Talk:Michael Behe

message: Can you elaborate on the undue weight that was contained in the short book summary, and how it detracted from the mainstream context?
Can you elaborate on how moving the discussions of falsifiable and the identity of the intelligent designer into their own sections and out of the Darwin's Black Box section affects undue weight or the mainstream context?--Swood100 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to your repeated attempts to add this mass of blockquotes and commentary by the subject of this article into the article, adding about 1/3 by text volume to his exceedingly fringe view, without context or balance? Sometimes including actually removing the mainstream criticism of that view as well? Is that your query? Or did you mean something else? Please be specific with your questions, or people cannot answer them. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, the added material has a whiff of WP:SYNTH about it and, anyway, appears largely irrelevant.  The detail of Behe's claims and counter-claims illuminates very little, and the quality of the article is degraded (IMHO) by the inclusion of such minutia.  If any material elsewhere describes the (excruciating) detail of this ding-dong between Behe and others (e.g. who used which particular word and when), then we should use this as a source rather than an excuse to shoehorn in such a level of detail.  I think that it really unbalances the article, and for no real gain.  Just my two cents.  --PLUMBAGO 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi.  What I meant about WP:SYNTH was that the section currently reads like sources have been collected and presented here in a novel synthesis.  That is, the resulting back-and-forth storyline presented in the article does not occur in any one source (i.e. it is synthesised).  This does not mean that it is incorrect, but it does (IIRC) violate WP:SYNTH.  My follow-up point is that, should this material not be a synthesis and actually occur in an external source, then we should cite that source and trim this unnecessary material.  It is far, far too detailed, and seriously unbalances this article.  Not only that, by just (metaphorically) giving him more rope, I'm not sure that the material really does Behe any favours, so could be viewed as objectionable under WP:BLP.  Anyway, those were just the thoughts that I had.  --PLUMBAGO 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to take an example, "The final paragraph above shows the animosity that exists between Behe and Miller, possibly in part because of Miller’s testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial" is pure synthesis, taking two primary sources and drawing a novel conclusion without any secondary source. Similarly, the preceding long and incoherent statement culminating in a demand for a charitable reading of his wording is presented without a secondary source on its notability or interpretation. By bending over backwards to give an uncritical repetition of Behe's argument the article becomes TLDR and gives undue weight to Behe's promotion of pseudoscience. Needs better sourcing, and cleaning up. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The fact that you read Behe's abrasive response as suggesting "Behe has no fond feelings for Miller" doesn't mean that someone else might read it as normal banter – got a source sharing your view? And that says nothing about Miller's views, let alone support the idea that he has "animosity" for Behe. We cite Miller and the Judge, if need be we can go further and show that only a tiny fringe of expert biologists, if any, believe Behe's claim. You're giving a big lump of incoherent text to give undue weight to that fringe view. Wikipedia is about reflecting scholarly secondary sources, not about giving a right of reply to cranks. . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight to a fringe view 

message: I received the following message:
Please do not edit an article to promote an individual's point of view, as you did to Michael Behe. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:57, 9 January 2010 
Could the author please explain how my addition promoted an individual's point of view?  Miller claimed that Doolittle's study had defeated Behe.  Behe replied that this was based on a misreading of what he had said in Darwin's Black Box.  I tried to show that the controversy revolved around the proper construction of a certain sentence that Behe had written, and then I quoted Behe as to what he had meant and why it should be construed in a certain way.
What part of this is objectionable?--Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: see above. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood clotting cascade 

message: From Wikipedia:Fringe_theories
#Finally, fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.
#While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources.
#Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.
From Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
#It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
#A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. … Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: … Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
#Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.
From Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples
#Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view
--Swood100 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some general rules 

