Talk:Duane Gish/Archive 1

message: What has happened to the reference to Joyce Arthur's article, a published reference which points out that Gish continues to repeat the same false claims even after being publicly corrected?  Her article, "Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?" was published in Skeptic magazine, vol. 4., no. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93 and is online here: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
The philosopher Philip Kitcher made a similar point about creationists in general (though was also referring directly to Gish, whom he debated at the University of Minnesota, which is one of several debates where the consensus is that Gish was soundly walloped) in his book The Advancement of Science (pp. 195-196).
I also point out numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies in Gish's last major work (Creation Scientists Respond to Their Critics) in my review which appeared in the journal Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith and which is online here:  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html
There's a wealth of published critiques of Gish's work, but very little of it still seems to be referenced in this article.  Chris McGowan's book In the Beginning... is another (criticizing Gish on the fossil record). Lippard 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joyce Arthur article

message: Some mention should be made of Gish's famous bullfrog comment, in which he claimed that if you look at some proteins, human beings appear to be more closely related to bullfrogs than other primates.  When asked to provide his sources (by numerous persons over multiple years), Gish repeatedly failed to do so.  It turned out that Gish made his statement based on a misunderstanding of a joking comment he heard at a conference.  He has never corrected or admitted his error.  This is described in Bob Schadewald's "Scientific Creationism and Error" which may be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html  (There is also other good Gish-related material in the sidebar on that page)
I compare Schadewald's account to Gish's account here:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/bfrog2.htm
My review of Gish's book answering his critics also is a source of some Gish-related material:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html
Lippard 00:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullfrog proteins

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

message: I see no reason why the information necessarily needs to be deleted, though if you wanted to tag it for one violation or another, you probably wouldn't have much trouble. Regardless, I've put the section back, as the reason you gave for blanking it didn't hold- trivia sections in articles aren't uncommon. I appreciate the input- I just don't want the removal of "Trivia" sections on the basis that "trivia" doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia to become a common practice. Those sections can be interesting, informative and useful to researchers. Don't want to set a bad precedent, but feel free to pursue the same end via different means. Moralis 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big chunks appear to have been removed by an editor who has a long history of basically unproductive behavior on page after page, kdbuffalo. People might want to look carefully at how he has altered the article. I have heard Dr. Gish speak on a number of occasions, and there is very little that he says that is of substantive or scientific merit.--ReasonIsBest 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I've just openedn an RfC on his actions which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2. JoshuaZ 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: Any interest in or objection to adding the "Gish fallacy" to this article as trivia?  
It's the notion most strongly associated with Gish that since computer simulations of 
evolution are programs created by an intelligent designer (the programmer), then organisms 
in the real world have been created by an Intelligent Designer as well.
It is possible that Gish has given up on this one since it's so easily deflated:
by the same reasoning, a computer simulation of a hurricane would mean that
hurricanes are Intelligently Designed (and equivalently unexplainable by science), 
or a simulation of planetary orbits means that orbits are maintained by Intelligent
Design as well (along the lines of the old idea that angels push them along in their paths).  
Although he is commonly described as using this argument, I have had some problems finding an
exact citation of him on the matter.  Anyone have a source on that?
MrG 4.225.213.82 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come across this fallacy before, but from William Dembski & not called the "Gish fallacy". If it can be WP:RSed as originating from Gish, it should be added to the article, but not as 'Trivia'. HrafnTalkStalk 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gish Fallacy 

