Talk:Michael Behe/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Michael Behe's Religious Belief

Can anyone find a reference confirming Behe's religious belief? He's listed as an "American Roman Catholic". This is particuarily relevant as I have heard him described as an atheist (or at least a stated agnostic), giving extra weight to his intelligent design stance (as it minimises confirmation bias). A reliable reference to his religious history would be pertinent to this article, I think. Confuseddave (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Behe is a Roman Catholic..." as mentioned in Page 80 in the book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson. I guess the claim that he is agnostic is just another rumor that is flying around.Margulis 88 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Knowing the family, they are strong Roman Catholics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.236.211 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Last year I attended college with two of Professor Behe's children. Behe and his family are Roman Catholics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.97.34 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Article continues to be biased, libelous, childish

WP:NPA-ridden, histrionic WP:SOAPboxing that made no attempt to make any substantiated discussion of the article's content userfied to User talk:GusChiggins21. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

PZ Myers quote

I respect PZ Myers, but think we're better quoting the actual judge's words, rather than his summary of them. I've tried to format the reference correctly, but legal documents are arcane things... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, I hate formatting court docs too :) WLU (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert witness?

Someone just added Category:Expert witness. I'd say it's a bit of a stretch. WLU (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Too large a category to be meaningful, I would have thought. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Timmer article on Behe

Molecular Machines: Michael Behe, a Discovery fellow, has advanced the argument that some aspects of cellular life are analogous to machinery, and thus must have required the same attentive design that a machine does. This proposal is flawed on a number of levels, and has not gained enough traction within the biological community to rise to the level of anything beyond a distraction. But items Behe might consider molecular machines did appear in the talks, and their role was informative.

The proteasome is one complex of dozens of proteins that was mentioned in a couple of talks. Despite the enormous complexity and large number of specialized proteins in a proteasome, evolution readily explains its origins through gene duplication and specialization. Simplified forms, with fewer proteins, exist in Archaea and Bacteria. Not only are these simple versions of the proteasome an indication of its evolution, the gradual increase in its complexity allowed researchers to use it to infer evolutionary relationships among the three branches of life.

Similar analyses were performed with actin and tubulin, essential components of the complex skeletons that support Eukaryotic cells. Structural relatives of these genes appear in Bacteria and Archaea, where they appear to act to separate cell components even in the absence of a complex skeleton. An essential component of some Eukaryotic RNA interference systems also shows up in Archaea, where it does something completely unrelated to RNA interference. In all of these cases, parts of the supposedly designed machinery exist elsewhere, where they perform more limited but often related roles. Their use in determining evolutionary relationships didn't so much as elicit a blink from an audience of scientists.

[1] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem of focus

Hi, I'm not a wikipedia guy, so I'll just state my thoughts here. Capable wikipedians can change the article if they agree.

As of June 1, 2008, this article is less about Michael Behe than about what people think of Michael Behe. I came here to learn about Behe's teachings, his biography, etc. What I got instead was a well-crafted response, a polemic against Behe in careful encyclopedic language. Something's not right here.

I read the warning at the top of this page. I guess my complaint is the same one that's always raised. But at least for me, this is different. I have no stake in the Intelligent Design controversy. I'm a guy who checked out this article out of sheer curiosity. Meaning: I'm curious about who Behe is and why he's important. I already knew that he was controversial, and that the scientific community is overwhelmingly in favor in evolution. That's not why I came here. This should be an article *about* Michael Behe, right?

Consider, for a radical and patently unfair comparison, that even the article on Hitler (say) is devoted almost entirely to Hitler's life (ie., Hitler's beliefs, his actions, his legacy, etc.) and not the consensus on what a horrible person Hitler was. ID is pseudoscience, fine. Say that and move on. There are other pages devoted to that anyway. As it is, this article on Michael Behe reads like a hit piece. 116.232.31.250 (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Behe is (in)famous for:

1. His advocacy of ID
2. His claim of irreducible complexity
3. His paper with Snoke, which had to effectively 'eat' under cross at Dover
4. His ineffectual testimony at Dover and in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns -- both of which cases ended with the judge citing his testimony as lending support to the oppositions' cases.

As far as I can see the article covers this rather well. Behe's life-story (unlike Hitler's) isn't noteworthy (or well-documented), so we don't give it detailed coverage. His notable beliefs are covered. As are his only noteworthy "actions" -- testifying on these cases. It is unclear whether he will have any lasting "legacy", so this cannot be covered at this stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a hit piece. Welcome to the Intelligent Design project. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the poster of the original comment listed under "Problem of focus." I am not a source of knowledge on either creation or evolution, and I don't know much about the creation-science debate outside what I've learned from my friends and TV. I'm an evolutionist (by default, I guess) with friends who are creationists. I came to wikipedia to learn a little more about ID and creationism.

Here's my complaint, again. The pages about creationism are bloated with criticism and almost uniformly negative. I could cite a specific example, but I might as well cite any example at all: the Behe article, Young-Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Expelled, etc etc... Generally, when people use encyclopedias, they are trying to find information on a particular subject--that is, *on* that subject, and not on the critical response to the subject. For instance, if I were to look up the Protestant Reformation in an encyclopedia, I wouldn't expect half the article to be about the Council of Trent. You get the idea.