message: This article has serious BLP issues. 
# The statement "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community.[3][4][5", is not supported by the cites, none of which are reliable sources qualified to speak for "the scientific community".  At best this is [WP:SYN] which is completely inappropriate for an WP:BLP. Reword or remove 
# "and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement.
#"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution". Cites a wikilink. WP is not WP:RS should be removed. 
#"Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created  by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures." - Unsourced
#"Behe's testimony is extensively cited by the judge" - Providing a number of cites none of which make this statement, to justify the statement is OR/SYN. 
#The statement "In 1996, Behe published his ideas on irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box, which was rejected by the scientific community." is unsupported and probably unsupportable. Say specifically who rejected it or find a statement from a scientific body qualified to speak for the scientific community.
#The first paragraph of the "Darwins Black Box" section is OR. One of the references is broken, the other goes to an infidel.org book review which is not an appropriate a RS for a BLP.
#"Furthermore, Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public,[21]  gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research  to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific method.[22][23]" - impugns the authors motives. One is tempted to use the "L" word to describe this statement. Cites don't help here. You need to quote a secondary source so that it doesn't appear that it is WP who is making this charge. 
#"Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution." This entire paragraph is unsourced and needs to be removed or sourced.
When writing BLP's one must be hyper cautious when making statements about a person's work that could affect their livelihood. 
Some highlights from WP:BLP which this article fails:
*Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively
*Be very firm about the use of high quality references. 
*Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
*The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. 
Although per WP:BP these entries should be removed immediately and without discussion,  I am posting this as a courtesy to interested editors to provide an opportunity to resolve these issues. 
In addition, the entire article is written in a very non-encyclopedic tone. See WP:Words_to_avoid for hints on improving this aspect of the article. I would suggest that much of the material here doesn't belong in a biography and should be moved to the article on ID where editors have more latitude to discuss scientific controversies without running into BLP restrictions. JPatterson (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the above I have removed unsourced or non-RS sourced material. With minor exceptions I've not attempted to fix the holes this leaves in the article which I will leave to someone familiar with the subject matter. Editors reverting the above edits or adding new material should be prepared to defend the addition  at the appropriate notice board per WP:BLP JPatterson (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP Issues 

message: Many things were removed from this article that should not have been removed. I reverted back to the last consensus version. I'm in favor of moving forward, trimming, rewriting, etc. but it absolutely must be done with consensus and not unilaterally. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:BLP. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced and non-RS sourced material. Editors are to be "very firm" in there insistence on solid sources and the onus for providing evidence to support re-insertion lies with you, the re-inserting editor. I've added a BLP dispute tag to the article page. It appears this WP:Coatrack is going to require admin attention. JPatterson (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed statements that were very well-sourced. Since you have not established that you understand WP:RS, you will need to discuss with other editors before going on this whitewashing campaign again. I encourage you to find an administrator to help with this discussion. The more eyes the better. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've re-inserted material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, OR and/or SYN as outlined above. You must provide evidence for your contention that this material is well sourced, per WP:BLP. For example, one can not support the contention that "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community" with an opinion piece by a non-scientist (ref 1) who doesn't make that claim, a WP piece that's not on point(ref 2), and an article by an non-notable author on a non-RS website(ref 3). And none of these references make the claim, true as it may be, that "[Behe's theories] have been rejected by the scientific community". Stringing references together to make a point none of them make explicitly in their own right is the definition of WP:SYN. The material I removed, on both sides, all have similar issues. JPatterson (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can respect the synthesis issue, but let's talk about the flip-side. None of Behe's theories have been accepted by the scientific community. He's a pariah, an outcast in his own university, which took the unusual step of publicly repudiating him and saying that his entire field is unscientific on its face. Would it be better to list each of his theories individually, and then show that each individual theory has been rejected? Or would people then claim that the article was being devoted to demolishing ID instead of being an article about Behe?—Kww(talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think that the SYN issue is as clear-cut as you make it out to be, JP. I'm willing to consider new references, but removing the statement which you admit is "true as it may be" looks to me like gamingto be paradoxical. Let's find new sources that we all agree are good and move forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that verifiability and not truth is the standard for inclusion. See WP:V  and WP:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22. Also, please WP:AGF. JPatterson (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text:  I made a suggestion above for changes to the lead that avoid the BLP SYN issues and also some suggestions for structuring the article per WP:SS to make it more encyclopedic. Beyond that, I'm not here to say how the article should be written, it is not a subject I'm familiar with or interested in. I am just insisting that it follow the clearly stated policy wrt sourcing. JPatterson (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not here to say how the article should be written, what are you doing here and on the noticeboards? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The Dover court case section is probably due some trimming for WP:UNDUE.  There's a lot of quotes from Behe that the judge used in his ruling.  I think we can replace most with "quoted extensively by the judge" and include one or two that seem to be fairly important.  Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Each edit must be discussed 

message: Somebody has clearly got so worked up about Behe's theories that they insist on having a refutation of them in the intro, taking up more space than the rest of the intro put together. This is clearly not balanced and should be removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that point-by-point refutations are rarely the best. Of course, we should keep some criticism in. WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims may be of service to us. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Pursuant to this, I have adjusted the lede. More adjustment could be beneficial. Please help! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think more than a single sentence opposing Behe's views are necessary in the lede.  DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now we have one compound sentence and the second half is essentially a vague statement about Lehigh University's statement which was made in direct response to Behe. Is that okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the second half necessary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit about Lehigh University? I think it is somewhat remarkable that the university made a statement explicitly about the subject of intelligent design because of this person. Maybe we could make it even shorter... let me try. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I failed in making it shorter, but I did make it more relevant, I think. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  per #2 in Blp Issues above, "and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" is unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement. JPatterson (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added "author" back into the intro, he's fairly well known for the books. I also slightly shortened the case mention by removing the "extensively cited by the judge". That is in the case section and shouldn't be in the intro. I also tweaked the wording some to indicate he's testified in several cases. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, it is mentioned. The Department explicitly mentions Behe in the statement. We even have the IDers themselves acknowledging that this is the reason: . Would you like to include that? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  But again, it does not say it was prompted by "Behe's high-profile advocacy". That's OR. Nor does it say that in the reference you provided.  JPatterson (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording has been tweaked. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text:  But you haven't addressed the BLP sourcing issues outlined above. JPatterson (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've brought so many issues, and the ones I've looked at don't seem to be issues at all - they are correctly referenced (the text doesn't have to appear verbatim in the source). This makes it hard to asses which have merit. Please just pick one or two to start with, and explain clearly what the problem is and why the supplied references, in your opinion, fail - because I just don't see it. Verbal chat 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: This section is nearly half of the article, and really needs to be trimmed some.  A significant amount of the length is from the many long quotes from the book, from critics and from Behe's responses to criticism.  I think most of those quotes can be removed, with the critical comments and responses replaced by summaries.  There is an article for the book already, so I don't think this section needs to be quite so long.  Thoughts before I start up the weed whacker and go trimming? Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michael Behe#Darwin's Black Box|Darwin's Black Box section]] 

message: Some seem to believe that the demands that this article be
rewritten to conform to various Wikipedia policies are a
smokescreen for Behe apologists. They seem to think that
the article as it is does a good job of showing Behe to
be a nut-case or a charlatan.
Leaving aside the question of whether the purpose of an
encyclopedia article is to persuade, I think they
overestimate the article's persuasive power.  I suggest
they try to read it through in the role of devil's advocate.
Much of what was previously damning evidence now looks
like spin-doctoring.  Many of the 'talking points' are
now simply unexplained digressions or trivia.  All the
reader comes away with is the idea that someone feels
threatened by Behe's ideas and would prefer that we not
examine them seriously.
Ask yourself, could you, strictly as an intellectual
exercise, re-spin this article to present Behe in a
favourable light without substantially changing the
selection of facts presented?  Maybe you could cast
him in the role of courageous dissident persecuted by
a conformist community.  It is an exciting and moving
plot.  It goes something like this:  The narrow minded
scientific community pursues its atheistic agenda at
all cost!  Dissent must not be tolerated!  Since they
are unable to adequately answer Behe's arguments, the
biology faculty of his university takes the unusual
step of publishing a rambling statement repudiating
his views without addressing them.  His status as a
scientist is inconvenient, but no matter, his ideas
are, with the stroke of a pen, defined as non-science!
The section on the court case presents no more
difficulty for our spin-doctor. The case was lost not
because Behe's ideas were in any way uncompelling but
because they were held to a standard of proof which
his opponents, by their own admission, cannot meet for
their own ideas.  The implication of his testimony
(that the [scientific] theory of evolution is merely
a reflection of a particular school of thought on
the question of the existence of God) were simply
too much of a political hot potato, and so the
judge punted.
Why is it so easy to spin the facts in the article
either way?  Because most of them have not been
selected to be genuinely informative.  They are
simply hooks on which speculation is hung.
The Wikipedia rules require us to use only verifiable
information about Behe, his views, and the views of
his critics.  The existing article is short on
information and so leaves most of the truly
interesting questions about these conflicting views
unanswered.  I would like to know whether any
evolutionary biologists consider any of his criticism
to be valid objections pointing to the need for
furtherer research.  I would also like to
understand his relationship to the I.D. movement.
Did he start it?  Is he a leader, or is he perhaps
a tool on the edge of the movement?
The section on Dover could could be very interesting,
if improved.  Unhappily, the information about Behe's
testimony seems to have been selected for juicyness
rather than informative power.  Questions abound: Did
he take a position on the central issue of the case?
For example, did he claim that I. D. should be
discussed in school?  Did he claim that evolution
as the origin of species should or should not be taught
in school?  How did the judge “rely heavily on his
testimony” but rule against the side which called him?
Had Behe been forced to say things which he did not want
so say?  Or maybe Behe made other statements which the
judge could not accept?  If so, what where they? Or
maybe the ruling was on narrow legal grounds.  Currently
we are expected to use our imagination to interpret Behe's
statements in a way embarrassing to him.
Answering these questions with the help of reliable sources
requires more effort than drawing cynical conclusions.  It
will also almost certainly paint a more nuanced picture of
Lehe that is currently presented in the article.  Anyone
who wants the article to be a counter-blast to Lehe will
be unhappy with the result.  But, it will unquestionably
be a better, more informative encyclopedia article.
Chappell (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are some good points in there but please see WP:TLDR. The accusation of whitewashing shows an appalling inability to WP:AGF. That aside, I think many editors are working at cross purposes to their goal. A reader who is convinced one way or another re ID or IC or whatever is unpersuadable. Those who come here with an uninformed view will immediately recognize an article like this as a partisan hit piece and discount its content accordingly. The most important and often overlooked aspect of WP:NPOV is dispassion. Encyclopedia's should be written in an above-the-fray, non-judgmental tone. The facts speak for themselves. Passionate embellishments only serve to weaken the article and discredit WP. JPatterson (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Whitewashing 

message: Doesn't it seem a bit WP:UNDUE to refer to the Behe children's home-schooling?  Eugene (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschooling 

message: John C. Avise Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome PNAS 2010
Useful analysis and commentary in a very reliable source. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New source

message: With 61 citations and many other sources cited, and obviously a lot of work and controversy, I am hesitating to suggest it, but perhaps this article is better than Start class now. I leave it to other editors to decide what class it should be. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class? 

