Talk:Phillip E. Johnson/Archive 1

Archive 1

American Theologian category

User Gilbert says: I am going to try once again to take off the "American Theologian" category. Johnson is not trained as a theologian and by no stretch of the imgagination can you even argue that he is a theologian. Get over it. 8-3-05

ISBN links

Are the ISBN links really appropriate? And, how do we split the commission from his publishers? Alai 05:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they do no harm. See Wikipedia:ISBN. You can buy them from Amazon.com using one of the links and Amazon will donate a fee to the Wikimedia Foundation, possibly others will too if you're anti-Amazoninst types. Dunc|☺ 14:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No policy is articulated on whether or where to use them. I think they look pretty ugly as used in this article. If the book has a page of it's own, by all means cite the ISBN there. If not, is it worth doing so right next to a dead link? At the worst, a references section would be tidier. Alai 18:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you create a bibliography at the bottom of the article, where that list of titles (and ISBNs) could go, without disturbing the flow of the body text? I agree that it is bad form to plop an isbn in the middle of a sentence. --BTfromLA 18:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reversion coming

I am going to make big edits on the edit that was just added to this article. Here is my reasoning.

The contributer added a very large 'criticism' section about 'Teach the Controversy'. This would be much better off at the article Teach the Controversy than here. Secondly the criticism is intellectually flawed, since it summarises to 'we shouldn't teach the controversy since there isn't one'. The very fact that we are talking about it indicates that there is a controversy. Millions of people in the US alone think that alternative views of evolution deserve space in teaching - thats enough to be a controversy.

Finally, this is another case where the contributer is trying to conduct a debate under the pretense of writing an article. Adding all the the reasons why they (the contributer) thinks Johnson is wrong is good for a debating society, but bad for an encyclopedia. People come here to find out about Johnson and what he says or thinks, not to get embroiled in an argument about whether he is right or not. DJ Clayworth 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --VorpalBlade 16:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved most of the 'criticism' section to the 'philosophy' section, since much of it was quotes from Johnson himself (presumably he wasn't criticising himself). Some of the rest was duplicates of the philosophy section. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is paying for all of this?

Talking about money, there is interesting controversy surrounding the funding of the Discovery Institute - see below. Ian Pitchford 13:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Genesis To Dominion Fat-Cat Theocrat Funds Creationism Crusade by Steve Benen Americans United for Separation of Church and State from: Church & State, July/August 2000

Anti-evolution crusader Phillip Johnson, dedicated his 1997 book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, to "Roberta and Howard, who understood 'the wedge' because they love the Truth."

The mysterious reference is apparently a note of thanks to Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and his wife Roberta, a wealthy and secretive Orange County, Calif., couple who have generously funded the anti-evolution movement and other right-wing causes that advance their fundamentalist Christian outlook.

Howard Ahmanson, however, is no ordinary fat-cat. The savings and loan heir has maintained a long-time relationship with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace American democracy with a harsh fundamentalist theocracy.

Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take "dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders, including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and those who spread "false" religions. They regard the teaching of evolution as part of a "war against Genesis."

Ahmanson served for over two decades on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation, Rousas J. Rushdoony's Reconstructionist think tank that serves as the intellectual center of the movement. Ahmanson has also generously supported the Foundation's work.

As for Ahmanson's interests in opposing evolution, his relationship with leaders such as Johnson raises a series of questions about how the movement to "defeat" evolution is paid for and what the larger agenda might be.

There is little doubt that the Ahmansons have the resources to help finance anti-evolution efforts. The family's wealth grew exponentially during the 1950s and '60s when Howard Ahmanson Sr, made billions in the savings and loan industry. After his death, his estate was divided between his son Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation, which had $663 million in assets at the end of 1996. (H.F. Ahmanson & Co., the parent company of Home Savings of America, had over $47 billion in assets in 1997.)

With a vast fortune in hand, the Ahmansons are playing an active role in ensuring the anti-evolution movement's success.

According to Reason magazine, promotional materials from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute acknowledge that the Ahmanson family donated $1.5 million to the Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy." In fact, the August 1999 issue of the Discovery Institute's Journal recognizes an Ahmanson outfit for providing the Center's start-up funds.

With such high-powered assistance, the Center has quickly become a leading anti-evolution organization. The center's senior fellows include some of the highest profile advocates of "Intelligent Design" creationism, including David Berlinski, William Dembski and Michael Behe. Johnson himself is listed among the center's two official advisors.

Additionally, Roberta Green Ahmanson provided the funding for Dembski to appear at her alma mater, Calvin College, a conservative Christian school in Michigan, to promote his approach to attacking evolution. Although he claims to be interested only in the scientific "evidence" against evolution, Dembski's appearance was listed as part of the college's "Seminars in Christian Scholarship."

Funding from the Ahmansons is not always obvious. For example, the Fieldstead Institute is an extension of the Ahmanson empire, which frequently provides financial support for creationist causes. Dembski's appearance at Calvin was sponsored by a group called Fieldstead and Company. (Both appear to derive their name from Howard's middle name, Fieldstead.)

Ahmanson has also taken an interest in providing money for other political causes, including support for voucher subsidies for religious schools and opposition to gay rights and pornography. In the January/February 1997 issue of Religion & Liberty, published by the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, he argued that the Bible opposes minimum wage laws.

Ahmanson's opposition to evolution remains part of his larger agenda of establishing a fundamentalist "Christian nation." In the coming years, as different groups and personalities step into the anti-evolution fray, Ahmanson's role bears watching.