My original complaint was that the Behe article reads like a hit piece. It still does. Hrafn replied to my original comment, and appears to believe the article is well-balanced and fair. How do I argue against this? I don't know. It seems really obvious to me that an inordinate amount of time is given to dismissing Behe as a pseudoscientist and untrustworthy. Which he *very well may be*. But this should not occupy such a prominent place in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not apologetics. Hrafn objected to my comparing Michael Behe to Hitler. Well, I acknowledged as much in my original post. My point, however, was not addressed, which is that the focus of the article is way off. For a different kind of example, take a creation advocate who actually is infamous in his personal life--say, Kent Hovind. This guy is a wacko and was put in jail for bank fraud. So why not devote an article to his life and thought and influence, instead of half an article to his life and the other half to his detractors? As with Hitler, all articles on bad people should acquaint the reader with biographical infamy in neutral fashion. Instead, this too reads like a hit piece.

I'm sorry that I don't have much time for debate here. As I said, I'm not really a wikipedia guy. I'm also not hip to the wiki rules, which seem too many and too complicated for me. I'll say this much: I'm not a scientist or a wikipedian, but I am an academic. I work in the Humanities and spend a lot of time in encyclopedias. These creation articles are not encyclopedic. Creationism may be silly and pseudoscientific. I'm inclined to think that it is. But these articles are not helpful--not to me, and I'm sure not to many people like me. They seem less encyclopedic than agenda-driven. Surely other people must see this too. 116.232.28.208 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects the balance of viewpoints in WP:RSs, per WP:DUE -- which ranges from disapproving to scathing. Even his own department very publicly distances itself from his ideas. As an example, here is what a recent book by a local reporter is described as saying about his testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:[2]

The plaintiffs’s expert witnesses awoke interest and respect from the journalists, while the defense’s primary expert, Michael Behe, managed to turn off almost everyone present during his direct testimony. Lauri’s description of the abrupt return from boredom as Eric Rothschild cross-examined Behe is worth the price of the book, laying bare the platitudes and sound bites Behe had come to rely upon as a facade resting upon, well, nothing. And here one encounters something that Lauri exposes through the book, and that is the obliviousness of the Dover school district’s “intelligent design” advocates and their chosen defenders to how their statements and actions were taken by others. In Behe’s case, Behe left the courtroom apparently well-convinced of having given a sterling performance, though later Lauri filed her story and was remonstrated with by her editor to lead with something positive for the defense’s case that day. “No, they did nothing,” she said, “Rothschild eviscerated them.”

"No, they did nothing" pretty much sums up Behe and the ID movement. Behe went from being an obscure but worthy biochemist to being a notoriously incompetent and clueless ID pseudoscientist. He wrote nothing before he jumped on the bandwagon that anybody remembers, and has written nothing since that hasn't been repeatedly eviscerated by experts who know far more about the subject matter than he does himself. So, unless and until you can find a WP:RS that actually has something noteworthily positive to say about him, the coverage will remain negative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Woe is me, this article does need updated but I'm overcommitted on other articles at the moment. The Timeline of intelligent design#Johnson's first book, Darwin on Trial mentions Behe's public debut as an IDer at the Southern Methodist University in March 1992, and shows subsequent events not shown in this article. The invention of ID in 1987 independently of Johnson should also be shown, and more recent events (still to be added to the timeline) include Behe's finding in The Edge of Evolution that HIV and malaria had to be specially Created by The Designer to kill lots of children etc, a finding rather destroyed by ERV. Will try to come back onto this sometime, but if someone can help out, these linked articles provide sourced statements. . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, have added some info. Still to do – The ERV affair began here, with an update here showing that Behe, having found an example that "couldn't" have evolved, did nothing. While the "pathetic just-so story" of science led to a brand new avenue of research for immunologists and virologists all over the world, including tetherin's role in influenza, ebola, EBV and herpes, with the potential to help treat all kinds of viral infections. Bit more work needed on that. . dave souza, talk 09:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

neutrality on scientific community.