message: About three quarters of this article is either direct or backhanded criticism.  That strikes me as a bit excessive given the topic.  Most of the criticism looks to me coming from skeptic websites-especially talkorigins which sure looks like it posts a lot of self-published materials.  I think unless the criticism is found to be much more generally widespread, outside the skeptic "clique", there is far too much weight given to critical claims in this article.  In any event, if these criticisms are launched from other sources as well, they should be referenced.  Talkorigins is a great online resource, but it should not be given this much weight as may be defensible coming from a survey of more neutral sources.Professor marginalia 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TalkOrigins has been judged by a multitude of editors to be a valuable resource and it's use is allowed in sourcing information.  It is a completely neutral source, as it relies on actual facts.  I can't even imagine what sort of source you would rather use.  The article definitely needs some work but Gish generates a good deal of criticism for his claims.  I am not sure what "clique" you are referring to but I imagine it includes everyone who doesn't give two hoots about creationism aka scientists.  Am I right?  Baegis 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been editing a month and you've already seen a multitude of editors support this source?  It's a usenet discussion group.  Those are almost never allowed as published sources at WP except in the most select circumstances.  And the skeptic "clique" is exactly that.  I'm a fan myself.  Never miss the Skeptics Guide; I even keep a checklist on which rogues answer correctly on science or fiction.  I read a couple skeptic magazines, I participate on a few skeptic related blogs.  But I won't deny they're the same handful of "celeb skeptics" appearing on every skeptics "channel".  Skeptics as a group complain how outnumbered they are.  The skeptic view is not the same as the mainstream view, to the regret of most in the skeptics movement.  Back to the point: there are problems with undue weight in this article since there is a preponderance of "criticism", and much of it, if not most, from the same website.  And since this website source is also usenet discussion group website, the article needs to broaden its sources of criticism to achieve legitimate NPOV.Professor marginalia 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been editing for a month.  What's your point?  Do you think that I haven't done my homework during that month or perhaps I was reading through WP before I began to edit?  It still stays because it is an invaluable resource.  Frankly, what you do on your own time has nothing to do with this article.  TalkOrigins stays.  Why do you want it removed so much?  Baegis 05:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked me a question what I meant by "clique", and I gave you an answer.  The support given by "multitudes of editors" is a wild exaggeration.  Wild exaggerations aren't helpful to the article.  I do not argue I "want it removed so much".  However it is not such a significant source that warrants using it to write nearly half the content in the article, all of it critical.  There are other kinds of sources.  For example, books, newspapers, journals, magazines.Professor marginalia 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: www.talkorigins.org is not a "usenet discussion group".  It is a collection of articles, many of which originated on a usenet discussion group.  But it is also probably the largest collection of articles which present the mainstream scientific view regarding the evolution/creationism "controversy".  Most mainstream scientific sources don't bother to address creationist claims, as they are considered to be too far-out to deserve attention: when scientists DO address such claims, they generally do so on TalkOrigins.  It is considered to be a highly reputable source. --Robert Stevens 09:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opening line on the website reads, "Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins."  If the source of the articles in the archive come from self-published writing in newsgroup, isn't that splitting hairs?  Not everything at talk origins is unpublished.  Articles or excerpts that first appeared in books or other publications are okay; but some of those cited here are obviously self published messages intended for circulation to other members.  Gish is someone who has had much written about him from "outside the tent", so this is a no brainer for a BLP article.  The article is imbalanced and relies too much on a single source as well as texts that don't meet WP:RS.  A few are so sub par they need come out without further discussion.Professor marginalia 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: TO has also accumulated an impressive series of awards from a variety of sources.  This includes Scientific American, the National Academy of Sciences, the Smithsonian, The Encyclopedia of Evolution (by Oxford University Press), the Geological Society of America, [[Science (journal}]], which is Science for God's sake, it's referenced in biology textbooks, university courses, and every single entry I've seen is sourced for both the criticism, and the rebuttal.  And, Science (Science!) said it was good.  Science!  I say reliable.  This very site was topic for a discussion quite recently with now-blocked User:Imbrella, where it was judged more than adequate by a variety of contributors.  See here for instance.  It's a lengthy read, but educational.  So yes, at this specific moment in time,a contributor with a month's history would indeed have seen several references to TO and it's usefulness/reliability.  WLU 15:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Somehow my argument is being misinterpreted as an attack against talk origins. It's a great website, a great resource. Full of great information. But it is largely an archive of self-published user group messages, is it not? Some of it has been published and meets WP:RS. Much of it does not. One of the reviewers in the link above admits that the website publishes only critiques of creationism, not support. That's not a criticism of talk origins, its a fact that editors here need to bear in mind when giving over to that one source half the territory in this article. Of course Gish is a notable figure even outside the talk origins usergroup. I hope this clears things up. I am not saying that talk origins is a bad source of information. But editors can't use everything on it because much of it is self-published material, and relying almost exclusively on this one source creates problems in terms of WP:Undue_weight and WP:NPOV.Professor marginalia 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you fail to understand the purpose of TO.  It is an invaluable source for documenting the rebuttals to creationism, intelligent design, among other ideas.  Simply put, it is like the Britannica of such knowledge.  Why do you want it taken away so bad?  What is the underlying motive here?  It doesn't violate Undue or NPOV with regards to using the source.  By the way, your argument is an attack on TO because of your insistence on saying it is "a usenet discussion group".  Baegis 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: You are the man, WLU.  I am still working on that passage I mentioned to you, alas it has been a hectic few days here on my end.  It's coming, don't worry.  Baegis 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no idea what you're talking about.  After 13000 edits, I lose track :)  I hope it's not for Duane Gish, and I hope it's not arriving in the next hour or so.  Also, though this is a very touchy subject, please watch the assumptions of good faith and borderline personal attacks.  WLU 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the mainstream that you mention?  Do you mean how he is perceived by the general public?  Or how fellow creationists view him?  The reason for the large amount of criticism is because this is a man who claims to be a scientist and who also is trying to further ideas that run counter to evidence.  So naturally, we have to refute those claims, as per FRINGE.  Since this is, I guess, a science related article, the majority of the viewpoints are going to be from those with a scientific background.  I would not expect to go to, for example, Hans Georg Dehmelt, the '89 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics and expect to see part of his biography devoted to explaining the popular opinion of him along with how his fellow physics researchers feel about him.  Do you see what I mean?  Baegis 17:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute.  FRINGE does not pertain to wrong theories.  It pertains to the lack or degree of notability of a theory, not its validity.  The guideline concerns itself with the problem where the act of there simply being an article at WP about some obscure theory, or citing as reference some obscure theory,  lends more notability to that theory than otherwise exists.  Gish's theories are not obscure.  Creationism is a topic which has been widely written about--by scientists, sure, but also by nonscientists, by historians-I found 10 cites at the New York Times alone.  Those kinds of sources determine what content has to go in this article.  Not us.  We just give the overview, and summarize what's already been written with equal proportion given to diverse published views.  And I'm not sure I understand your point with this Dehmelt example.  That article says almost nothing about his science, and the only sources identified are a press release, an autobiography, and the man's totally empty webspace reserved for him by the university.  The article is about his bio, not his science.Professor marginalia 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WLU - Thanks for the addition of the abiogenesis article.  Meant to do that over the weekend and got bogged down.  As for the discussion above, I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with the article.  Perhaps broadening the sources to groups other than TO would be good.  I'm sure you can find many other mainstream evolutionist sources from which to choose.  It would be nice to get some more discussion of how Gish is perceived among fellow creationists. Yeshuamyking7 17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Trott should indeed be verified to see if he has notability or reliability beyond talk.origins, I don't have the time right now.  Really though, his reliability is asserted through it's prominent placement on talk.origins - that's like asking every single reporter of a newspaper to be justified, when really the reliability is through the publisher.  WLU 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all the effort you've put in.  This is one of the potential problems with talk origins with so much self-published content.  Trott appears to be completely self-published through the user group, and the only other publisher mentioned is a student newspaper.  I self-publish some of my opinions on internet sites and listservs too, but that doesn't make me a qualified cite at wikipedia.   But thanks for offering to look into it further when you get a chance.Professor marginalia 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trott appears to be contained within TO as nearly all of his articles are posted through TO.  From this press release  it is mentioned that he is a computer scientist but he was recognized by the NCSE for his work in contributing to articles in NCSE publications and the TO archives.  It also mentions that he is a copy editor on the Reports of the NCSE.  I am in agreement with WLU though because being published through NCSE and TO asserts his reliability.  Baegis 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The oversight and fact checking comes from the pedigree of talk.origins itself in my mind, you'd have to take this to WP:RS or possibly a RFC to discount the source.  The fact that Gish replied to Trott's criticisms means he's had the chance to reply and correct any factual erros, both for the evidence itself and the events of the debate/discussion.  The merit of finding out more about Trott is to add further weight to his opinion, barring some heinous information that discounts the substance of his contributions completely I think they stand on the basis of talk.origins.  That the NCSE has recognized him and his contributions further adds to his credibility.  Though a usenet site is self-published and ineligible, talk.origins is not.  WLU 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imbalanced