Johnson and his 2 controversies

I've cut the entire HIV-AIDS section:

Johnson is involved in a movement challenging the scientific orthodoxy that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[1] This group asserts, broadly, that there is no scientific evidence that HIV actually causes AIDS, and that while HIV and AIDS are correlated, they are not universally correlated, as (it is argued) there are people who have AIDS symptoms without HIV and people with HIV who have no AIDS symptoms. They argue that correlative statistics are misleading, because AIDS is defined by the presence of the HIV virus, so that a person with tuberculosis and HIV has AIDS, but a person with Tuberculosis but without HIV does not have AIDS. One researcher for the organization reported finding over 4,000 cases in which AIDS symptoms were suffered without HIV, but these cases were not counted as AIDS because the HIV virus was absent. Since, they argue, there is no known mechanism of causation nor is there a perfect correlation, they conclude that the cause of AIDS is as yet unknown.[2] Johnson's view that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is an opinion rejected by the scientific and medical communities at large.

Except for one link to a co-authored paper, this is not about Johnson. it as a rebuttal to virusmyth.net's claim that the HIV-AIDS connection is not fully established.

I suspect someone put this in here, to "prove" that Johnson doesn't think clearly on one topic, so he must not be thinking clearly on the other topic (i.e., intelligent design). This is ad hominem argumentation, and should not be part of an encyclopedia article.

It would be okay, though, to say something like:

• critics of Johnson cite his 1994 papers on AIDS causations as blah, blah blah
• Professor M. Ito Chondria argued that if his reasoning is so faulty about HIV - which everyone knows causes AIDS - why should we listen to him about evolution?

I suggest we mention the paper he wrote himself:

• The thinking problem in HIV-science

and characterize it not as denying any connection between HIV and AIDS but as strongly criticizing the arguments that HIV causes AIDS. Uncle Ed 18:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Give it rest, Ed. Back to pushing a creationist POV again? The content is exceptionally well supported. Your criticisms and edits smack of POV-deletionism and dissembling. You're going to have to step up with some better reasoning than that to delete well-supported content. FeloniousMonk 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. The referenced link don't even imply Johnson is involved in HIV denial. One of the links points to a claim by a Seattle website that Wells is involved in it, but they offer not a shred of evidence. Until someone can offer any proof, I think the section on AIDS denial needs to be scrapped. I'm no legal expert, but I'm going to assume this almost surely meets the legal threshold of libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.56.80 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What does ID promote?

Cut from intro:

, and promotes creationism as an alternative

I'm not sure intelligent design promotes creationism. Isn't there a controversy about that?

If it's not true then it shouldn't be in the intro because false information shouldn't be in the article at all!

And if it *is* true, then it's only a click away. If anyone reading about Johnson has no idea what intelligent design is, they can click on the link and its intro should say what it promotes.

The present article should be about Phillip Johnson. Uncle Ed 20:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, pull the other one. Dunc|☺ 21:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is all semantics but technically I think Ed is right here. I have always seen intelligent design as a repackaged form of creationism. Savey proponents of I.D. seem to be quite explicit that ID is NOT creationism and certainly don't promote creationism. However, they have not managed to train their followers to do the same which is why ID smacks of promoting creationism in, for example, the letters pages of local newspapers. I think Ed is coming from the savey perspective possibly not realising that ID cover has been blown. David D. (Talk) 23:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Teaching the controversy Ed? Three points: 1) Anything that says the universe was arranged in a particular way for life is a form of creationsim definition, by necessity. 2) All leading ID proponents have stated that they believe the designer is God (and likely the Protestant God, at that), 3)As to which form of creationism ID is, it's Neo-Creationsim. There is no controversy about these three points except from ID proponents themselves who think the backdoor to the science class room is still open. FeloniousMonk 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Christian minister and Christian leader categories

Johnson is a Christian leader because he's called the father of the intelligent design movement. By definition, he's a Christian leader. Johnson is a Christian minister because he speaks at churches and is vocal about his Christian faith. --Jason Gastrich 23:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But I thought Johnson touts ID as science, not religion? Wasn't that the whole point of the recent Dover trial? With regard to minister, if thats how you define a minister then it's fine with me. I always thought it was more official than just speaking to congregations. David D. (Talk) 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ID is usually seen as science and not religion, but I don't think that matters much here. Johnson is a Christian and a leader in the ID movement.

"Christian minister" is a loose phrase. Basically, if you are a Christian and are sharing your faith and/or the biblical scriptures, you're a Christian minister. He wouldn't fit the category of Christian pastor, though. --Jason Gastrich 23:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all Christians support ID. I believe you're committing a Fallacy_of_composition. Some Christians support ID, that does not mean ID is, itself, "Christian." It's just something some Christians support. There's a difference. Further, as the Dover case shows, you can't have it both ways. Science is not religion and religion is not science. You've actually just demonstrated what torpedoed the ID case in Dover. Mark K. Bilbo 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate quote

2/11/06 I removed a quote attributed to Johnson that he never really said according to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post_4.html the editing dialog never gave me an opportunity to explain the edit in the edit history so I'm doing it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.216.76 (talk • contribs) .

Wedge Strategy Quote

FeloniousMonk, Even if it is a valid paraphrase, we should have something on the webpage making clear that it isn't a direct quote having it in the "quotes" section could be highly misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs) .

Felonious, its still needs some indication of the original context. In particular, the way the quote is placed along with all the completely direct quotes, it makes it look like Johnson said everything in the quote, not just the parts that have single quotes around them. This should be remedied. JoshuaZ 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus." It's clear the article's author, Rob Boston, is quoting Johnson [3]. I see no need for a qualifier about paraphrasing. FeloniousMonk 00:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your compromise, it makes it pretty clear what parts are not direct quotes and what are. JoshuaZ 03:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect definition of Intelligent Design

I noticed something incorrect in the introduction. Intelligent Design is NOT a form of creationism. I'm not going to attempt to state exactly what Intelligent Design is, but creationism is a literal interpretation of the Genesis story from the Bible. Intelligent Design has been referred to as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" (see [4] for the quotation in context) by Adrian L. Melott, a physics and astronomy professor at the University of Kansas. Whether or not Dr. Melott's assessment is true does not make them one in the same. Although I doubt this clarification makes much difference to Intelligent Design critics (of which I am, by the way), I don't believe that perpetuating misinformation will help anyone understand what Intelligent Design is or is not.