The scientific consensus on this issue: List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design‎. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current article says that the scientific community has rejected Behe's position. This is not a neutral statement and it is dubious. Behe is a part of the the scientific community and there are hundreds if not thousands of other highly trained scientists who hold similar positions to Behe's. Regardless of the minority status of this view, it is held by people who are functioning members of the scientific community therefore the scientific community does not have a consensus on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.167.79.34 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Behe's scientific publication (and by implication his scientific research) has dropped to virtually zero since becoming an ID advocate, and his own department has disavowed his efforts -- which are in any case well outside his field of expertise. So in no meaningful way is he still part of the scientific community. And the existence of a single (or a small number of) crank(s) does not disestablish the consensus. HrafnTalkStalk 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC) So those are your criteria. I'm not convinced that these are the only ways to participate in the scientific community. Also approximately 300 signers of the discovery institute's "Dissent from Darwinism" are all in the biological sciences is not a small number to scoff at. That's just an estimate based on number of those in the biological fields on one page of the list. Furthermore, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Only one proffesor from my college signed the list and I know there are at least two others who are sympathetic to or are of the ID perspective. So no, the scientific community is not unanymous against Behe. Others who disagree with it take it seriously. As for his efforts being well outside his field of expertise, well that's outside my field of expertise to judge and I'm willing to bet it is outside of yours as well. I don't know why a biochemist can't make scientific claims about the complexities of biochemical structures. And your willingness to call Behe a crank just underscores the lack of neutrality here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.150.31 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ROFLMAO. Oh Purlease! The DI's Religiously motivated and scientifically-ill-qualified 'Dissent' from faux'-Darwinism is worthless, even ignoring the fact that it represents a microscopically tiny proportion of the academic community (hundreds as opposed to hundreds of thousands). Your "300" would appear to be an over-estimate of the number who have a relevant qualification. And what is your professor's field of expertise? Advanced basket-weaving? Unaminity is not required, merely a scientific consensus. A few dissenting cranks can be found on any topic in any academic field. Behe (who is a moribund biochemist) bloviates on a wide range of subjects -- virology, immunology, parasitology, etc, etc, etc -- on which he has no expertise, has been contradicted by legitmate experts, and on which he imploded under cross-examination in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎. I see nothing wrong with calling an individual who has absolutely no scientific credibility a "crank". It is a bit informal for the article (where the appropriate word would be 'pseudoscientist' -- which category his article is in a subcategory of), but quite acceptable for talk. HrafnTalkStalk 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC) "ROFLMAO. Oh Purlease!" I get it, you don't take this NPOV thing seriously which you seem to be commited to continually demonstrating. It's only a wish for wikipedia I geuss.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.5 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 December 2008 No, you most certainly do not get it -- as you appear to be supporting the demand that we give credence to an ill-qualified (and thus unreliable) "tiny minority" -- in direct violation of WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV. HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I get it that what you think constitutes a scientific consensus is subjective and unestablished. I get it that the criticx of Behe are far less objective than they imagine themselves to be. And your responses to me are a non-stop advertisement of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.150.31 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone in here from the BLP enforcement section?

It looks like this page needs heavy re-editing, despite the huge notice banner above.

Discussion, support for and refutation of the idea of ID should take place on the pages dedicated to that subject.

This page should be a biography of Behe and explain his beliefs in a straightforward and unbiased (in either direction) manner.

This article is seriously flawed. I think by the confusion of the confounding of a philosophical/religious idea (Intelligent Design) and the issue of "whether or not it can be discussed in a scientific way".

At a quick glance, as is the case with many "hot topic" talk pages, there seems to be a single 'primary' editor that enforces his POV on this page, which makes a mockery of the informational banner at the top.

I am afraid I agree with the editor that pointed out that this is a "hit page".

KipHansen (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To ignore the scientific position on ID would be violating the Due weight policy. How does this violate BLP? Is there unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content? Reliably sourced criticism is certainly allowed in a BLP.

Also, dozens of editors have come to consensus on this article. This is not the work of one person. Your comment goes against the AGF policy. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is unbiased relative to his beliefs: it reports them, and reports what reliable sources say about them. That nothing Behe says is taken seriously by anyone that understands any of the topics he discusses is Behe's fault, not the article's.—Kww(talk) 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kww - your comment represents what is wrong with biographical article. "That nothing Behe says is taken seriously by anyone that understands any of the topics he discusses" does not bode well for your being a dispassionate editor. The controversy exhibited in these Talk pages make it obvious that at least some people think he might have had something important to say and that some people take him seriously.

The pages on 'ID as a subject of debate' are elsewhere and are where all the anti-ID ranting belongs. The idea that just because "dozens" of editors have finally agreed how to get away with discrediting ID on Behe's BLP page does not make it right. Editors wishing to discredit ID should do it on that page, not on the BLP of Behe, that's the simple point here. It is fair enough to state that "others", or even "everyone"--if you can support it-- disagrees and thinks ID is idiocy, but that doesn't change what should go on his BLP page. Link the the ID page and leave the attacks on ID out of Behe's BLP page.

Read a print encyclopedia, say Enc. Britanica, on some controversial scientist who had some 'crackpot idea' (like Linus Pauling for instance) and see how they handle it. It will give you an idea on how to do this properly. If you actually make this little experiment, get back to me, I'll check back here to see if you found that interesting or not.

KipHansen (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that no one took him seriously ... only that no one that understood the things he discusses take him seriously. That's a significant difference. No one is ranting on this page ... simply reporting what reliable sources have to say about Behe's statements.—Kww(talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kww - That's just the point....apparently you didn't try the little experiment I suggested.

"....reporting what reliable sources have to say about Behe's statements" belongs on the pages about ID no the BLP page about Behe. Putting those things HERE turns this page into an "ad hominem" attack [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ].... it becomes "attacking the man" instead of the idea. I see little here that is really about Behe and a lot here is is "against" or "counter to" one of his ideas--ID.

I offer again the suggestion that your see how EB handles something like Linus Pauling's crackpot phase and see if there isn't a better way to handle Behe's "crackpot" idea -- at least in Behe's biography.

KipHansen (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with Pauling is misleading. Behe is only notable in the context of ID. Guettarda (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The BLP policy does not isolate a heavily-criticise subject from the reporting of that criticism, it merely requires it be sourced, and proportionate to the reaction. Behe is a scientist, so we report what scientists say about his work - which is almost universally negative. BLP does not eliminate undue weight: Undue weight is part of WP:NPOV, which BLP requires us to follow, and hence we CANNOT give undue weight to Behe's fringe theories. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was checking the references and outside sources to this artcile, and alot of them come from atheist apologetic sites. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a small minority to me, and anyway, so what? NPOV means showing the range of views, not just views of supporters. Of course ID is claimed to be science, which is a secular viewpoint, and Behe is presented as a scientist – or are you arguing that because ID is really a religious view, only religious people should be allowed to criticise it? . . dave souza, talk 07:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

The subtopic about Darwins Black Box seems very biased. For example, what role does the interview with Richard dawkins have anything to do with the book(In the interview it does not even talk about the book and is only critical of the contents of the book)? The subtopic should be about the content of the book and also the critical reception of the book, not arguments againts the contents of it. That would prevent an edit war before it starts. -Nickles0n (talk)

DBB introduces 'irreducible complexity' and raises the eye as an example of IC. Dawkins is discussing both IC and this example, so is clearly relevant. Your attempt to differentiate between the book & its contents is more than a little bizarre. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As you yourself say, he's talking about "the contents of the book". That is "talking about the book". As for the {{bias}} tag you added, you need to raise specific points. And if we can't solve the problem easily, then a tag might be appropriate. But first you need to clearly identify some problems. Guettarda (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly know how to tag certain parts since i have only edited a few pages and this is the only one that i think is bias.--Nickles0n (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda didn't say that you had to "tag certain parts" but that "you need to raise specific points" (here on talk). "this is the only one that i think is bias" is non-specific to the point of being essentially meaningless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Behe page and showing both sides

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

I added references to some statements by Michael Behe which you removed with this remark:

Rvt: none of the cited sources appear to be reliable, at best self-published/questionable, and their use would appear to fail WP:SELFPUB

Let's take a look at what I added:

1. In the section "Darwin's Black Box" there is a quote by Richard Dawkins referring to Michael Behe. I added a quote by Michael Behe responding to Richard Dawkins, from Behe's blog on Amazon.com. The point here is to show both sides of the question. WP:SELFPUB refers to a situation in which someone is trying to pass himself off as an expert. In this case, if Richard Dawkins makes a statement about Behe, in an article about Behe, then why isn't it relevant to hear Behe's response?

2. There is a paragraph in which it is stated that the work of Russell Doolittle "defeats" a key claim of Behe. I added a link containing Behe's response. The fact that the websites being linked to may contain other material that is not reliable doesn't automatically mean that these articles are unreliable. Why isn't Behe's response relevant?

3. There is a series of statements by Judge Jones about Michael Behe. I included a link to Behe's response to Jones. Why isn't that relevant in an article about Behe? Doesn't that give both sides of the issue? I also included the text of specific responses. Are responses by Behe just not allowed?

4. In the first paragraph it is said that Behe's claims are "roundly rejected by the scientific community." I included a link to a list of scientists who appear to be sympathetic to Behe's claims. Why isn't this relevant?

--Swood100 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Discussion of an article belongs on article talk.
2. All the sources you cited were 'questionable ' or 'self-published' (or worse) per WP:V. Therefore WP:SELFPUB applies.
3. The existence of Behe's response to Dawkins is hardly noteworthy (people respond to each other on blogs all the time). If Behe's response was not sufficiently noteworthy to be published in a reputable source, then Wikipedia should not be giving notice to it.
4. Behe's response to Doolittle is referenced to a patently unreliable source (a creationist wiki). I would also point out that, unlike Doolittle, Behe has no relevant expertise in the area he is 'responding' on, so we should not give the bare existence of a response WP:UNDUE weight. If the response is to be discussed at all, it should be on the basis of the evaluation of a subject-matter-expert on its merits.
5. The 'Judge Jones' material is 'questionably' sourced and makes a claim about a third party, so is impermissible. In any case, as his court testimony demonstrated, Behe is not an expert on the philosophy of science, so his claims appear to be merely "self serving".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: if a Wikipedia article reports accusations against Behe but uses contrived excuses to refuse to report Behe’s response to the accusations, then the evenhandedness of that article is laughable and it will have no credibility.

Let me take your remarks one at a time:

Discussion of an article belongs on article talk.

1. That’s fine. This is my first discussion. I’ll have to ask for your patience as I learn the ropes here.

All the sources you cited were 'questionable ' or 'self-published' (or worse) per WP:V. Therefore WP:SELFPUB applies.

1. But WP:SELFPUB does not apply if we are dealing with a person as a source of information about himself.
2. Suppose in an article about Smith, Jones says that Smith is wrong. Smith has five points he makes in rebuttal. Do we say that such rebuttal is by definition “self-serving” and for this reason refuse to publish it?
3. If Behe creates a document that contains his response to accusations against him it does not matter which websites make the document available. The character of the document does not change depending on the website. All we are concerned about is whether or not we can reasonably conclude that this represents an actual response by Behe.

The existence of Behe's response to Dawkins is hardly noteworthy (people respond to each other on blogs all the time). If Behe's response was not sufficiently noteworthy to be published in a reputable source, then Wikipedia should not be giving notice to it.

1. Dawkins said that Behe’s theory had long ago been answered successfully.
2. By reporting this, Wikipedia is asserting that this issue (whether Behe’s theory had long ago been answered successfully) is noteworthy.
3. How can an issue be noteworthy for the purpose of reporting the assertions but not noteworthy for the purpose of reporting the response by the person against whom the assertions were made?
4. Suppose we publish that Jones says that Smith is an alcoholic. Do we tell Smith that any statements he may wish to make with respect to this issue are not noteworthy unless he can first get them published in a journal considered reputable by his detractors?

Behe's response to Doolittle is referenced to a patently unreliable source (a creationist wiki).

1. If the reference had been for the purpose of proving the truth of an assertion based on the credibility of the website, then you would be correct.
2. If there were evidence that a website has been shown to be guilty of modifying the text of original documents so that there is significant doubt that this does represent the actual statement made by Behe, then you would be correct.
3. However if it is reasonable to believe that a document does accurately convey a statement made by Behe, then the character of the document does not change depending on the website that makes it available.

I would also point out that, unlike Doolittle, Behe has no relevant expertise in the area he is 'responding' on, so we should not give the bare existence of a response WP:UNDUE weight. If the response is to be discussed at all, it should be on the basis of the evaluation of a subject-matter-expert on its merits.

1. Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at a major American university. The subject under discussion is how the blood clotting cascade operates at the biochemical level. He devoted an entire chapter to this subject in Darwin’s Black Box (chapter 4). Don’t you think that a presumption exists that this person has relevant expertise in this area?
2. Doolittle was mentioned in Darwin’s Black Box and he replied in an article in Boston Review, intending to show that Behe’s analysis was incorrect. Then Behe responded in a letter published in Boston Review with arguments intended to show that Doolittle’s analysis was incorrect.
3. Are Behe’s remarks weighty enough to receive a formal response from Doolittle but not weighty enough to be referenced in a Wikipedia article?

The 'Judge Jones' material is 'questionably' sourced and makes a claim about a third party, so is impermissible.

1. Behe is responding to an opinion by Judge Jones, who is not a third party with reference to his own opinion.
2. Again, we judge the truth of an assertion by considering the contents of the assertion and who makes it, not who else reports it.

In any case, as his court testimony demonstrated, Behe is not an expert on the philosophy of science, so his claims appear to be merely "self serving".

1. Judge Jones: Behe said X with implications Y
2. Behe: the judge misunderstood and/or mischaracterized what I said. I did not say X with implications Y. Here is what I really said ...
3. Wikipedia: we will report 1 but not 2 because
   1. 2 is self-serving, and
   2. We have evaluated Behe’s statements (“as his court testimony demonstrated”) and have determined that they lack merit. To those who claim that this is the domain of the reader we reply that the reader has us to thank for allowing him to avoid an erroneous conclusion.
4. According to Wikipedia the philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. I don’t see what that has to do with Behe’s wish to clarify his position, or why attempting to do so would be self-serving, or why such statements of clarification would not be relevant to the readers.

--Swood100 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Darwin's Black Box section, second to last paragraph, there is the following sentence:

This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.'

It appears that this violates WP:NPOV since whether or not the claim is defeated is a disputed point. I propose the following instead:

It is claimed that this defeats a key assertion in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.'

Is there any objection to this change?

--Swood100 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Swood100. Your various proposals blatantly fail the WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL and WP:WEIGHT requirements of WP:NPOV. Do not introduce these changes. . dave souza, talk 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, again I am again going to have to ask for your patience while I learn the ropes here. Please correct my understanding:

• Behe’s theories are pseudoscientific and to allow Behe’s words to be presented in rebuttal of accusations made against him would be a misuse of resources, somewhat like giving a hoaxer the opportunity to perpetrate his hoax.
• Doolittle’s argument is conclusive. He did not just claim to defeat a key assertion in Behe’s book. As a clear matter of fact, he did defeat it.

Does this fairly state the points that I missed? --Swood100 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not "fairly state" anything.

1. Dawkins review was published in a prominent publication. Unless Behe's response passes muster in a WP:RS (be it a scientific journal, a major newspaper or whatever), there is no reason to consider it to pass muster with Wikipedia. Cranks self-publish on their blogs all the time -- it is generally not 'encyclopaedic' to take note of them. It is expressly forbidden when they make claims that are either "unduly self-serving" or about third parties (e.g. about Dawkins).
2. Behe's claims on irreducible complexity and ID have been explicitly disavowed by his department, so the fact that he is "a Professor of Biochemistry at a major American university" is largely irrelevant.
3. AFAIK, Behe's work (when he did any work with any scientific merit at all -- which hasn't been for more than a decade) was in areas unrelated to blood-clotting, or to any of his other examples. Therefore he is neither an expert, nor a RS, on these matters.
4. Judicial verdicts (unless overturned on appeal, or otherwise discredited) are considered RSs. Sour grapes in a questionable source from a witness, whose side lost, who was widely considered to have been discredited on cross-examination, whose testimony was quoted by the judge in support of the other side (which I would note has happened in another case since) and who is widely regarded as having lost what little scientific credibility he had left due to his performance, is, unsurprisingly, not considered reliable.

Per WP:NPOV, if you wish Behe's responses to be given any WP:WEIGHT at all, you need to provide reliable sources for them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We will be able to avoid unproductive discourse if we can isolate exactly where our disagreements lie. Please take a look at the following and let me know the part that you disagree with.

1. In an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his beliefs, there are at least two parts to the article: (a) what are the person’s beliefs, and (b) are they true? A reliable way of showing truth in such an article is by contrasting the beliefs with the majority view in such a way that the differences are clearly described and there is no confusion as to which is the majority view.
2. In an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his beliefs, apart from issues such as libel there is no condition that must be satisfied before the content of the beliefs can be fully set forth. It is not appropriate to withhold a full statement and definition of such beliefs on the grounds that they are a minority view or that they have not been published in a respected journal or that they are not regarded as legitimate by experts in the field or that the person lacks requisite expertise in that area. In many cases the only reason that the person is having an article written about him in the first place is that his views have aroused a great deal of opposition. To say that in such an article his beliefs may not be clearly set forth until the opposition is removed or until it is demonstrated that he is not a “crank” would defy logic. As stated in WP:RS, “There may well be reason to doubt that the views extolled in the source are true; this is not a reason for excluding the source from articles about this potentially untrue view.”
3. In an article about a person who has gained notoriety because of his beliefs, before it is possible to evaluate the truth of the beliefs it is necessary to first lay them out. The person himself is a reliable source for a statement of his own beliefs, regardless of whether the beliefs contain inaccuracies or misrepresentations. They are his beliefs, they are the reason for his notoriety, and they are the focus of the article. If the person is widely regarded as fringe, pseudo-academic or extremist, then a similarly fringe, pseudo-academic or extremist person or organization may be a reliable source for information about him. A source reliable for the purpose of specifying what a person’s beliefs are is often not reliable for the purpose of determining their truth.
4. In the determination of whether a person’s beliefs are true, the term “reliable source” refers to a source that can supply reliable information about the correctness or general acceptance of the person’s beliefs. Much of the WP:RS discussion deals with this determination. If the beliefs expressed are those of a “crank” then a reliable source will point that out and provide explanation. A source reliable for this purpose may not be considered reliable for the purpose of producing a statement of a person’s beliefs in his own words.
5. One of the restrictions on the publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources is that the material cited should not be unduly self-serving. This is primarily a limitation on using such a statement to establish truth. It is not a limitation on using it to state and define what a person’s beliefs are. For example, a scientist may have gained notoriety because he claimed to have produced cold fusion. He may be quoted as saying “I have produced cold fusion” as long as this is presented as his statement and belief and not as the generally accepted belief. This statement, after all, is the reason that an article about him is being written in the first place.
6. Another restriction on the publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources is that they should not involve claims about third parties. If in an article about Scientist A, who claims to have produced cold fusion, a statement is made by Scientist B denying the claim and asserting that Scientist A is a “crank,” then Scientist B is not considered a “third party” for purposes of restricting rebuttal by Scientist A.
7. When there is an article about a person and an accusation is made against him, if his rebuttal is available it should be presented regardless of the source of the original statement. This helps to bring into sharper focus exactly what the person’s beliefs are. As stated in WP:NPOVT, “Where accusations are contested in a reliable source, it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source. Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves…” There is no requirement that the challenge must first be published or agreed with by any other person or organization. Nor does there exist the notion of a source so exalted that rebuttal is precluded.
8. Using a person’s own words to describe his beliefs or present his viewpoint does not, by itself, carry the implication that the beliefs are regarded by others as legitimate, as long as it is clearly stated that this is a statement by the subject of the article and, if appropriate, that it is the minority view.
9. When, in an article about a person, the person’s own words are used to describe his beliefs and the concern arises that his words are not accurate or contain misrepresentations, then presenting a rebuttal is a better approach than censoring, since this allows the reader to decide the question rather than the editor. This approach is more in line with accepted notions of how truth is determined in a society that enjoys freedom of the press. In addition, it insulates Wikipedia from the charge that certain viewpoints have been repressed. Exceptions, of course, are made in cases of libel, third parties, etc.

--Swood100 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Help, help, we're being repressed! See WP:PSTS on the importance of basing articles on reliable secondary sources rather than giving uncritical credence to primary sources, and WP:V for the requirement to base articles on reliable third party sources. . . dave souza, talk 14:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that a person is a reliable source for a statement of his own beliefs?--Swood100 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not Behe's "beliefs", as the subject is not theology or Catholicism, etc. The issue is his purportedly scientific claims. And no, Behe is not a reliable source on the scientific merits of irreducible complexity and ID, on blood clotting, on Kitzmiller v. Dover, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By “belief” I mean a statement from Behe along these lines: “I know that I am in the minority but I believe that random variation does not adequately explain the evolutionary changes that are seen. My reasons are these . . .” Let’s distinguish between that statement and the following statement: “Behe’s theories are poppycock.” The first is a statement of fact about the subject of an article: “I hold this belief.” The second is an evaluation of the scientific merit of those beliefs. I agree with you that the person himself is usually the last source we want to cite as to whether his own beliefs are objectively true. Nevertheless, he may be the first source we want to cite as to what those beliefs are. Do you agree? --Swood100 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what you or I agree, it's a question of reporting the analysis of a third party reliable source, per WP:V and WP:PSTS. Start with the evaluation of a secondary source, and quote Behe's statements of beliefs in that context. Specific proposals? . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to use secondary or third-party sources to report facts about a person. His own statements can be used. As stated in WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves . . ." Do you agree that Wikipedia guidelines allow Behe's statements to be used as a source of information about himself? --Swood100 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See my last response. . . dave souza, talk 00:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is a little too cryptic. Your last response implies that such material must be presented in the context of a third party source. Can you answer my question directly? Do you agree that Wikipedia guidelines allow Behe's statements, sourced from Behe's blog, to be used as a reliable source of information about Behe's beliefs? If not, why not? --Swood100 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stating a claim as a "belief" does not circumvent WP:SELFPUB. It does not permit a questionable/self-published to be used to:

1. Make a claim about Richard Dawkins
2. Make a claim about Russell Doolittle
3. Make a claim about Judge Jones
4. Make a claim that a widely discredited crank like Behe, who lacks any expertise in the area of blood clotting, is right about claims made in that field, when those claims have been debunked by legitimate experts in that field.
5. Make claims about how a case, where his side lost, was misdecided.

Going back to one of your original points: yes, Behe most certainly is "someone is trying to pass himself off as an expert." He has no expertise relevant to any of these points. Restating them as a "belief" does not make them admissible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In an article about Person A who has gained notoriety because he holds a controversial theory, is it appropriate to first state what the theory is that he holds? --Swood100 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Already in the article:

Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity, which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design.

This does not mean that the article should provide a forum for said notorious crank's self-published "unduly self-serving" defences of his "controversial theory" or claims about his critics -- this is not "stat[ing] what the theory is that he holds". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we have a statement of a person's theory in his own words, then in an article about him why wouldn't we use that as an explanation of what his theory is? This would then be followed by rebuttal from other scientists. What exactly is the harm we are trying to avoid?

Can you tell me which of my nine numbered points you disagree with? --Swood100 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Why not? You have already been told why not: because of WP:SELFPUB #1 & #2 & because of WP:UNDUE.
2. The "harm" of giving "equal validity" to a discredited crank, in comparison to the legitimate experts dismantling his fatally-flawed claims.
3. I disagree with the ones that use the word "belief" (see "Stating a claim as a…" above). I may disagree with whatever small number don't -- but by then it was a case of WP:TLDNR.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, suppose we say "Behe's theory is not generally accepted by scientists. Here is the theory in Behe's own words . . ." and then we follow that with a straightforward statement by Behe of his theory, not involving a reference to any other person. Would you agree that since "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves . . ." that this does not violate WP:SELFPUB? If you think that it does, could you point out the exact words of WP:SELFPUB that it violates? And would you agree that this does not violate WP:UNDUE? If you think that it does, could you point out the exact words of WP:UNDUE that it violates? --Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Per WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. … Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" This means that we should be doubly cautious about using an unreliably published primary source.
2. AFAIK, Behe equivocates rather heavily between his writings as to what his "theory" means -- so it is not possible to give "a straightforward statement by Behe of his theory". Therefore we need to use a reliable WP:SECONDARY source to interpret this equivocation.
3. Please tell me where "Behe's theory" includes claims about Dawkins, Doolittle or Jones -- as it was Behe's statements about these three that got us started.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you really saying that in any article about Person A, if Person B makes a statement about Person A or his theory, then a reply by Person A will not be permitted? For example, Behe says, “The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.” Dawkins says “No it’s not and here’s why . . .” And that’s where is has to remain? Behe cannot point out any flaws in what Dawkins said?--Swood100 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If the 'reply' was not published in a reliable source, then no it is not permitted, per WP:SELFPUB. Blog/DI/Creo-wiki postings by a crank saying 'no everybody else is wrong and I'm right' have about as much credibility as a bout of flatulence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruling by admin needed. Consider this exchange:

• Behe: “At the molecular level we find molecules that are irreducibly complex . . .”
• Dawkins: “They are not at all irreducibly complex, and here’s why . . .”
• Behe: “The criticism that Dawkins makes is flawed for this reason . . .”

Are the following statements true:

1. The statements of Behe are descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is not verifiable without specialist knowledge. The statement by Dawkins supplies the necessary secondary source evaluation and analysis.
2. The statements of Behe are descriptive claims by the subject of an article, presented in order to state what his theory is in his own words. As such, they may be presented directly as a primary source, of information about himself, in an article about himself, as long as secondary source evaluation and analysis is present.
3. If 90% of the scientific community feel that the theories of a particular scientist lack scientific merit, then in an article about him the requirements of WP:UNDUE can be satisfied by stating that fact up-front. Thereafter, in principle, 50% of the article could deal with the assertions of the theory and 50% of the article could deal with rebuttal of the theory.

--Swood100 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1. It is not the function of admins to 'rule' on such issues -- they are decided by WP:CONSENSUS.
2. An admin, Dave Souza, has already weighed in on this issue.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking for a clarification. I would think that general questions such as these would be decided at a higher level than by WP:CONSENSUS on a particular article. I think I am going to just have to get a copy of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual in order to see how it all fits together.--Swood100 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is how pretty much everything is decided on Wikipedia: article content is a question of reaching consensus on that article, in accordance with policies and guidelines which reflect the consensus of a wider spread of editors on Wikipedia as a whole. You clearly don't have consensus for your proposed changes, and it's been pointed out to you that they contravene policies. Your proposed edits giving the "last word" to Behe on various critical assessments go against WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL policies by obscuring the majority view and giving undue weight to Behe's fringe views. You based them on self published statements or statements published on unreliable sources, without showing that any reliable secondary source has given credence or notability to these statements. As talk page guidelines indicate, the best way forward for you would, in my opinion, be to open a new section making specific proposals and showing the sources you wish to cite to support the proposed changes. Also please note, admin's don't have any more say than anyone else about article content, and I'm acting here as an editor, not as an admin. Of course experienced editors do tend to have more idea of methods of working, policies and guidelines, but these are available for everyone to learn. . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article seems to spend far too much time discussing Behe's views on evolution. The overwhelming majority of his work deals with DNA structure, so we shouldn't let the controversy around a few of his odder ideas lead the article away from the genuinely useful work he seems to have achieved in DNA structure. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this is that Behe is notable solely for his "views on evolution". None of his work prior to DBB appears to have evoked any third-party comment to speak of. Can you find any sources either commenting on him before that book's publication or even discussing in any sort of detail his prior work? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also isn't excessive to include his entire journal output? I would have thought that at least restricting the list to articles he is the principal author of would be more reasonable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He's principal or senior author of almost all of these papers, I think he's pass WP:PROF even without the ID books. The lack of coverage of his academic career before he switched over to writing books is the major failing of this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the principal/lead/whatever-the-correct-term-is author was listed first. If "principal" is some term of art in this context, with a different meaning, then I apologise, but would also ask (i) what this meaning is & (ii) how it makes the articles in question noteworthy w.r.t. Behe? On the matter of his prior career: (i) on what basis would he meet WP:PROF & (ii) what RSs are there giving coverage to it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The primary/principal/lead author is indeed the first one listed, the senior author is listed last (I've always seen it as the person who did the work coming first, versus the person who wrote the grant and supervised the work coming last). I think he'd pass PROF on the basis of having so many papers in good-quality journals (PNAS, JMB etc) All I'm saying is that condensing this large amount of published work down to a single sentence seems unjustified. However, I'm not going to spend time expanding that section myself, since I don't think he is all that important. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it normal practice to include articles that they "wrote the grant and supervised the work" rather than "did the work"? Also, the first article on the list, he's neither the first nor the last. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

His Departmental bio only gives pubs he's the primary author on, and I can see no evidence that it's common practice on WP to include non-primary (in fact it seems to be a more common practice to only list books) so I'm trimming his list down to only thr primary author material at this stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

actually, Tim, whether the person whose lab it is it goes first or last depends of the subject and to some extent the professor. In my experience, as alternatives it is also fairly normal to either list alphabetically or rotate the positions. If specified, the principal author is the one with an footnote: "author to whom correspondence should be addressed." And, if there's a grant, you can always figure out who was the PI in the grant. JD Watson when at Harvard, made a point of not listing himself on the papers from his lab at all, according to his autobio on the principle that everyone who counted would know anyway, & he enjoyed mystifying the others. But Hrafn, it is now in fact required in medicine and increasingly common in all of biomedicine to specify in full detail just who did what in the paper. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes

When I suggested that the words “This defeats a key claim in Behe's book” be changed to “It is claimed that this defeats . . .” and was told that this “blatantly” fails the WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL and WP:WEIGHT requirements of WP:NPOV I should have right then joined the others who have stopped by, made an effort, and then moved on. The problem seems to be that you regard every proposal of moderation as just a change in tactics by the barbarian seven-day creationists storming the gates.

It has been suggested by others that you should compare the tone of this type of article with the tone of similar articles in the Enc. Britannica or other mainstream encyclopedias. Unless there are some people responsible enough to do this you may find educators announcing that they will no longer accept citations of Wikipedia on certain social issues. If that happens, achieving the status quo ante may be much more difficult than anybody imagined.

Best wishes. --Swood100 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You should never "accept citations of Wikipedia" -- Wikipedia itself doesn't. You should look at, and cite, the sources that Wikipedia cites -- that's a major point of WP:V: "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What I am referring to is the high school or college student who is writing a paper for school and is required to provide citations to his sources. A citation to an encyclopedia is acceptable for many purposes. --Swood100 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what I'm saying is that if Wikipedia doesn't consider itself (or any other wiki) to be a "reliable source" and demands such a source for inclusion, then it is reasonable for the "high school or college student" to do likewise. An 'encyclopaedia that anybody can edit' is not 'an encyclopaedia you should be citing'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did a search on citing Wikipedia and I see what you mean. There is no doubt that there is a need for sources to the point of view expressed here, and since mainstream encyclopedias are available for the remaining viewpoints it only reinforces to the student how different the treatment can be from two encyclopedias that both claim to be objective. Well, if everybody there is satisfied with it I am as well. Again, best wishes. --Swood100 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the best wishes, a word of caution. From what I've read, some schools or colleges won't accept encyclopaedias as references, but insist on more scholarly citations. Some encyclopaedias my be more acceptable than others, so it's worthwhile for the students to check that with their instructors. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article is biased and an embarrassment to this Wiki

Wiki over all is an excellent source for information. Too bad articles like this ruin its reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.99 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's strange. My view is that articles like this enhance Wikipedia reputation.--LexCorp (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way, can you explain why this is a bad article? Is it factually incorrect? If so, how? Or is your concern one of balance? If so, can you add material and sources to rebalance it? Or do you just not like the way that it's written? If so, be bold and have a go at editing it. --PLUMBAGO 14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)