does not even include the adjective 'confusing'!) were circulated. When, where,by whom, what kind of lists were circulated? Ref 21 also does not say that DI choses the affiliation to be presented. That the authors listed their affiliations strategically is also not clear from ref 21.

Hence I request that my edit is restored.Northfox 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any issue here at all. Verifiability applies to Wikipedia's article content and does not extend to the sources that support that content. So please reread WP:V because I don't think you quite grasp it yet. Footnote #21 and the content it supports are perfectly fine by both WP:RS and WP:V:Wedging Creationism into the Academy. Odd nature 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now addressed the complaints. The text is rewritten to make it less similar to Forrest's original article. Forrest's original article is a perfectly good source for this material since it is a respected academic publication, not some ranting drooling creationist rag. I have replaced words like "confusing" with more appropriate and negative descriptions. This tactic is deliberately misleading and worse. It is not clear WHO did the choice of affiliation, but the choice is certainly consistent with the DI having done it and I note this in the text. After all, it happened over and over again, so it looks like it was coordinated, particularly since it is not standard practice to do this. Even if it wasn't, all we have to do is verify what Forrest claimed in a good publication, which we can and did.--Filll 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, is the second sentence of your revised paragraph The institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute of the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. Forrest's view in a citable form, or your POV? It IS very important who made the decisions concerning the affiliations. Your argument is your POV. You are making assumptions, which is OR.

Further down, you have not changed the confusing adjective, and have even expanded the attribute with misleading. Is this your POV? If not, cite who's view this is.Northfox 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you were reverted because what you did was edit contrary to what the citations claim, and introduce a POV slant that clearly was inappropriate. This text had stood repeated scrutiny for many months with no problem, so for you to unilaterally remove material against your own personal POV in an effort to favor the DI is reason enough to be reverted immediately, and to require you to make your case here on the talk page. You made essentially no case, and therefore the material stands as is.--Filll 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That the text stood there for many months is no argument. Especially it does not constitute proof for a perfect article. The month-long inappropriate Forrest citation clearly shows that this article needed improvement. I use inappropriate and not misleading here, because I tend to give the benefit of doubt, this time to User:FeloniousMonk. I am sure in the meantime you have accessed my user page and seen my editing policies and philosophy.

Believe me, I take editing WP seriously. So please don't revert me immediately in future edits, but first reflect on what I did and why.

you made essentially no case is not what my edit was about. I repeat, I edited out the unsubstantiated claims of others. If you don't like the outcome, please come up with some NPOV description of the facts.

As a sidenote: You don't have to use the passive voice you were reverted. The active voice I reverted you or I reverted your edit is more appropriate here, don't you think? You can stand up for what you did.

Let me ask a third party to have a look at this article. As the article is now, The institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute of the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. and confusing and misleading is still POV.Northfox 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Northfox, in accordance with your request I've had a look at the article, the source, your proposed version and your comments above. Firstly, you seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV#Undue weight – we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. As shown above, the reliable source gives the views of Barbara Forrest, who is a credible expert on the majority scientific view. Your proposal and your argument above misrepresent her opinion as though she merely notes the variation in how claimed credentials are shown, and indeed attributes the choice to the individual rather than the DI. The source has her view under the heading "Abuse of Academia", and her statement says "Academic credentials and affiliations were also used opportunistically in 2001, when the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements... Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated" [italics in the original]. She is clearly criticising the DI's misleading presentation of the credentials and not attributing it to fortuitous chance as you seem to believe. Filll's revision makes this clear, and emphasises the source of the opinion. From your talk page I note that we previously discussed an edit of yours which inadvertently misrepresented the source, and presumably this is simply an inadvertent misunderstanding on your part. ... dave souza, talk 08:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking you time and summarizing the edits, I value your comments, even though I am afraid that this time it does not clarify the problematic points. Is the sentence that User:Filll edited The institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute of the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. Forrest's point of view? If so, the sentence should be changed to make that clear.

She said (or impiles, or suggests, or any other suitable verb) that the institutions in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute of the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual.

If not, it is OR and POV of the editor.