The problem is you're using an incorrect definition of creationism, not that the article uses an incorrect definition of intelligent design. Try reading the Dover trial ruling for a better understanding of the issue: [5] FeloniousMonk 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ID is not Biblical Creationism, since it doesn't insist that the Book of Genesis is the literal truth, but it can be regarded as a form of special creationism in that the Creator intervenes in the process of creation at various relevant points in the evolutionary sequence. There is also a strong perception among Darwinists that ID is really just a repackaged, updated, Version 2.0 derivative of Biblical Creationism, dispensing with the inclination of Biblical Creationists to make scientifically outrageous claims -- such as the Earth being a few thousand years old -- while retaining the core theistic concepts. Calling ID "creationism" could be regarded as a bit of a smear tactic, however -- though Professor Johnson would have to be the last person in the world who could complain that such treatment was unjust considering his grand condemnations of Darwinism. MrG (28 Nov 06)

Doesn't Johnson adhere to creationism as a religious fundamentalist? That's the impression I got from an interview I saw on TV with him about ten years ago. While there may be evidence to challenge, update or modify the present generally accepted iteration of Darwinism and related doctrines as the last word (which there never is in science) of cosmology and human history, there is overwhelming evidence, as with the idea the earth is flat, that the world was not created in six days approximately six thousand years ago. Of course, this is an idea that Johnson and fundamentalists sidestep in their campaign to point out discrepancies in evolutionary theory: that their competing theory had no evidentiary basis whatsoever. Tom Cod (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Johnson & UC Berkeley

Does anyone have any background on Dr. Johnson's relationship with UC Berkeley administration? It seems that his views were tolerated, which is possibly a bit surprising for Berkeley, though no doubt there was at least a faction who didn't enjoy hanging around with him.

The question is relevant to the whole notion of "academic freedom" relative to ID.

MrG (27 Nov 06)

Johnson's relationship with UC Berkeley administration is that he is a tenured member of the faculty of the law school. I don't think I understand what the question is getting at. Like comparable institutions, Berkeley in general and Boalt in particular, has a diverse faculty with a wide range of political philosophies. (I might contrast that with institutions that are notably not comparable academically or w/r/t academic freedom, such as Liberty University.) At any rate, as a former Boalt student, I can attest that Johnson wasn't generally around (emeritus) but did I think participate in a debate once, and received a lot of school support when he had an health problem. --lquilter 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As another former Boalt student who was taught by him when he was around a lot more, I can say that back then he was tolerated but not loved, by students or faculty. He only started his campaign of tripe when he'd achieved tenured status, and there was nothing the school could do; it would have surprised many of us if that crap had been tolerated from a junior faculty member. atakdoug (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised to see that a prestigious institution like Boalt, which operates on such a high intellectual level, unlike say, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University or some other fundamentalist institution, would have someone on their faculty who promotes such churlish views. But then again, he was a law clerk to Earl Warren. Moreover, the views he expresses are of a topic of which he has no particular specialized training or expert knowledge beyond that of most lay people; after all its not as though he's on UC's biology or paleontology faculty. Thus the crediblity of his views, while respecting his First Amendment rights to hold and advocate them, can be seriously called into question by educated persons and surely many at UC view him as an embarassment as a result. Finally, Johnson like his cothinkers generally, emotionally concludes, like the Church did concerning Ptolemaic earth centered astronomy 500 years ago, that evolution is somehow a moral question when it is not.Tom Cod (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Health Problem

He seems to be shaking in this video [6] and to have aged extremely fast lately. Any information about his health problem?--Filll 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well as the article said he has suffered a series of strokes. Which brings me to why I am here: according to Ron Numbers' The Creationists (updated version), it says that Johnson has, since his strokes, taken some pretty wacky positions in regards to the role of women in society. This should probably be added to the article. --24.147.86.187 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I quickly skimmed through the Expanded Edition of The Creationists and could not find any mention of post-stroke wackiness on any of the pages indexed as referring to Phillip Johnson. Could you provide more details (page numbers and/or subsection titles)? Hrafn42 05:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg

Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He Said it!

We ought to see humans occasionally being born to chimps or perhaps chimps born into human families Read the whole interview here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html

Are all IDers this ignorant about biology and evolution or just the grandfather of IDC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad source, NNPOV claim

While it may well be true that Phillip Johnson was "reborn" after a divorce, we can't use an obvious polemic as a source. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html just isn't an acceptable source. We're going to have to look for better evidence, I'm afraid.

If you want to revert, please contact me first. Talk or User Howfar (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is an electronic reprint of a chapter of a book (edited by Robert T. Pennock) by Barbara Forrest, a legitimate academic and a court-acknowledged expert on the history of ID. As such it is most emphatically a WP:RS. I am therefore reverting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thank-you for contacting me. I believe that I was over hasty in deleting the content outright and would like to apologise for that. However, I still think that we need to look at the way the source is used and the position the statement occupies within the article.

I think that we have two problems. The first is that the there is an implied judgement upon the validity of Johnson's arguments in the statement, "became a born-again Christian following a difficult divorce". It implies a particular chain of causality, one that Johnson's original quote does not. I don't think that this is appropriate to an encyclopaedic article. Johnson never described his divorce as "difficult". If you remove "difficult" from the sentence, it seems pointless to tell us that his religious conversion happened after his divorce. At this point in the article "Johnson is a born again Christian" would seem to be sufficient.

Second, "(according to Barbara Forrest)" seems to be a combination of bad writing and bad sourcing. If it is a fact we don't need the parentheses and the source is given by the footnote.

First proposal: We include the divorce information in the article based on Forrest's original source, not her claim and citation. I think this would certainly improve things. Phillip Johnson seems a reliable source in this context. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/insightprofile1099.htm

Second proposal: We incorporate the information into the section, rather than having it as a single sentence in the lead paragraph. Maybe after "Johnson is an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA)." we have "Johnson describes his conversion to Christianity as being motivated by, 'The experience of having marriage and family life crash under me, and of...seeing the meaninglessness of [academic success].'"

What do you think? I won't go ahead and edit right away, as I'm a little irritated with myself for being trigger happy in the first place. Howfar (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious conversion following a substantial life-crisis (divorce, death of a loved-one, hitting rock-bottom with alcohol/drugs, etc) is not an uncommon occurrence. Given that Johnson himself links the divorce and his acceptance of Christianity together, I don't see any problem with Forrest doing so. I'm not particularly happy with the current wording (which seems to misrepresent Forrest somewhat), but do not agree with your wording either. The link is divorce to conversion to ID. Johnson himself makes the first link, and Nancy Pearcey makes the second one (which is entirely credible, given Johnson's lack of a scientific background). Forrest (a reliable source) draws this together from two ID primary sources. I think the article should articulate this point more clearly, and more clearly attribute it to Forrest, but that's my main problem with the current wording. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Tone

I am anxious that this article is not only be fair and just, but is also perceived as being so. If I may put my cards on the table, I think the ID is bunk and Johnson is a charlatan. However, I also believe that other people should be able to make up their minds about this, without my opinion intruding. I believe that most people, when given good information in a neutral manner, will make the right judgement. I have no doubt as to what that judgement is. Making sure that the content and tone of articles like this are above reproach is vital if we want their readers to learn the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howfar (talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I could have sworn that the subject of this article was "Phillip E. Johnson" not 'ID advocates generally'. So why are you repeatedly trying to turn "his" into "their"? The intellectual dishonesty of other advocates is documented in their own articles in excruciating detail (and so can be relied on here per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions). Here we are documenting Johnson's dishonesty. Your edits don't seem to be altering any perceived neutrality issues so much as muddying what the subject of the article is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a fair comment. However, it was not the reason that you gave for your original reversion, so it seems unfair to claim that I am doing something "repeatedly". Instead, I removed the reference to other ID advocates, as this still accurately represents the sources and better focuses the article. You do understand that my difficulty with the original version was that it included what appeared to be an allegation by the article rather than an allegation made by a critic? By removing the off-topic information, we improve the article from both our points of view, yes? Howfar (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit that I reverted changed "his" to "their" twice, so it did so "repeatedly". There are only a limited number of characters available in an edit summary, so rather than repeating myself, I did the all IDers are intellectually dishonest in the first revert (per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions cited above) and the "what is the subject" in the second. While I think the dishonesty of his fellows is defensible from information cited in their respective articles, the issue is too tangential to be worth a lengthy argument (this is after all an article on JEJ, not ID, the IDM or the DI), so I'm accepting your most recent edit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn has taken issue with some re-wording and grammatical improvements I just made. So I'll take them one at a time, starting with Nancy Pearcey's views, CREDITING Philip Johnson's work in the ID movement. In the cited article, especially in the quote copied to the WP article, she clearly supports Philip Johnson's efforts. She is not begrudgingly allowing the truth of some unpleasant fact, she states it approvingly it as her lead point. Why then do you insist on the word "ACKNOWLEDGE"? It is your own POV, showing that you yourself do not approve of Johnson's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keno (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Steven Weinberg on Johnson

This quote should not be included as:

1. Weinberg is a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist, so his opinion is inexpert.
2. It is a misquote, as what Weinberg in fact said was "The most respectable academic critic of evolution may currently be Professor Phillip Johnson" (Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature, p247, my emphasis)
3. It is taken out of context -- he goes on to criticise Johnson's claims.
4. It was written in 1992, before the dishonesty of Johnson's intelligent design movement tarnished his reputation.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While Weinberg's opinion of Johnson might warrant discussion in the body of the article, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn's points, especially the last three, must be addressed if Weinberg's statement is to be included in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A more accurate characterisation of what Weinberg wrote would be to state:

In 1992, physicist Steven Weinberg stated that "[t]he most respectable academic critic of evolution may currently be Professor Phillip Johnson" but went on to criticise Johnson's claims.

His Nobel Prize would only be relevant if the comments were about physics. He only said "currently", and he said it 16 years ago. Also the correct context is that he went on to criticise Johnson's claims, not to applaud them. Further, I agree with Guettarda that this belongs, if anywhere, in the article body. This is not a famous evolutionary biologist acknowledging Johnson as a critic of evolution, so is not particularly noteworthy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Weinberg seem to be implying that critics of evolution are so lacking in credentials that Phillip Johnson, a law professor, was the "most respectable" of them? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it's been a few days since I read his actual text, but that's not the impression he gave. I think that it's more that this was before his arguments had been shredded in sufficient detail, and with sufficiently high a profile, that even non-biologists realised the full scope of their lack of merit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This link gives Amazon's search facility for the book, if anybody's interested in reading the page in question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been several different comments by more than one person, let me try to address each of them in turn.

First, as to Hrafn's concern about describing Steven Weinberg as a Nobel Laureate: I did not include the description to imply that he won a Nobel Prize in anything other than physics, but simply to accurately describe him as a notable member of the scientific community. Since the "scientific community" is the group that was referred to in the immediately preceding sentence, I included Weinberg's credentials as a member of that group. Perhaps "scientific community" should be revised to be less ambiguous and general.

His Nobel Prize makes him notable in physics, not when discussing a field unrelated to physics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Second, it should be up to the reader to decide how relevant it is that Weinberg is or isn't a biologist. The sentence included a link to Weinberg, which would allow any reader to learn who exactly Steven Weinberg is. Either way, I am happy to revise the sentence to include that Weinberg is not a biologist. At the same turn, the sentence about the "scientific community" should be revised to be less ambiguous.

Nope. Weinberg is not a biologist, therefore it is questionable as to whether he is a WP:RS on whether Johnson was (back in 1992) "respectable" as a critic of evolution, and it is an editorial decision as to whether mentioning him gives this inexpert opinion WP:UNDUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Third, that Weinberg is a critic of Johnson's isn't mutually exclusive with the fact that Weinberg considers Johnson to be evolution's most respectable academic critic.

They are not mutually exclusive, but stating one without mentioning the other is misrepresenting Weinberg's position. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourth, if Weinberg has publicly changed his opinion about Johnson, then that should be included in the article. Otherwise, it is just conjecture to assume that Weinberg thinks differently about Johnson. Biaswatchdog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.11.7 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are, of course, a number of issues here. You seem to have missed the most important one - this information most definitely does not belong in the lead. In addition, there's the issue of how this is presented. The way you present the statement is also misleading, because it comes across as if this is a current observation when it's a decade and a half out of date. If it is to be presented, it needs to be presented in a way that isn't misleading to the average reader. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Guettarda brings up an interesting point. By his standard I've also excluded the statement about the scientific community as it is reductive and belongs in a section concerning criticism about Johnson's views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biaswatchdog (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Biaswatchdog, the statement you blanked is supported by several references that are not in dispute. It belongs in the lead because it places Phillip Johnson's views in proper perspective. His are views are not scientific and belong to a fringe sociopolitical movement. Not mentioning this in the lead would be misleading, pardon the pun. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, strictly speaking the statement I deleted is not supported by the references. No one journalist speaks for the entirety of the scientific community. The statement is therefore reductive and unsupported. In addition, it is not misleading for it not to appear in the lead. There is ample space to include the statement in the section reserved for criticisms about Johnson. Readers need only look a few lines down to find it. (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.11.7 (talk)

I'm certainly not going to get into a lawyerly argument with a single purpose account editor about what reductive means and whether any source truly supports anything at all. You are operating against consensus. By the way, you can sign your comments using the shift key and hitting the key to the left of the '1' (on most English-language keyboards), the "tilde," four times. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should engage in "lawyerly" argumentation if that will force you to deal with ideas instead of resort to ad hominem ("single purpose account editor") and ad populum ("you are operating against the consensus") methods of argumentation. Biaswatchdog (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Noting that you are a single purpose account editor is not ad hominem because it is true and pertinent to this article. And while ad populum on its own is not a valid argument for establishing truth, Wikipedia is, for better or worse, not concerned so much with truth as with verifiability. Consensus is of great value on Wikipedia and I encourage you to respect this. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves what ad hominem actually means. From our ever reliable Wikipedia about the topic: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

A statement need not be false to be ad hominem, but distracting from the substance of the argument. So with that little reminder let's return to the original issue we were discussing - the verifiability of a claim as broad as "the scientific community does [anything]". The sources cited for that statement did not support this particle sentence which is why I removed it. If you would like to replace it with a more coherent, "verifiable" sentence, I would welcome the edit. 198.181.11.7 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Father of the intelligent design movement"

This is stated twice in the article, but neither instance is referenced. Who considers him as such? Where do they say it? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much everybody -- there are numerous books that make this point (just do a Google book search for his name, father & intelligent design), and I've yet to see anybody dispute it. I've put a single reference in, but could throw a handful more without really trying, and even more with some effort. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Johnson quote

It's now clearly attributed, and the original is quoted, so give it a rest & let's move on.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An anonymous editor has been engaging in a crusade against the following paraphrase of Johnson (with snippets of quotation) from Missionary Man: The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' While it should not be employed as a direct quote from Johnson, it does accurately represent Johnson's thoughts in the original, How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won: That's the first thing-we raise the issue in a way it can be raised in the academic world. The second feature of this is that we raise the issue in a way that unites rather than divides the people of God. Is God real or imaginary? The scientific materialist philosophy that grows out of evolutionary science says something very significant about God. It says that it's not the case that God created mankind; it's the other way around. Our true creator is this mindless process of evolution. When we evolved to a certain stage, but before we had scientific knowledge of how we really were created, we imagined this father figure in the sky. We called it God. Man created God-that's the philosophy of naturalism. So, what you have is that God is not real, but religious belief is real. They're "religious" believers and they have this subjective belief in God, which is sort of a grown-up version of a child's belief in Santa Claus. It's a comforting myth. ... I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call "The Wedge," which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. ... So it isn't as if the truth wasn't made evident to him. He turned away from it. That's explained in Romans 1, and that brings us into the sin question and, eventually, to a point where we can ask people the great question Jesus posed to His disciples. "Who do men say that I am? And who do you say that I am?" Unless you've prepared the way, that's a meaningless question. "Why should I care" would be the answer you would expect until you get people to the place where that makes some sense. ... Throughout most of the 20th century the battle for Christianity has been a defensive battle; the initiative has been held by the atheists and agnostics-the scientific materialist culture. And the problem has been to hold on to some Christian culture. Christianity has done very well in the 20th century with the heart, but it has lost the intellectual world. Well, it's time to go back and reclaim it. So use Missionary Man as a reliable secondary source for summarising Johnson's views, but the original for quotes. Incidentally the bullet-listed quotes at the end of the 'Criticism' section are both (i) not particularly relevant to criticism & (ii) a bit of a 'quote-farm' -- I'd suggest moving elsewhere and pruning. HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you Hrafn. This is getting out of hand. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I provided two sources proving this quote completely inaccurate. One was Wikiquote and the other, hilariously enough, was your beloved Panda's Thumb blog, which states even more hilariously: "The problem is that this is not a quote from Philip Johnson, it’s a quote about Philip Johnson, and as it has gotten passed around it has often been attributed to Johnson himself. For the full text of the article, go here. Given how often we have criticized the creationists about inaccurate and out of context quotations, it is imperative that we avoid using this quotation ourselves." If you want it included on Wikipedia, you should make it crystal clear that this is a paraphrase, not a direct quote. I don't see that happening, however, since it runs contrary to the POV being pushed here by you warriors. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Here's my own summary of what Johnson was saying: The Wedge Strategy is devoted to a "program of questioning the materialistic basis of science" and reclaiming the "intellectual world" from the "atheists and agnostics" that Johnson believes are synonymous with this "scientific materialist culture". Johnson describes the "logic of our movement" as: "The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence, and the logic is terrible." "...the next question that occurs to you is, 'Well, where might you get truth?' ... John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word." In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right and the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." "The next question is: Why do so many brilliant, well-informed, intelligent people fool themselves for so long with such bad thinking and bad evidence?" Johnson sees this as an issue of "turning away from" self-evident truth, the "sin question" and the need to prepare the way for acceptance of a Creator. Shorter version: evolution is wrong and science is evil, self-deluded & atheistic -- and we need to convince people of this, so that we can lead them to God. HrafnTalkStalk 06:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) And your point is? How exactly does your POV opinion of what Johnson supposedly was saying contribute to Wikipedia? Can we add your POV opinion to the article? Is there any legitimate, meaningful reason this previous comment was added here? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The point, User:67.135.49.116 a.k.a. User:Jinxmchue, is that we summarise or paraphrase information from sources, and Hrafn has made helpful suggestions on those lines. If you want to assist, please put forward your own proposals. . dave souza, talk 09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Paraphrasing is fine as long as it is presented as such, is not POV and includes attribution as to who is doing the paraphrasing instead of being falsely presented as a direct quote. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

Our article says that Johnson is into AIDS denialism and denies that HIV causes AIDS. The source for this claim is http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/pjohnson.htm . I'm reading the articles referenced and I have several problems here. (1) The most recent article given is 1996 - in order to say that he "is" involved with AIDS denialism, something more recent would be a good idea. There has been a lot of AIDS research in the last 12 years and focus on the AIDS pandemic in some parts of Africa, so it is at least possible that he has been convinced. To say he "is" involved, we need something more recent than 12 years ago. (2) The 1996 - http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pjcdc.htm - article is NOT about AIDs denialism, but, rather, a claim that the spread of AIDS outside of at-risk groups has been exaggerated. Regardless of the correctness of that claim, that's not the same thing as claiming that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. In fact, his conclusion seems to presuppose that HIV causes AIDS, which may mean that by 1996, he had changed his mantra from "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" to "HIV causes AIDS, but it doesn't matter as long as you don't sleep around". In the prior articles, he unquestionably denied that HIV causes AIDS - so in 1994, he was definitely into denialism. Unless someone can find current documentation of his views (not merely a current article restating his views from the early 90s, but a current article giving his current views), I think it would be better to stick with what we know and change the article to say, "As of 1994, he was ...". --B (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claim "his conclusion seems to presuppose that HIV causes AIDS" is your own original research just as "that by 1996, he had changed his mantra from 'HIV doesn't cause AIDS' " is. Got any sources to back your notions here up? I doubt it because Johnson suffered a stroke some years ago and has not written or appeared much since. As it stands the sources in the article already support the content as it is, and there's no policy prohibiting sources that aren't up to your standard of freshness. There is one about original research though. We're not going to go speculating about what he might believe in the article, we rely on sources and a number of reliable and notable secondary sources that are recent still place Johnson squarely in the realm of AIDS denialist. Maybe I'll just add a few to go with his primary sources already there. Odd nature (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly (perhaps horrifyingly), when I searched "philip e. johnson" aids denial the top search-engine hit was User Talk:Orangemarlin. :) FWIW, virusmyth is very iffy about accuracy and currency. They continue (last time I looked) to list a number of prominent scientists/physicians (Robert Root-Bernstein, Joseph Sonnabend, Walter Gilbert, etc) as "denialists" when these folks were perhaps once skeptical but have been convinced by the accumulation of evidence - see AIDS denialism#Former dissidents. Perhaps it's best to note that he expressed his views on AIDS in the 1990's. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This statement is in the article - "Johnson is involved in AIDS denialism, which challenges the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS." This statement cannot be proven from a 1994 article. We have no way of knowing what he believes now nor should we claim that we do. Simply saying, "as of 1994, he believed ..." resolves that issue and I'm uncertain what the problem with that is. If it were a topic about which there had been little or no relevant new data in the last 14 years (say, the Homeric Question), then we could probably assume that, barring evidence to the contrary, his view was the same. More to the point, if the topic is something innocuous then we are not at risk of libeling the man if he has changed his views. On the other hand, in 2008, with nearly 30 years of data backing it up, to deny that HIV causes AIDS requires you to stick your fingers in your ears and hum really loud and falsely attributing that belief to someone is libel. As for his views in 1996, just read the source given in the article - http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pjcdc.htm . There is nothing in there about HIV not causing AIDS and he refers to HIV/AIDS research. There's no definitive statement one way or the other, but there's at least really good cause to not risk libeling a living person. --B (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