message: Thank you, WLU, for tackling the NPOV issues raised.  Before things get too far along, though, I wanted to ask about Richard Trott, a source mentioned 7 times in the article.  Who is he?  Has he ever been published anywhere besides his college student newspaper?  All of his claims stem his opinions from a single speaking engagement of Gish's hosted at Rutgers.  It makes good points, but it's a bit of a rant, isn't it?  Trott is used as a source here not only of his opinions about Gish, but also as a source of fact claims about science, and I question what his credentials are in this area.  One of the examples chosen here is particularly weak--about the Neanderthal issue.  I'm not sure that Gish would disagree that Neanderthals had brow ridges, etc.  Gish is quoted as saying Neanderthals are "homo sapiens", and of course they were widely considered so by many scientists.  It wasn't until maybe roughly 10 years or thereabouts after Gish's appearance in 1994, that Neanderthal scientists firmed up more to one side that it was a separate species rather than subspecies (it continues to be widely called homo sapiens neanderthalensis).  I guess I'm asking, what are his credentials for sourcing fact claims about science.  And does this one person's opinion from one Gish presentation warrant 7 mentions in this article?Professor marginalia 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trott should indeed be verified to see if he has notability or reliability beyond talk.origins, I don't have the time right now.  Really though, his reliability is asserted through it's prominent placement on talk.origins - that's like asking every single reporter of a newspaper to be justified, when really the reliability is through the publisher.  WLU 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all the effort you've put in.  This is one of the potential problems with talk origins with so much self-published content.  Trott appears to be completely self-published through the user group, and the only other publisher mentioned is a student newspaper.  I self-publish some of my opinions on internet sites and listservs too, but that doesn't make me a qualified cite at wikipedia.   But thanks for offering to look into it further when you get a chance.Professor marginalia 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trott appears to be contained within TO as nearly all of his articles are posted through TO.  From this press release  it is mentioned that he is a computer scientist but he was recognized by the NCSE for his work in contributing to articles in NCSE publications and the TO archives.  It also mentions that he is a copy editor on the Reports of the NCSE.  I am in agreement with WLU though because being published through NCSE and TO asserts his reliability.  Baegis 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The oversight and fact checking comes from the pedigree of talk.origins itself in my mind, you'd have to take this to WP:RS or possibly a RFC to discount the source.  The fact that Gish replied to Trott's criticisms means he's had the chance to reply and correct any factual erros, both for the evidence itself and the events of the debate/discussion.  The merit of finding out more about Trott is to add further weight to his opinion, barring some heinous information that discounts the substance of his contributions completely I think they stand on the basis of talk.origins.  That the NCSE has recognized him and his contributions further adds to his credibility.  Though a usenet site is self-published and ineligible, talk.origins is not.  WLU 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trott

message: Substituted at 14:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment