Talk:Darwin on Trial

message: ::Talking about money, there is interesting controversy surrounding the funding of the Discovery Institute - see below. Ian Pitchford 13:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The paid agenda behind Johnson and his book

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg

message: This web page  – IVP – Darwin on Trial – by the publisher (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA) gives publication date of 1st edn. as 1992, 2nd edn. as December 1993: it's not uncommon for books to be printed showing a date earlier than the actual publication date, so it might be printed as 1991 but actually published early in 1992. Comment? ... dave souza, talk 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication date?

message: The opening paragraph of the sub-section "Criticisms" seems very out of place. It reads as follows: "Critics suggest that Johnson is neither impartial nor open-minded. Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, including many theists who regard intelligent design as unscientific. They argue that Johnson reiterates many creationist arguments that are simply false, uses a God of the gaps argument, relies on equivocation, presents straw man version of mainstream scientific thought, and generally uses typical lawyers' "tricks" of argumentation." Whoever made this edit did not back it up with any of the listed references that I see, sounds very one-sided and unecessarily critical, and was overall foolish in their argument. For example the sub-section states that the author "reitterates creationist arguments that are simply false" while not applying said arguments elsewhere in the article; and, stating that he "uses the God of gaps argument" while Phillip Johnson has made it exceedingly clear that he does not take a formal stand on the age of the earth. I was going to simply remove this part of the article, but realizing its size I decided to post the preceeding message in the discussion area here. If you have anything to say including oppositing to the paragraph's deletion please make it clear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtheinformation (talk • contribs) 08:44, 28 June 2007
:*God of the gaps has nothing to do with "a formal stand on the age of the earth."
:*The list of critical reviews provide numerous examples of where "Johnson reiterates many creationist arguments that are simply false," e.g.:
:I would suggest that this paragraph is well-substantiated. Hrafn42 09:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ur youse tryin tae be objective? . . .  ;) . . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's Crtiticism 

message: I literally did a double-take when I read:
" ... sexual selection, of which he asks, why would an 'uncaring mechanical process' (natural selection) 'produce a species whose females lust for males with life-threatening decorations?'"
I would almost think this was a citation out of context, because the dumbfounded answer would be:
"Why would a DESIGN process produce a species whose females lust for males with life-threatening
decorations?!"   MrG 4.228.21.246 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should be a summary of the article (WP:LEAD).  Recommended additional reading: Talk:Evolution/FAQ, scientific method, scientific theory, evolution as fact and theory, evidence of common descent.  —PaleoNeonate – 19:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this for real? 

message: The 'criticism' section is way too vague and general, and means that the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to Johnson's claims (contained in the far longer 'Overview' section). There are plenty of criticisms listed in the ELs, I'll have a go at working them into the article at some stage. HrafnTalkStalk 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UNDUE]] 

message: I'm being BOLD and removing an uncited portion that reads like WP:OR. It needs page numbers/sources for WP:V. Right now it reads like a review. We66er (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation is to the book itself.  Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article#Headers, a summary of the book's contents is appropriate.  At best, removing the content just forces someone to go through and add citations to specific chapters.  Unless the material is inaccurate, it's inappropriate to remove it wholesale.  WLU (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that I have also been uncomfortable with this section. This detailed a synopsis really should have page citations. Also it might be considered giving WP:UNDUE weight to the book's claims vis-a-vis criticisms of the book and of these claims. HrafnTalkStalk 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WLU, Its not enough to claim that a statement is in a book. You must give page references on where a reader can find that claim. The whole thing read like a poorly done sympathetic review of the book, but lacking references. We66er (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's undue weight to give credibility to the ideas, it is not undue weight to give a summary but it is part of the guidance in books.  I've read the book, I'm an editor in good standing and think DoT is laughably bad, and I also think the summary may have been lengthy but was accurate.  At minimum, a discussion of the central ideas is appropriate; the summary may have read like OR, but it's not, it's a summary.  If you want me to get a copy out of the library and re-cite, I'll do so.  WLU (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Overview' repeatedly stated Johnson's claims as fact -- even when they are disputed by genuine experts (e.g. Gould for Johnson's claim that he "evaluates the evidence for evolution by natural selection") and his own statements (e.g. on his impartiality). Further, it allowed most of Johnson's claims to stand without mentioning their rebuttal by the scientific community -- a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE. I have attempted to rectify some of this, and will attempt to do so further in the future. HrafnTalkStalk 15:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I think a better solution might be to integrate the overview and the criticisms sections.  The chapters are more-or-less self-contained to a single idea, if there is a criticism of each idea by Gould or another reviewer, then that could work to counterbalance the undue weight issue; as is, for a reader to realize DOT is utter nonsense they have to read first the overview, then the criticisms section.  Integrating Gould's review along with Scott's, and anything we can get from, say, talk.origins may be a better way of placing due weight on Johnson's appalingly bad and unfortunately predictable reiteration of creationist errors, mis-representations and quote mining.  Here is another one, from a Christian none the less, which can be integrated 'cause DOT is fringe.  Here is one from the web archive.  The reviews integrated into the text would allow a much greater demonstration of how flawed the book and its approach is, which could better be placed in the lead.  But, as ever, it takes time and I doubt I'll have it.  WLU (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I've been trying to do -- at least partially. We may have problems where the overlap isn't perfect (Johnson's claims that lack a specific rebuttal, or claims that are too summarised in the article to tell what the specific rebuttal was, criticism that's too general to put up against a specific claim) -- particularly if the point is sufficiently prominent that it requires WP:DUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk 17:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: It's worth mentioning that while this page lists a summary of Johnson's book, a brief overview of the topics suggest, and then jumps into the criticisms, there is literally no rebuttal of those criticisms, no mention of the fact that he addresses them in a later version of his book, and no mention of the defenders of this book or their ideas. This article is biased in the extreme and is laughably one sided —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:Much like the book itself, which is a systematic rehash of every flawed argument ever made by a Creationist.  This page gives due weight on the scholarly majority of biologists, who see the book as a frankly pathetic attempt at criticizing evolution.  Which it is. Seriously, it's laughable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it would only be fair to mention the second edition and his rebuttals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.111.92 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New comment

message: I find that the line "The book was initially ignored by the scientific community, but was ultimately reviewed, and panned, by Stephen Jay Gould in Scientific American." very one sided and misleading.
1. Who says that no-one in the scientific community read the book and considered its ideas important?
2. Who qualifies as being included in "the scientific community"?
3. Is Stephen Jay Gould an acredited spokesman for "the scientific community" or is he self-appointed?
4. Who has decreed that Stephen Jay Gould's review of the book was the ultimate review?
4. The word "panned" is hardly impartial.
5. Are there possible reasons why scientists who agree with "Darwin on Trial" chose not to write positive reviews of the book, or maybe they wrote positive reviews which were not considered appropriate for the journals which publish such reviews?
It could be stated instead
"Stephen Jay Gould has provided a review of the book in Scientific American", with a proper citation.  Let the interested reader then read the review and make up his or her own mind about the success of Mr. Gould's analysis of the book.
--Justwonderingiv (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a creationism text, it is scientifically unimportant.  It's a religious and political book, not a scientific one (and not particularly important for either of those fields either).  Johnson may be a good lawyer, but scientifically he's a hack who recycles old arguments with barely a new coat of paint.  Considering how unimportant creationism is, and how important SJG was to both evolution and the fake PR-science of creationism, yeah, he gets a prominent place.  The page should not be impartial, it should appropriately portray the scientific community's reaction to the book - for the most part it was ignored, with a few scholars tearing it a new asshole.  Gould did pan the book, so the wording is appropriate.  "Let the reader/student/America make up their mind" is a common creationist tactic - essentially their only one, since they don't have any actual science or scientists on their side - and one that should not appear here.  Due weight, and neutral point of view, means the book is treated as the shoddy piece of work it is.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 05:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception  

message: It seems to me that quoting Eugenia Scott in the introductory paragraph is quite inappropriate.  Her comment immediately puts a bias in the readers mind against the book.  If her comment is correct, and that may be debatable, it would be better included in the criticisms section.  From what I have read of Eugenie Scott she also has her own agenda and biases.  She is not a completely impartial judge either.--Justwonderingiv (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugenia Scott is a well known critic of creationism, one that they all hate to see because she knows exactly what kind of bullshit they are trying to pull.  It's not bias to include her comment, she is a reliable source on the matter, speaking in an area of her expertise, on an area that's nothing but a religious circle-jerk.  She, at least, honestly summarizes the true state of science and debate, and unlike creationists doesn't lie to her primary audience to score cheap points.  She should not be ghettoized to a criticisms section, she should remain in the lead as is appropriate to a neutral article.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 05:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenie Scott Quoted in the introductory Paragraph inappropriate. 