message: I added the bolded portion this phrase from the second paragraph:  Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by many members of the scientific community.
My edit was reverted with this remark:  "the community as a whole has rejected his ideas as indicated by several sources."
Yet looking at the cited sources, none of them even make that claim.  Even if they did, they would clearly not be reliable in making such a claim, because there is no authoritative voice for the "scientific community."  (Even the scientific community article states as much.)  Thus, while one can easily document that this person or that group has rejected Behe's work, it is impossible to state with any verifiability that the "scientific community as a whole has rejected his ideas."  After all, Behe himself (not to mention plenty of other ID proponents) is a member of that community.  He is a biochemistry professor at a university, which is a pretty standard qualification for inclusion.  He and other ID proponents may well be bad scientists, but they are scientists, nonetheless.
Not only is this claim of a wholesale rejection by the entire scientific community demonstrably untrue on logical grounds, but it's not even supported by the sources cited next to the phrase.  EmausPriester (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something like "rejected by an overwhelming majority of scientists," or of "biologists," might be better--it indicates that the rejection by professional scientists is nearly universal (which, as far as I can tell, it is--Behe is so prominent because he is the exception that proves the rule: he's one of a very tiny number of bona fide scientists working in a relevant area who support the claim of intelligent design as science.  Are there even three other biochemists who support his arguments?).  "Many members of the scientific community" doesn't convey the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't consider irreducible complexity as a legimate scientific idea, theory, insight, research program, what-have you.  BTfromLA (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would probably be more accurate language, but there would need to be some new sources to cite, indicating some kind of reliable survey of scientists' opinions on the subject, not just individual articles against it.  EmausPriester (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection by the "scientific community" 

message: Added it to the article but dont know how to cite links   http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dngag/iama_son_of_michael_behe_the_catholic_biochemist/?sort=confidence  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.22.93 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is not credible. You will have to find a new one. It will need the son's name, and must be a source that meets the requirements at WP:SOURCES. Sorry. Sven Manguard Talk 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey Dokey  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.22.246 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheist son