An excellent source for his views in the 1990's might be Impure Science by Steven Epstein; it's the best history of the causation controversy, and I believe it discusses Johnson in his capacity as a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis. The book was written in 1996, right before protease inhibitors entered clinical use, so it is dated and does not address the problem of accumulating evidence (the effectiveness of protease-inhibitor-containing combination therapy was the deciding factor which convinced some of the more intellectually honest "reappraisers"). Still, it's probably a better source than virusmyth. I have a copy somewhere, and I suspect it's in most libraries. MastCell ^Talk 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

Wow, most of this article is dedicated to flaying Johnson and the ID movement. I am tagging it as POV and I encourage a NPOV rewrite. It's okay to say that much of the scientific community disagrees, but having a dozen sources calling it "junk science" is overkill. There should be a few sources from those who support the position as well, not just a footnote that says there was a petition of scientists that signed a petition questioning Darwinism, but more scientists signed a petition supporting it. Also the first source that claims Johnson is denies HIV as the cause of AIDS says no such thing - the second however does show his name on the list of signatories. The first source should be removed. Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by what you are saying here. There are only two references related to "junk science", not a dozen. The first ref regarding HIV is a petition, the second is an article by Johnson. And what sort of "sources that support his position" do you have in mind? You need to be more specific. You are familiar with the "undue weight" provision of NPOV, right? Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the POV tag... I don't want to be in an edit war, so let me try to clarify. The references against Johnson are repeated in several places in the footnotes instead of just naming them and reusing... their points (i.e. the scientific community dissents from Johnson's view) are repeated several times in the article, where once is enough. There are also scientists that support Johnson's view, for example, the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which has been signed by over 600 scientists. This should be in the article, not just in a footnote that schluffs it off with "A four day A Scientific Support For Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID." There are also theologians who support such a view, which has become extremely popular in Christian denominations which are interested in harmonizing evolutionary theory with their faith. This should be noted. I'm not asking to provide undue weight, only to provide all the facts, namely that there are significant groups of people who support Johnson, namely the group of scientists who believe Darwinism deserves and second look, and the theologians and laypeople in the church who use it to harmonize science and faith.

The article saying that Johnson says HIV doesn't cause AIDS doesn't actually say that at all, but instead claims that the numbers of people suffering from HIV and AIDS have been inflated. This source does not support the claim it says it does. However, the one does prove the point, having his signature on the petition. Hope that helps, I can clarify further if needed. Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Kristamaranatha ("Christ is coming?"), please feel free to edit duplicated references; I note, though, that duplicated references probably don't constitute POV violations and usually result simply from separate additions. You are also welcome to add reliable sources reporting Johnson's support among theologians and scientists. Contributing to the article could be more satisfying and productive than placing POV tags against consensus. It doesn't appear that anyone disputes the scientific community's view of Johnson's ideas, which clearly fall under WP:FRINGE, so unless you feel that Wikipedia should vacate its own policies for this particular article and give more weight to the fringe view, I fail to see the need for the tag. Regards, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• The references against Johnson are repeated in several places in the footnotes instead of just naming them and reusing

That's a formatting issue, not a POV issue. Easily fixed.

• their points ... are repeated several times in the article, where once is enough

Please consult the Manual of Style - the information in the lead is supposed to repeat what's the in the body of the article

• There are also scientists that support Johnson's view, for example, the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which has been signed by over 600 scientists

Actually Dissent represents a trivial fringe. It's given due weight, per NPOV.

• There are also theologians who support such a view...

And...? ID is supposed to be a scientific theory. Omitting the opinion of theologians on a so-called scientific theory does not constitute a POV problem.

• I'm not asking to provide undue weight...

Actually yes, you are.

• ...only to provide all the facts, namely that there are significant groups of people who support Johnson, namely the group of scientists who believe Darwinism deserves and second look...

It's an extremely fringe view.

• and the theologians and laypeople in the church who use it to harmonize science and faith

Again, why is that relevant?

• The article saying that Johnson says HIV doesn't cause AIDS doesn't actually say that at all, but instead claims that the numbers of people suffering from HIV and AIDS have been inflated. This source does not support the claim it says it does. However, the one does prove the point, having his signature on the petition.

We have links to six articles by Johnson in which he attacks the link between HIV and AIDS, plus the petition. I'm not sure what you mean by "the article". Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The problems appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy. No attempt has been made by the editor to fix any perceived problems in 2 days. I've removed the tag. Guettarda (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'Darwin on Trial' cover

Is there a consensus for removal of this cover? As it is, by a large margin, Johnson's most well known book, which he used to start the Intelligent design movement of which he is the acknowledged 'father', it would seem to be a relevant illustration. Opinions? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the people who don't like the idea of fair use don't seem to let anything such as lack of consensus bother them. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2019

Make the tone of the article more neutral in light of his death.

Currently the article is full of mild pejoratives and has little to no substantive discussion of his positions of Naturalism or Darwinism.

Examples:

'co-founder of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement'

'He was a critic of Darwinism, which he described as "fully naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms and natural selection".'

'Johnson argued that scientists accepted the theory of evolution "before it was rigorously tested, and thereafter used all their authority to convince the public that naturalistic processes are sufficient to produce a human from a bacterium, and a bacterium from a mix of chemicals."'

'Eugenie Scott wrote that Darwin on Trial "teaches little that is accurate about either the nature of science, or the topic of evolution. It is recommended neither by scientists nor educators."'