message: WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull's review in ''Nature'' 

message: In the reviews list, possibly that two would have been appropriate:  and .  Thanks for the cleanup, —PaleoNeonate – 02:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to re-introduce them as narrative, not just bare links, or discuss specific ones here first if you prefer. Articles are like rugs: every now and then, they need the dust beaten out :-) Guy (Help!) 09:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a bit old, but it turned out that the removed ones I was concerned about were duplicates anyway.  —PaleoNeonate – 16:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: thanks for the improvements.  It's been a few weeks since I wonder about this content.  Some book articles do appear to have a content summary although in this case, since it's non-scientific literature about science (and rooted in very old literature, science-wise) it's difficult to assess if it's appropriate.  My impression would be that a minimal summary would be better with more emphasis on reviews.  The article contained a list of reviews that was recently pruned; some of those could be restored inline with material (the above thread lists some).   The book is itself a primary source (to talk about itself) and a large summary consequently results in a type of antievolution soapboxing...  —PaleoNeonate – 22:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick start, the whole section needs drastic pruning as it still presents an in-universe reiteration of Johnson's common creationist claims. Presented out of context, it amounts to a Gish gallop for the reader to try to digest, and fails WP:NPOV#Article structure by detailing Johnson's questionable arguments as though they're undisputed. . . dave souza, talk 10:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My intent is to present a simple summary of what Johnson says as he says it.  As it is, this is a massive condensation of the book, trying to hit what seem to be his major points.  I'm not making any kind of statement about if Johnson is right or wrong, rather, I'm just presenting what he says.  As such it is a summary and not a review of the book.  I figure that any review and criticism would appear in the critical section below perhaps set up in the same chapter by chapter arrangement to make clear and distinct comparisons between his position and his critics.  We have nothing to fear by letting him put his own foot in his mouth, so to speak.  --OtisDixon (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So your intent was to use the summary section for uncritical reiteration of a lawyer's case as though it can be trusted: see WP:NPOV#Article structure for the need to show his arguments in context of the mainstream view about his misrepresentations. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that the critic section is intended to counter his statements, i.e., his statements followed by critical analysis.  The summary makes no commitment to whether he is correct or incorrect.  Then the critical section analyses his positions.  I'm assuming that most people don't know what he has to say, so they can read the summary section and then read the critical section to get the full perspective.  As I said, we have nothing to fear from presenting what he says, so long as it is followed by a critical analysis.  This way you know what he actually says, avoiding possible misrepresentation.  Then his falshoods and misrepresentations can be clearly shown in the critical section.  --OtisDixon (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:STRUCTURE is policy: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may "create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Particularly where WP:PSCI is being uncritically repeated. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents summary 

message: There's repetitive Popper-chopping in trying to outline Johnson's argument about supposed tautology, which needs to be drastically pruned. A further bit was added citing Popper in support of Johnson, which I've removed:
:Johnson quoted Popper's defense, "some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring,"ref>
Not an immediately accessible source, fortunately  has a longer quote of Popper's statement that he had "tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme." Popper did "still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation." Johnson seems to think a recantation is a defense – maybe it looks that way to a lawyer? Too much detail for a summary. . . dave souza, talk 10:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is directly from Johnson's book as he quotes Popper.  I'm not commenting on whether Johnson is right or wrong, only that this is what he says.  --OtisDixon (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So it was wrong to source it to Popper – the misrepresentation of Popper is all Johnson's work, and has to be shown in context to give due weight to mainstream views. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The book has the quote from Popper and is sourced to Popper.  In the summary, I included both the quote and the source as found in the book showing what Johnson was using in his argument.  I'm not making any comment to whether Johnson is using the quote properly or not.  The critical section is there to give due weight to the mainstream view.  It is likely that the critical section is inadequate at this point.  --OtisDixon (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As in the preceding discussion section, WP:STRUCTURE is policy against segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. WP:PSCI needs context, and putting Johnson's creationist claim in one large section, then a dozen paragraphs and a new section later saying "oh, but he's talking bollocks" doesn't cut it. . dave souza, talk 21:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Popper-chopping

message: OtisDixon, FrancisGrant, Barthlomuelchance and LokiMbili. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppets of Allenroyboy who have edited this article 

message: It's long been on my TODO list and I tried to improve the article today, please review.  Among changes, the "Author" section was removed since it was unsourced and contained implausible claims.  The critical reviews ("Criticism" section) was merged with the others in "Reception".  One Reason magazine external link was dropped as it only had a mention of the book.  Some formulations were also changed in order to avoid suggesting that evolution is "the theory of evolution of Darwin", which while partly correct, is usually worded this way to suggest that evolution is a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory and that it's the ideas of one man, despite all the discoveries and evidence.  While I'm aware of WP:HONORIFICS, I have left "law professor" since it seems important to mention that it is not the work of a biologist.  Two potential issues that I have not addressed: there are currently two links to creation science because two different expressions are used (i.e. "scientific creationism").  The "Reviews" section is actually an external links collection, but should probably be formatted with templates (I could do that as a next step when I have the time).  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2018 improvements