message: I reverted an edit which said "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific". This is a controversial edit that needs consensus first. I thought the lead was fine the way it stood - "religious in nature", "rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community," and that this extra phrase was, at best, overkill. A similar discussion (debating almost the exact phrase) is going on at Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 1#Evolution Denialist, but is yet to reach a consensus. StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead already says "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community." StAnselm (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We're better off describing him in specific terms as an ID advocate, rather than using the vague term "denialist." Also, we can find a tonne of reliable sources criticising ID, but not for the statement that any specific person is a "denialist." -- 202.124.75.254 (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "evolution denialist" a vague term?  See AIDS denialism for another example of the term.  Also note that a reader who is unfamiliar with the subject may not realize that the converse of advocating ID is evolution denial. SÆdontalk 10:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Denialism is a controversial term, and vague in that it doesn't specify exactly what's being denied (as opposed to YEC and ID which are more specific positions). We don't even have an article on "evolution denial" any more. Also, it's hard to find reliable sources that say "Person X is a denialist" (most sources using the term are unreliable web sites). It's much easier to find reliable sources that say "Person X claims Y" and "most scientists reject Y." -- 202.124.73.123 (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only controversial to denialists. The statement is a reliable sourced one, and I guess we can move on. NEXT. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: And if SAedon's goal is to combat "evolution denialism," it would be better just to state the facts ("Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community") rather than using a controversial polemic term like "denialist." -- 202.124.73.119 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's been rejected by ALL of the scientific community. Science denialists, of course, don't count as scientists. There is nothing controversial about denialist except to denialists. Seriously lame argument. We can find dozens of BLP's that, as long as it is supported by a reliable source, where the subject doesn't get to control how they're described. Michael Behe is an evolution denialist. We have reliable sources (and not just one or two, dozens); do you have one single worthless even partially reliable source from a real scientist that says he isn't? Seriously, just one? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I think that "denialism" is an accurate term, but I really have problems with source quality in this instance. What makes Donald Siminek such a reliable and globally representative source that we can use his statement in this manner?—Kww(talk) 13:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that most scientists use the term "evolution denialism" at all (mostly because it's too pejorative for polite conversation); certainly one web site from Donald E. Simanek (whoever he is) doesn't demonstrate that a majority of scientists apply the term to Behe. What's wrong with the existing wording anyway? ("Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community") -- 202.124.74.96 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't think that "pseudoscientific" characterises Behe accurately either -- Behe's original book made falsifiable claims (which were indeed falsified). Again, you need more than a single random web site to argue that a majority of scientists apply the term to Behe (as opposed to saying Behe is wrong, which a majority of scientists would do). The book Only A Theory by Kenneth R. Miller is one of the more thorough demolitions of Behe, for example, but doesn't use the words "pseudoscientific" or "denialist." -- 202.124.74.96 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, you're going with that? Siminek is a real scientist compared to Behe who wouldn't know science if it was spelled for him, and all of his experiments set up for him. LOL. Please go on quote mining however. There are dozens that I can bring. BTW, Miller is one of those religious types who claims to believe that evolution is compatible with religion. LMFAO. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Siminek may be a real scientist, but he's not notable and doesn't speak for the scientific community as a whole. And now we're criticising the respected Kenneth R. Miller because he happens to be Catholic? Is this argument about being pro-science, or about being anti-religion? -- 202.124.75.23 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: *The statement "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific" does not seem to be that controversial to me. As one of the most notable proponents of Intelligent design theory, both Behe (the man) and Behe's theories have been the subject of of a great deal of negative scrutiny. His theory of irreducible complexity is often described as a pseeudo-science. That's one of the more polite terms I've heard scientists use to describe it. The point here being, that he's not just promoting a theory which is unpopular in science (a fringe theory), but one which is considered absurd by mainstream science. If you could show that the sources cited are in some way fringe or not in line with the scientific consensus I'd be open to changing my mind about this. I've read the sources and they just seem to be saying much the same thing as just about every critique of Behe's very flawed work. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Just a suggestion, the findings in the Dover vs Kitzmiler trial included some judicial summaries of Behe's work which might inspire more agreeable wording. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * On "pseudo-scientific": Matt Young and Taner Edis characterize Behe as a pseudo-scientist in Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Behe and his ideas appear in at least two books devoted to pseudo-scientific ideas: The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Michael Shermer and Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia by Brian Regal. Michael Ruse's book, The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debates states "Behe's work has been largely dismissed as 'pseudoscience'". 92.2.91.151 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think that the pseudoscience description is easily sourced. It's "denialism" that I have an issue with. Accurate as it may be, I don't think the term is being used by reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Massimo Pigluicci describes Behe as an evolution denier in a book review published in Bioscience. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears we have consensus. Now if you could all check out Ken Ham where the same edit warring editor is trying to sanitize the article for an even worst evolution denialist.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not have consensus. Some reliable sources have been suggested for "pseudoscience," but not for "denialist." A passing remark in a book review is just one person's opinion: you need a WP:RS that the term is widely applied to Behe, and I don't think it is. -- 202.124.75.23 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Apart from the above book review, I couldn't find any obvious sources specifically referring to Behe as an evolution denier or similar. The characterization also conflicts with other sources e.g. H. Allen Orr in Boston Review distinguishes between Behe and other creationists by noting that Behe does not wholly deny evolution.  92.2.91.151 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Your opinion means what? Oh, I don't care. Most people don't read beyond the lead. It should be clear that Behe is an evolution denialist and pseudoscientist with his head up his ass. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm certain we can't find a WP:RS for "with his head up his ass." -- 202.124.75.23 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually, his opinion is based up WP:LEAD, and it's good advice. If you can find good sourcing for "denialism" as being a widely applied term, then place it in the body. Once it's there, it will probably be worth putting in the lead. Nothing should be in the lead that isn't in the article, as the lead is a summary of the article, not a section of the article itself.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: You're pleasant. It should be clear that Behe is an evolution denialist and pseudoscientist with his head up his ass; with this attitude you should not be editing this article, please limit your contributions to the talk page as this goes forward. --Errant (chat!) 08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Totally agree. Leading voices in the mainstream science and skeptical community have described Behe as a denialist. That really should be good enough for us. I'd propose taking the matter to RS/N if there's any remaining dispute. Personally I would avoid using the word denialist (promoter of pseudo-science is more appropriate). Behe does accept that evolution is a real phenomena, he just does not believe that it fully accounts for the full diversity of life on earth. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also would avoid using the word denialist. But the key thing is to satisfy WP:BLPSOURCES. -- 202.124.73.242 (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, WP:BLPSOURCES has the guideline "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." That explicitly rules out using the personal web page of Donald E. Simanek, which had been used as a reference. It almost certainly rules out the anonymous article from UCLA's internal campus newsletter as well. Ideally, we should be using books, journal articles, newspaper stories, and official websites -- of which there are certainly a huge number. Self-published material by Behe (such as his CV) is acceptable under some very specific guidelines. -- 202.124.72.115 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that seems to be the end of the conversation. I assume nobody can find a source satisfying WP:BLPSOURCES to back up the suggested addition, and we need to stick with the existing wording. -- 202.124.75.193 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The word "denial" does not appear in the article as far as I can find, where do you want to modify text? . . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Doesn't really work. Behe is promoting ID which is classic pseudoscience, claiming to be scientific while failing to follow scientific method. In Behe's case, he asserts that some detailed features could not have evolved, and from that jumps outside science to the unsupported conclusion that a supernatural entity made them that way. As for Darwinism, it means different things to different people, and does not mean the same as modern evolutionary theory. . dave souza, talk 12:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution denial, etc. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Behe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821201728/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Behe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120635/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml to http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120635/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml to http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121005418/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906165307/http://www.lehigh.edu/%7Einbios/faculty/behe.html to http://lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Behe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201221735/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1271 to http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1271
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: There is absolutely no need to spam the word "ID" or Intelligent Design in the whole page. Behe doesn't even disagree with Darwin in some concepts, his work despite some people not agreeing with everything in it has been of great contribution to the debate, the debate of how consistent evolution is, since there's no way to get to the past to make empirical tests, and see how individuals can become populations for example, in order to get populations you must first have individuals. It's the very existence of individuals that is problematic for Darwinism. There is also no proof that DNA mutates based on environment. Darwin didn't know science as we know today, he didn't know how complex DNA is for example. Science is always open to new discovery. Now I don't see any reasons why there's in every line of the page the words intelligent design, it is being used in a very pejorative and sentimental way.
DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing Behe is known for is  "ID" or Intelligent Design, and that's the reason for the focus in the article. Behe's the one who used these terms. You seem to be confused about CD and Darwinism, its only relevance is that Behe refers to it when promoting his concepts of  "ID" or Intelligent Design. . . dave souza, talk 07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

text: It's also worth noting that the term "Darwinism" is increasingly used only by those with an agenda to create the impression that evolution is an "ism", a belief system, involving one man, one book and one theory, rather than a series of scientific discoveries including those documenting evolution in nature. Astronomy isn't "Copernicism", and gravity isn't "Newtonism". Evolution is evolution; it's science, not belief. -Nunh-huh 17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, you Newtonists are just being uneutral about Intelligent Falling. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  🙂 - Nunh-huh 23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inteligent Design and uneautrality 

message: Why describe intelligent design as "pseudo-scientific"? Is not that violating Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View? Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the yellow information box at the top of the talk page and the bold blue linked pages you will understand why it does not violate Wikipedia's NPOV. Robynthehode (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent Design

message: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
Emphasis mine.202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe the content you wish to remove violates the policy on biographies of living people it is up to you to demonstrate this. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope you are reversing the burden of proof. Once you reinstate a bad citation that I've cleaned up, it's on you. 202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the fact of the matter is that you are outnumbered. Most editors interested in the article clearly disagree with your position, so obviously you are going to have to convince them that they are wrong if you want to accomplish anything here. What is the evidence that there is a "bad citation?" Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. It doesn't support what the text said and if you haven't actually checked it yourself, then why are you reverting to it?202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just asserting that you are right isn't going to accomplish anything. You cannot expect other editors to simply agree with you - that is futile. The talk page is where you should be making your case, based on logic and evidence. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't. I asked you to see for yourself. You refuse for some reason.202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