Nowhere did I state that this is a fortuitous chance. If *I* would sign such a list, and *I* had the choice to chose between my alma mater and my present affiliation, maybe *I* would chose the more prestigeous one. No need to suspect the DI. But if the DI didn't make the chosing, why phrase a sentence that makes them look like the bad guys? We don't know WHO decided on the affiliation. THIS should be reflected in wikipedia. That was my whole point.

In the same vein, where is the rationale for using confusing and misleading? There are still no sources for that assumption. Let each reader decide the appropriate adjectives for himself.

I am sorry for sounding so pedantic here, but I find it interesting how the majority scientific view makes claims that seem not to be backed by sources (refering to confusing and misleading by Filll, and Forrest's report that similar lists were circulated, but not giving a single detail (neither, when, where, by whom, with what content, nilch). If they are the majority view, why go into such length on such thin ice? I never advocated equal space for minority view. But I also do not advocate that unsourced assumptions about the minority view can be made freely.Northfox 11:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Some comments:

• In a certain sense, Northfox is correct. We have no idea exactly what the mechanism was whereby people's affiliation is represented in what appears as a purposely misleading and even duplicitous fashion. If someone was caught with this sort of misrepresentation on a resume, I can guarantee it would raise questions and the consequences might be serious. This method of listing affiliation is contrary to all standard academic and professional practice. This is also not some sort of haphazard accident, since there are clearly several scandalous and glaring instances of it in the list. Some versions of the list include a very small typeface reference to this affiliation ambiguity at the bottom, and some do not. This is clearly something that is meant to mislead. It would be very hard to argue in a legal deposition that this is not intentional; I invite anyone who disagrees to try taking this sort of argument into a courtroom and see how far they get. Did the DI do it? Did the individuals themselves do it? Was it coordinated or just a coincidence? We cannot know for sure. However, my statement that this appearance is CONSISTENT with the DI having done it is accurate, but it does not imply in any way that we are SURE that the DI did it. It is also a paraphrasing of what Barbara Forrest said in a proper publication, and it is referenced as such. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, verifiable and NPOV to introduce it in this article.
• What is the real purpose of this list? No real scientist is going to be "fooled" by a list like this, especially if they look carefully at it. This sort of list is meant to mislead the public and politicians into thinking that some controversy over evolution actually exists, when in fact there is almost complete and unanimous acceptance and approval of evolution as the most currently viable alternative among the dozens of theories for explaining the observations of evolution that we have. The entire existence of the list is to pull the wool over the eyes of the naive and uneducated and to mislead. The general impression that the list gives to the uninformed is that there is a huge mass of leading scientists that think Darwin was full of crap. There could not be anything further from the truth. In fact, appearing on the list is almost a sure sign that the signatory is misinformed, delusional, in denial, confused, etc or has been tricked into signing the list by the very vague statement that signatories are asked to agree to. It is so carefully worded that at first glance, *I* might be inclined to agree to it. However, when one realizes that it really is just a sly trick to get people to agree to creationist interpretations of the world around us, and that is being put forward by an organization with an anti-science agenda to give cover to some of the most vile reactionary hate-mongering intolerant elements of US society, then this statement gives one pause. This type of misrepresentation is bound to confuse most if not all of its target audience and further the agenda of the DI. I spent one year at MIT and am listed as a student at Caltech in two successive years of the Caltech directory, even though I never attended. By these standards, I could list my affiliation as Caltech and MIT and I would be technically correct in some sort of nit-picking lawyerly fashion. However, it is clearly deceitful of me to tell someone that I am at MIT and/or Caltech or to imply it. It gives the appearance of someone who is inflating their resume and acting in a sneaky fashion. It looks dishonest.
• For the DI to even give the signatories the option of choosing their alma mater (or in the case of scientists, which alma mater, since most have several) or their current employer to list, they have already created a situation which is liable to lead to misrepresentation. Sure, the DI might not have made the choice, but they made it possible for others to make a misleading choice and then used this in their extensive publicity campaign. Even by not checking carefully to remove this ambiguity, they have made the choice by default (and are clearly aware of it because of the small typeface notice that sometimes appears with the list). On the other hand, the DI might have made the choice. Certainly the evidence is CONSISTENT with the DI having made the choice, even if they did not. And that is all that the text current says. It is correct. It is in accord with what Forrest and others have said in proper publications. There are citations for this. And so it should and will stand.
• If Northfox truely believes that the Forrest view is not the majority view, in the face of several citations to the contrary, where is the evidence? I am not talking about some ranting from the apologetic press or a "Christian" (using this term very loosely here) creationist website. I think that WP requires something from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the London Times, Science, Nature, the National Academy Press, the Los Angeles Times, New Scientist, Scientific American, or some similar publication that backs up Northfox's assertions. Otherwise, you know what Northfox's claims are worth...--Filll 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if someone removes important material or introduces a POV that is unwarranted, I *WILL* revert it. I do not care who did it and what their "editing philosophy" is. I think most others here would agree with me. If you doubt this, then let's poll them and see. However, if I go beyond this simple prima facie evidence of POV, and consider your putative intentions, then things might get far worse...so let's not even go there.--Filll 13:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I am sorry that my sentence If they are the majority view, why go into such length on such thin ice? led you to believe that I do not think that Forrest's view is the majority. Of course her view is the majority view. This becomes clear in my following sentence.But I also do not advocate that unsourced assumptions about the minority view can be made freely. To clarify this misunderstanding, let me rephrase my sentence: Because they are the majority view, they do not need to go into such length on such thin ice. I think it is clearer now. Still I think the use of confusing and misleading is not NPOV (why? because it is not a statement from Forrest, but of the editor). That Forrest has not included any information about the circulated other lists, is very unfortunate. So there is no chance for the interested reader to check the contents of those other lists.Northfox 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The DI published the list, and as such are responsible for its content. The article needs to make clear that, as Filll says, "This method of listing affiliation is contrary to all standard academic and professional practice." Whether the DI was actively duplicitous or merely incompetent in its fact-checking is of secondary importance. Or perhaps the problem is that they never really thought hard about what the institutions listed after people's names meant - perhaps they just aren't really comfortable with academic standards and practices. Perhaps "misleading" is a less accurate description than "poorly defined" or "ill thought out". It wouldn't be the first time. SheffieldSteel 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking the comments of the discussions in consideration, I propose some minor changes to the paragraph:

Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest pointed out what appears as deliberate misrepresentation of the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". She said that the institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute or the signatory of the most prestigious affiliations available for a signatory. That is, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is completely contrary to standard academic and professional practice and makes the list poorly defined. For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, the schools from which they obtained their degrees, instead of their present affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. According to Forrest, similarly lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.[21] Also, Richard Sternberg is described on the list as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of a minor journal where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy.

That makes clear that it is Forrest's standpoint, and thus not the POV of the editor. The paragraph does not claim that it was DI's sole decision (something difficult to prove). It changes misleading to poorly defined, and removes the 'confusing and misleading, something that Forrest did not say in the citation.Northfox 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Northfox 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the New York Times made the same observation in an article they had a while back. I don't have the time at the moment, but someone may want to try to track that down. JoshuaZ 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is not just "Forrest's standpoint" -- what she is listing are facts, which exist independent of her views. Unless Northfox can cite counterexamples, where the DI is not opportunistically citing the most prestigious affiliation (even when, as in the Sternberg example, the affiliation is tenuous), I think the text should stand as is. Hrafn42 05:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42, I don't see how this would make a difference. Forrest's words can be cited (WP:V), true or not. I have absolutely NOTHING against that. What should be made clear is that these words are from Forrest and not the POV of an editor. As the second sentence of the paragraph is now, it is not clear if Forrest wrote those words. You completely misunderstand the other problematic point: It is not clear who made the choice (give the choice any adjective you like) of the affiliation. If the choice was made by the signatory or DI does matter. The sentences as it is now, makes the DI look like the deciding body. We don't know that. I read Forrest's article. It seems to me that even she does not claim that it was DI's choice. Please show me where she did.

Filll, I myself am guilty of using weasel words in the past. People say I have a steep learning curve and I avoid them now. Please only cite Forrest's reference, and avoid your POV (meaning potentially confusing and misleading). Nobody has ever complained here that a weasel word should be used. similar lists is the phrase Forrest used in her article and a description along that line will fulfill the NPOV policy. Negative adjectives are your POV and thus should be removed. Of course if you can cite negative standpoints that include your adjectives, please do so.

These are my final comments. Northfox 08:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The DI maintains this list, it therefore bears ultimate responsibility for maintaining the consistency, and ascertaining the accuracy, of the listed affiliations of the signitories. This is particularly true for those, such as Wells and Sternberg, who are Fellows of, or well known to, the DI. Hrafn42 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the weasel words recently added. Forrest's is describing a easily verified fact and her testimony in the Dover trial was given full weight in that ruling, so its reasonable and accurate to keep the original phrasing. Adding weasel words to make uncomfortable details more palatable for one side of an issue is not called for by policy, but accurately describing verifiable facts is. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have your support. It was becoming clear that no matter how far I bent over backwards, the other side was not going to be satisfied. You just cannot please some people.--Filll 18:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, then please change the citation (now it is Forrests' publication Wedging Creationism into the Academy in Academe, American Association of University Professors in which she does not use these two adjectives, as far as I know) to the appropriate place in the Dover ruling, where according to your sentence above, the exact quote should be localized. I am always for keeping verbatim quotes. Northfox 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

First you object when it was a direct quote, and now you object when we do not use their exact words. So, no. We only need to accurately summarize sources per policy; verbatim use of terms is neither necessary nor required. And it's clear at the source that Forrest and Branch mean the DI is being misleading. Of course I can always ask them... FeloniousMonk 05:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

since the discussion is in a new stage, let me clarify. I never objected a direct quote. I can prove this, because I never objected the (in my opinion too long, but this is not the point) direct quote of Myers in the preceding parapgraph. What I objected here was the Forrest was used verbatim without giving the quote. Please do not misinterpret what I wrote. If Forrest implied in her article what is written here remains a valid objection from my part. Is The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. (your choice) really the same as But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. (Forrest's words)? I still don't think so. Northfox 06:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? So the section called 'Abuse of Academia' is not about the Discovery Institute being misleading?! You must have a very different notion of what constitutes "misleading" behavior. "intelligent design proponents have flaunted their academic credentials and affiliations for all they are worth—or beyond. ... Academic credentials and affiliations were also used opportunistically in 2001, when the Discovery Institute..." Hmmm, "Flaunted ...for all they are worth—or beyond". "Used opportunistically". It's clear to me what Forrest and Branch mean here. I still don't any rational basis for your objections. FeloniousMonk 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this entire affair starts to smell like someone who is being unreasonable on purpose and is trolling. We could of course contact these people directly. We could find many other citations but I do not think this would satisfy Northfox. It is clear he wants to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.--Filll 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

These are my final comments. Oh really? I guess not. Oh well. So I gather you have decided that a new policy that WP has to follow is to always write in verbatim quotes, never to paraphrase or rephrase. So when will you be writing a WP article to give us this new policy?--Filll 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, a polite request is not the same as a comment :-) Northfox 06:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Chesterfield County Public Schools

As reported at Creation and evolution in public education#Recent developments in state education programs, proponents still seem to be presenting this list to school boards. Why don't they listen to the DI saying they don't want ID taught in schools?..... dave souza, talk 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the wedge strategy in action. What has happened is that a lot of confusion has been injected by the DI into the public sphere. What the DI runs is really just a series of public relation campaigns. I think that the DI is probably torn. Some of them want to wait to introduce ID into the schools, and some clearly are pushing for it right away, because of their actions. This is where Wikipedia can help out. We have to make the information about the ID and the DI readily available here so that these school board members and the public can make more reasonable decisions, and that the defenders of evolution can arm themselves with more accurate material.--Filll 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true that we're here to inform, but don't exaggerate our importance. It's pretty clear from News Release, Science textbook statement from School Board Chair Thomas J. Doland, that he and presumably the board would love to teach the controversy, and are instructing their officials to try to find a controversy to teach, but as Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life makes clear with [the superintendent was] "asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic." that they're painfully aware of the Kitzmiller judgement... dave souza, talk 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but these days EVERYONE goes to the internet and Wikipedia to understand these issues. And so we can actually play a useful role.--Filll 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

There is a dispute over the verifiability and POV in the criticism section.05:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC) _{(an unsigned comment from Northfox)}

Claiming there is a valid dispute and there actually being one are two very different things. So far your past claims have proved to be baseless, based on a flawed understanding of policy. Care to explain exactly what it is you dispute? Your last objection over "...Barbara Forrest and ... Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism".[21] The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual." proved to be frivolous. The passage is completely supported by Wedging Creationism into the Academy by Forrest and Branch in Academe, published by the American Association of University Professors. I don't think there's a valid objection to be made here, and making repeated frivolous objections disrupt the project. FeloniousMonk 05:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I disputed the verifiability and POV of this sentences in the criticism section:

The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. Neither from the document A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism itself nor from the cited references in the criticism section is it clear that the Discovery Institute made the choice.Northfox 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is a controversy over the use of the adjectives confusing and misleading in:

Similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas. Another editor, SheffieldSteel, has suggested using poorly defined or ill thought out instead, and I have suggested to omit the adjectives altogether.Northfox 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I suggested the following edits, but they were not implemented.

Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest pointed out what appears as deliberate misrepresentation of the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". She said that the institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute or the signatory of the most prestigious affiliations available for a signatory. .... According to Forrest, similar lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.Northfox 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking your points in order:

1. "The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual." is an accurate summary of the Abuse of Academia section of Wedging Creationism into the Academy by Forrest and Branch in Academe, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors: "intelligent design proponents have flaunted their academic credentials and affiliations for all they are worth—or beyond. ... Academic credentials and affiliations were also used opportunistically in 2001, when the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements in three national publications..."
2. "Similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas." is again another accurate summary of the Abuse of Academia section of Wedging Creationism into the Academy by Forrest and Branch in Academe, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors: "intelligent design proponents have flaunted their academic credentials and affiliations for all they are worth—or beyond. ... Academic credentials and affiliations were also used opportunistically in 2001, when the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements in three national publications... During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated."
3. Read WP:CON, having suggestions which are given due consideration but ultimately rejected does not a valid dispute make. Looking at your stubborn refusal to accept any use of the source at all, I can see why your objections fail to gain consensus here.

Looking through your contributions to this talk page I see that when you first came to it you claimed that Wedging Creationism into the Academy was not a valid source "because it was not verifiable", betraying a flawed understanding of WP:V which was pointed out to you. Next you objected to use of direct quotes from it which were not attributed; this was fixed. Now you object the summary of the source. I'm seeing a pattern here, and it's not going to get you the results you appear to be seeking. FeloniousMonk 06:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk. You just gave a good reason to change the disputed sentences. Replying to your points in order.

1. "intelligent design proponents have flaunted their academic credentials" then means that the signatories are responsible for the information that appears after their name. Is it not? The proponents are the signatories. Arent they not? their is a possessive pronoun of the subject, the proponent. Hence it is not the Discovery Institute that is responsible for flaunted credentials. You have read my comments, so you should know that this is what I was trying to bring across towards the end of our long discussion.

2. The passive voice were also used refers to the Discovery Institute. For what were they using the information? Forrest says that the Discovery Institute was using the flaunted (her words, not mine) credentials opportunistically and for advertising in 2001.This is different from compiling and editing a misleading list. Furthermore, and I am sorry to repeat myself, Forrest and Glenn do not use confusing and misleading in their sentence During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated.

3. of course I know WP:CON

4. You are right. At the beginning of the discussion I was saying that the Forest reference was not a verifiable source. I was wrong. I am sorry, but please assume 'good faith', even though it might be hard to believe here. But please also bear in mind that her source is not the content of this dispute.