'Johnson is co-founder and program advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Johnson has advocated strongly in the public and political spheres for the teaching of intelligent design as preferable to the teaching of evolution, which Johnson characterizes as "atheistic" and "falsified by all of the evidence" and whose "logic is terrible."'

These excerpts range from woefully inadequate, disparaging in their simplification of Johnson's core critiques or flatly pejorative. I would like to re-cast the statements in a fuller and more balanced light. Grenma (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not for general pleas for article improvement. However, you should take a look at WP:PSCI, in case that answers some concerns of yours. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019

References to pseudoscience seem inherently biased 69.75.104.2 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request (or in this case, don't waste your time; see WP:FRINGE. The short version here is that ID is pseudo-scientific, and Wikipedia is biased in favor of the mainstream view). --Jorm (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Death

It appears that Phillip has died. While there are no sources provided regarding his death, I believe it to be true. After I reverted an IP editor, I received a personal email from his daughter, whose edits they were, and she asked me to restore them. I am doing so under the assumption of good faith and to Ignore All Rules; I expect valid sources to appear soon. Best,--Jorm (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ergo, please don't revert the death date just yet.--Jorm (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019

The first paragraph of the article refers to "pseudo-scientific intelligent design" This statement shows bias from the editor or writer. Interpreting the same scientific evidence to point toward a theistic source is no more pseudoscience as interpreting it as naturalistic. Both speculate the past from the present. The key is to assess which idea fits the data better. That is not pseudoscience. The term pseudo-science should be dropped here.

Likewise, the end of the first section/paragraph refers to "The scientific community considers..." Not all of the scientific community considers it pseudo science. "Many" may, or "Most" may; but not all which is implied by "The scientific community" this should be adjusted to minimize the bias of the statement. 71.213.101.163 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request (or in this case, don't waste your time; see WP:FRINGE. The short version here is that ID is pseudo-scientific, and Wikipedia is biased in favor of the mainstream view). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of consensus text

Freakshownerd has replaced a long-standing consensus section of the lead with text that ignores the fringe nature of the subject's reported denial of AIDS and belief in creationism. Noting that a fringe theory is rejected by the scientific community is imperative and not a BLP violation, even if the subject is insufficiently significant to merit specific mention in the sources given.

In removing and replacing consensus text, especially when such edits have been challenged, editors are encouraged to explain the reasons for their edits in detail on the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the text. Looked at the sources. And the two didn't match. This is a BLP and BLP rules apply. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added two secondary sources describing Johnson as a promoter of AIDS denial. Which specific statements do you feel are BLP violations? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The uniting theme of those edits appears to be a sanitizing the text. Johnson has said many controversial things - among them that HIV does not cause AIDS and that America's strength is in its (Christian) faith. His dispute with Nancey Murphy wasn't whether to have cream and milk at the coffee bar - it was, according to Murphy, an attempt to get her fired. They're not colleagues, since he doesn't work there and contacted a trustee over the issue. "Attempt to fire" is a rough title, but I found a passage where she criticized his terrible book, added that and retitled the section "disputes with..." Attempting to have a well-sourced article on a living person is appropriate, but inaccurate descriptions, soft-peddling obvious nonsense like AIDS denialism and intelligent design, and removing accurate summaries is not the way to do it. Hitler's biography doesn't describe him as a failed painter - it describes him as the leader of Nazi Germany.

Ugh, Godwin's law. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical Christianity

The assertion that he is trying to convert people to an evangelical Christian perspective seems exceptionally controversial and is sourced offline. Can someone confirm that this is accurate? A pull quote of what he actually says might be enlightening as there have been distortions of what the sources state and what the article says. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of distortions to facilitate discussion. Which source has been distorted, how, and how would you alter the wording to remedy the situation?

As for the wedge strategy and its ultimate goals, have a look at this website. I'm not suggesting that we necessarily use this or its AU reference as a source; rather, it's a chance for skeptics to read some of Johnson's words on the topic. Quoted from the AU source: "In an interview with the evangelical magazine World in 1996, he said, 'This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science…. It’s about religion and philosophy.'"

and: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The misuse of cites is in the article history. In this instance I again ask for the full quote and context of where he says that he: seeks to convert the scientific community to acceptance of evangelical Christianity. This is a very controversial statement and it needs to be verified. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, please provide examples of the misuse of citations. That the scientific community considers creationism and AIDS denial to be pseudoscience is patently verifiable and uncontroversial. As for Johnson's stated goals, the quote above is a good start: he seeks to bring "the reality of God...(into) the academic world and into the schools". The wedge strategy is to use intelligent design as a wedge for creationism, theism, and Christianity, with the goal of transforming the United States into a theistic society. Perhaps you disagree that this is the goal of the wedge strategy, or that we should mention this verified fact; but do you have a source indicating this assessment is wrong? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless the statement that he "seeks to convert the scientific community to acceptance of evangelical Christianity" can be verified from a reliable source in the very near future I will remove it. If you want to replace it with "he seeks to bring "the reality of God...(into) the academic world and into the schools" and have a proper source for that, I have no objection. The misuse of citations is clear in the editing history and was confirmed by an administrator at the 3RR board. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No citations were misused; the text stood for at least five years until you changed it, despite the presence of scores of editors with many POVs during that time. I suspect the admin who declined to block you for your six reverts yesterday was unfamiliar with our guidelines on fringe topics like creationism.

Please answer the question: do you dispute that the wedge strategy ascribes scientists' refusal to accept Christian creationism to their materialism/atheism, and that the solution is to get them to accept ID, then theism, then Christianity? If you dispute it, on what basis? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As the disputed text cannot be verified I have replaced it with something more consistent with what is in the sources I have seen and those that are cited in the article. Please don't restore the disputed text until it is properly verified. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)