text: You did simply assert that you are right. You will be blocked and you are not going to accomplish anything. Potentially it might have been different had you made a reasoned case here instead of demanding that other people agree with you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK so explain to me how I am to show you that the citation doesn't say what it's purported to say. It doesn't say it. You do realize that it's impossible to prove a negative yet this is what you demand in order to clean up a bad citation (albeit on which the POV pushers are fine with) 202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please. If a given document does not say something it is perfectly possible to show that it does not say it both by carefully discussing what it does actually say and by quoting from it. You had your chance to make your case, but you have ruined it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot quote what is not there. I could cut and paste the whole article as proof, but then we'd be right back where we started. You refusing to read it.202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is stopping you from quoting the most relevant portions of the document to make your case. That would be the appropriate thing to do if you want to argue rationally. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you figure would be the most relevant portion of a document talking about a different subject?202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, a statement from its author about what it is actually about - indicating that it is different from what it is purported to be. I shouldn't even have to say that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Sourced mention has been removed, of the judge's ruling in the Kitzmiller case, that ID is religion, not science. Is it your assertion that the judge did not write what he wrote? Just plain Bill (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You new citation is broken. Does it mention Michael Behe? If not, it's original research.202.27.212.13 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the link in the citation. There is ample sourcing in the body of the article for the fact that Behe testified in that case. See the judge's opinion, where Behe's name does in fact appear. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So someone used a primary source to make a tendentious statement in the lede of a BLP. You really don't see how that's WP:OR on one hand, and a NPOV and BLP vio on the other? 202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 202.27.212.13, you're edit warring to remove a properly sourced statement, despite noting at the top of this thread that BLP removal of info only applies to "unsourced or poorly sourced" material. As for Kitzmiller, "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." Presentation of that religious proposition as science makes it pseudoscience. . . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you're quoting me a primary source. You can show not tell. Notice I haven't touched the next paragraph - why? Because it's properly sourced and merely states facts 202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a source from the  American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that specifically criticises Behe for his pseudoscientific views especially in his new book. stating. Robynthehode (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

text: No this is a cite to replace/add to the cite after the lede sentence about Behe's views being pseudoscientific. Robynthehode (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've added the cite: ideally we'd cite  or  but I don't have subscription access to Science. . . dave souza, talk 13:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  dave souza, talk - thanks for adding the citation and restoring the lede to its former status. I believe the current editing pattern of removing these passages and citations and using WP:BLP seems to be a form of gaming the system WP:GAME but the addition of that citation I found adds further weight to keeping 'pseudoscientific' in the lede and attributing that to Behe's work. Shame about the original source as I to do not have a subscription to Science either. This is often an issue with these sorts of sources - the fact they are behind a paywall making referencing Wikipedia a bit more challenging than I would like. Robynthehode (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some editors here need a refresher on the [[WP:BLP]] policy. 

message: change "advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" to "advocate of the scientific principle of intelligent design" or at least just delete the word ""pseudoscientific"
Why? Because this unsubstantiated and bigoted verbal attack at the very beginning of the article prejudices the reader before they even have started to read the article. Also, in his latest book, "Darwin Devolves", Behe reasons scientifically, cites numerous peer reviewed journals, and draws scientifically accurate conclusions.   Given the evidence presented in this book that shows that random mutations typically remove, not add genetic information, it is the Darwinian industrial complex that is "pseudoscientific". Read the book for yourself if you dare. 24.4.188.64 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. WP:RSs informs that ID is a pseudoscience. Ixocactus (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2020 

message: In the section Darwin Devolves:
Add "in the journal Evolution by Gregory Lang and Amber Rice" to the last sentence to read "and a detailed scholarly rebuttal in the journal Evolution by Gregory Lang and Amber Rice, Behe's own colleagues at Lehigh University." This will be consistent with the way the other scholarly rebuttals are cited in the same sentence. 65.78.107.194 (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I only noticed now that it was added so recently, but thanks, I have found this reference helpful to expand the section.  —PaleoNeonate – 13:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020 

message: Intelligent design is a textbook case of pseudoscience. Nothing of what we discuss here can change that. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: The words "intelligent design" are neither theistic or non-theistic. Intelligent design could be a function of quantum probability, not necessarily the work of a divine Creator. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:7D70:218D:579B:EBC5 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources disagree with you. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "intelligent design" is a generic expression. It is not, as the article claims, "pseudoscientific."