Before I started this discussion, the article was below WP standards. Because I initiated the discussion, the article improved. If I would have stopped immediately after my small edit was reverted, the article would have remained so. Then, why not make it even better by adding Forrest's (and Glenn's) name to the disputed sentence The institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute or the signatory of the most prestigious affiliations available for a signatory.? Then all ambiguity is gone. They said it, it is verifiable. Full stop! If they did not say it, (maybe that is why nobody feels comfortable changing the sentence) it is POV of the editor. And remove the 'confusing and misleading'. I leave this now for the public to decide. Northfox 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to AGF when one surveys the past activity on the article and on the talk page. Sorry.--Filll 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing and misleading are accurate, and they stay. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The petition's definition of "Darwinism"

I think it may be worth noting that the petition's definition of "Darwinism": "random mutation and natural selection" is far more limited than the current scientific conception of the Theory of Evolution which, as discussed in the Evolution article, also includes Recombination as a source of variation, and Genetic Drift and Genetic Flow as mechanisms. This means that the petition's definition of "Darwinism" is a strawman, whose ability "to [fully] account for the complexity of life," without these additional mechanisms and source of variation, the mainstream scientific community would likewise be "skeptical" of, meaning that the "dissent" of the petition is non-existent. Hrafn42 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely correct. I am not sure if this is because of ignorance or intentional misrepresentation. Maybe the people who wrote the statement for the Discovery Institute did not understand the current state of understanding of evolution in the scientific community. However, this works to their benefit in potentially "tricking" people into signing the petition because of its vague and misleading wording. So maybe we need a section on this?--Filll 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No reason to adopt AGF outside of Wikipedia in this case. The various "studies", petitions and surveys that the DI has conducted make it perfectly clear they aren't just misunderstanding but deliberately misrepresenting these terms. No one who spent years discussing evolution could honestly mix up the scientific fact of evolution and Darwin's theory of evolution. Malc82 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a first draft of what I'd be suggesting (addition in bold):

As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, the statement refers to evolution as "Darwinism." It has come under extensive criticism from a variety of sources as misleading, poorly phrased and containing only a miniscule fraction of scientists in the relevant fields and representing an insignificant fraction of the total scientific population. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community, with an article published by the National Institutes of Health saying "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".It should be noted that the modern theory of evolution additionally includes Recombination as a source of variation and and Genetic drift and Gene flow as mechanisms, meaning that it does not in fact claim "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." This creates a degree of ambiguity as to what it is that the petition is a "dissent from."

Hrafn42 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

doctoral degree

user:Filll asked the right question: a list of what?. I am just taking it to the logical next step: A list of what kind of people?. The list is exclusive. What is the criterion to join? A doctoral degree. This is also mentioned prominently on the list itself. The word scientist is used in the wiki article, but it is a bit ambiguous, since being a scientist does not require a doctorate. What is the rationale not to mention doctoral degree holder in the article?

User:ConfuciusOrnis wrote in his revert summary: (have a look at the history next time.) I did, but couldn't find any discussion of why the doctoral degree should not be mentioned. Sorry. There was, though, a discussion about current affiliation vs institution were the degree was earned, but that is a different issue. 210.128.52.4 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that was a bit off hand, I was referring to an earlier attempt to spell out the qualifications of the signatories that didn't survive long. Personally, I'm inclined to say: "so what?" as you point out a doctorate is no guarantee of scientific literacy. ornis 02:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If think an important question is a doctoral degree in what? Many of these purported 'scientists' have their doctoral degrees in Engineering, Mathematics and Philosophy, so are in fact not scientists. Hrafn42 03:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

if you have a look at the scientist entry in wikipedia, you will see that mathematicians and engineers are included in the scientist category.Northfox 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really an authority in this regard. Engineers and mathematicians can be scientists, but in general they are not scientists.--Filll 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some also have masters degrees, or MDs or Law degrees. So it is sort of a nonsense list.--Filll 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll -- can you confirm this (either a source or some examples)? I was aware that they played fairly fast-and-loose with "scientific," but was not previously aware that they were letting anybody on who did not have a PhD. Hrafn42 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked a bit at the list. Many of those people could easily have Master's degrees. Some have Medical degrees, although they should be on the list meant specifically for that (Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity).--Filll 14:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the two lists are not excluding each other. Also timing may play a role. The 'dissent' list is older, as far as I know, than the 'integrity' list. Meaning that a medical doctor might have joined the dissent list earlier, and then not seeing the necessity to join the other. Or she/he only knew about one of the list, or, etc, etc. etc. But basically, isn't it up to the individual which list to join? Even being on both lists should be permissible for a medical doctor. Still, all members of the 'dissent list' are listed either by their PhD (or equivalent) or by their academic position (Professor or similar). So it really strikes me as odd that the fact that the signatories are doctors is not mentionned ONCE in the whole article. Attempts to include that have been reverted, no reasons given. Northfox 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC

Since the lists are nonsense anyway, it is all sort of arbitrary. Some signatories are "doctors.", some are medical doctors, some are PhDs. Some are not. So what?--Filll 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Northfox:

• Not "all members of the 'dissent list' are listed either by their PhD (or equivalent) or by their academic position (Professor or similar)." Sternberg affiliation was listed as "Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute" when in fact he was never employed by the Smithsonian, but merely had access to their collections for research as a 'Research Associate.' Nor has it been explained why they tend not to be listed by their academic position, where their position is with an explicitly partisan organisation (not one DI member lists their affiliation with that organisation).
• It may strike you as "odd that the fact that the signatories are doctors is not mentionned ONCE in the whole article," but the fact is that there is no reliable source backing up that claim. The DI may claim this, but that is a self-serving, contentious, self-published claim by a group that has already been proven to have misrepresented this list (in that the signatories are not all scientists, and that some of their affiliations have been misrepresented or obfuscated).

Hrafn42 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The list that I downloaded (as of Feb. 2007), lists one 'Richard Sternberg' on page 11 as Ph.D. Biology (Molecular Evolution) Florida International University. Also: Ph.D. Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) Binghamton University. Northfox 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Northfox, you assert that the scientist entry in wikipedia shows mathematicians and engineers as included in the scientist category. Where does it say this of engineers? It does say "There is no sharp distinction between science and engineering... and some engineers do first-rate scientific research.", but that's not what you're asserting. It also says that the term was coined by William Whewell, well known as a theologian. Wonder why the signatories are so shy about their day jobs as theologians? ... dave souza, talk 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Northfox:

• Scientists also includes, Social scientists, who would not generally be considered to be 'scientists.' Further, the article is tagged as "This article does not cite any references or sources" & "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims" -- making it fairly unreliable, even by Wikipedia standards.
• Neither Category:Science occupations nor Category:Scientists include Category:Mathematicians or Category:Engineers as Subcategories.
• Further, you have failed to even attempt to justify the inclusion of Philosophers.

Hrafn42 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the list. From my viewpoint (and I may be mistaken) there are 18 people where I am not sure if they have a doctoral degree. Maybe they have. All others are listed by their degree or by current affiliation that is normally reserved for people with a doctoral degree (like Prof. Assoc. Prof., university lecturer, Department head, etc). The 18 are: B. d'Abrera, D.D. Rathman, J. Brown, D. Chambers, R. Ice, M. Rodrigues, T. Takagi, M. G. U. Gomez, K. S. Siddiqui, C. Morbey, O. Havrysh, D. N. Rose, J. Stamper, J. Lary, T. Wang, J. Vanamala, B. K. Nelson, D. B. Rusch, and M. Krause.

Since at least 98.5% of signer do have a doctoral degree, I suggest to change the third sentence of the lead paragraph to

The document states:

   We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. 
   Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

It has been signed by more than 700 people, the vast majority of them holding a doctoral degree, and including many university professors.

haven't counted how many professors (yet?) but I guess 30-40%? That will qualify for 'many', I think. Northfox 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>There are lots of faculty members without a doctoral degree. Some of those listed are retired, or their former positions are listed, with no indication of their current position. What appears to have been done is to push the boundaries as far as possible and list whatever present or past affiliation might appear as impressive as possible to someone who does not know anything, like a member of the public. I do not think we need to assist the DI in their promotion efforts here. That is not our job.--Filll 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Our job is to give adequate information. Describing the signatories as 'people' is not adequate. I was trying to give my input to make the description of the list more adequate, but it seems you are not the slightest interested. Do you think you are doing a good job? Northfox 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are doing a good job. And I think we are trying very hard to keep the article and the others from turning into religious tracts, and it is not easy.--Filll 15:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that we should work to keep the articles NPOV. But it is hard to imagine that adding information about the scientific background, which is a very important piece of information about the signatories of this list, will turn this article into a religious tract. You labeled the list 'nonsense', and you are free to express your opinion about it. But since it is a notable object, we should strive to describe it the best possible NPOV way and give all the basic and crucial information.

This includes:

1. Change signatories from 'people' to 'people with (insert an adequate phrase that describes their science background)'
2. Change the lead sentence from being already critical about the list to describing the original purpose of the list (can be found on dissentfromdarwin page. Criticism belongs in its own section.
3. remove outdated information (e.g. Sternberg). The list, being frequently updated, is an ongoing event and the wiki article should be checked against the actual version. Older versions were criticised of having just 25% biologists on them. How about the newer version? More? Less?

If there are archived previous versions of the list, we could even make a subsection Development of the list or history of the list, which then could include the Sternberg issue (if this is an issue at all). Northfox 06:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that we have, to date, two sources for the claim that all the signatories have doctorates:

1. Northfox's own OR, whose methodology has been questioned by Filill.
2. The DI's invitation, "If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement..." -- whose implicit eligibility definition appears to be violated by the 4 Philosophers and 1 Economist on the petition.

Either way, I would suggest that the claim lacks a reliable source. Hrafn42 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Northfox.

1. Change signatories from 'people' to 'people with (insert an adequate phrase that describes their science background)' The point is not all of them have scientific qualifications, so at best such a sentence would read something like: "..despite the name, many of the signatories are MD's, philosophers, mathematicians or engineers..."
2. Criticism belongs in its own section. No it doesn't. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, but generally criticism sections are frowned upon as they attract trolling, and tit for tat, point, counter point, edit warring.
3. remove outdated information Eh? I guess by that reasoning we should delete the article on lysenkoism, the ussr, lamarckianism and julius caesar? ornis 07:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On Northfox's suggestions:

1. May I suggest "people, most of whom have neither training nor experience to validly judge the Theory of Evolution, and many of whom have no significant scientific training at all."
2. "The original purpose of the list" is dishonest propaganda. The dissentfromdarwin page is entirely self-serving and controversial self-published material -- making it entirely unacceptable as a source for Wikipedia.
3. So when the DI were caught lying and therefore had to amend the list, we're meant to simply forget about it? Why? It is part of a continuing pattern of dishonesty on the DI's part, and so is emphatically not "outdated information."

12% of signatories have "Biology" or "Genetics" in their description (case sensitive). 17% have Engineering, 14% have Chemistry, 10% have Physics, 6% have Medicine, 5% have Mathematics and 5% have Biochemistry. Of course there may be some overlap, and numerous subcategories not included, but this does give a general gist.Hrafn42 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need to characterize what sort of 'people' they are, there's no real unifying characteristic to the group outside of their lack of relevant qualification on the topic. Leave it a simple 'people' and let the readers decide.

The Dissent from Darwinism list is suitable as primary source - for what is in the list - but only as that due to its partisan nature.

Covering all aspects of the list, including the controversial ones, is absolutely necessary for a complete balanced article according to WP:NPOV. Odd nature 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism/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 →

I would like to point out a very confusing and non systematic way by which the terms darwinism and the theory of evolution are being used. They are used like they are one and the same, which is not true. Sometimes the arguements against this petition are based on how scientists view evolution, but not specifically about darwinism. For instance, Lynn Margulis, a well known american biologist (see endosymbiotic theory) who believes in evolution but does not believe in darwinism (she thinks neodarwinism is a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology"). I think this article should be more careful about this very important difference. Darwinism and the theory of evolution are not one and the same. There are some very specific differences therefore the differences in terminology. the petition strongly points this out: they are skeptical of claims of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Many of them might fully agree with Lynn Margulis endosymbiotic theory or the effect of virii on evolution (see the evolution of mammals by Luis R Villarreal of the University of California Irvine). finally I would like to give an example that I think has been affected by the above criteria: " The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.[10] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". but do they only accept darwinism or do they accept margulis'endosymbiotic theory as well or the effect of virii on evolution? therefore I really think you should make a more clear distinction between evolutionary theory and darwinism

Last edited at 08:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)