Talk:Darwin's Black Box

message: This is quite possibly the worst encyclopedia article I've ever read.  Can we say "bias"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.245.154 (talk • contribs) 23:12, May 21, 2007
This article is yet another proof of how Wikipedia is not even comparable to a dollar-store encyclopedia. I'm no creationist or intelligent design-ist, and I am not a proponent of getting rid of teaching evolutionary theory in schools or any of that. I read this man's book out of a curiosity of what he had to say about evolution on a molecular level. In the very first chapter Behe states, "Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism ... Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it ... I think evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world." Behe guy was not out to start a creationism movement or to make Americans dumber, and yet this page treats him as the most disreputable quack of all history. What a joke.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.171.93 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous

message: Eek, no hint of the fact that it is utter nonsense?  I'll try to sort it out later... Dunc|☺ 17:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: :Image:Darwinsblackbox.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 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

message: I just finished reading this book and wanted to see if I got the same main points out of it as noted in Wikipedia. I've rarely read a worse summary of a book. 
Behe is a biochemist who writes in great detail about complex biochemical processes. He asks, quite reasonably, what biochemical processes are proposed as evolutionary precursors to the processes he describes. Evolutionary theory proposes that currently known complex organic processes are derived from prior simpler processes through incremental improvements, and that each step in the increasing complexity provides a survival advantage to the organism. In the biochemical processes that he discusses, he points out that there is no scientific evidence for advantageous incremental improvements that would begin with a simple effective process and flow though to the current complex process with each step being an improvement AND a workable biochemical process.  Darwin's theory of evolution predates biochemistry.  Behe supports the theory of intelligent design because those who support evolutionary theory have provided no biochemical evidence that the current complex processes could be step-by-step evolved from simpler biochemical processes. Darwin's theory of evolution is based on incremental changes that improve the chances of organism survival. Behe is asking for scientific evidence for incremental biochemical steps from simple to complex biochemical processes.
This article just attacks Behe like he's a nut-case. Has anyone who's written here read his book? Editors here have obviously read what others say about his book, but have you read the book itself?  A lot of the commentary here on the book is based on misreading the book or making it a political or cultural issue.  Behe is a scientist, and he's asking those who support evolutionary theory to provide reasonable biochemical precursor processes to existing complex biochemical processes. Behe is not opposed to evolutionary theory, but he's pointing out that this theory -- created before cellular structure and biochemistry were investigated -- might not withstand the test of current knowledge.
I don't know Behe, but I'm an advocate of good science. What I see here in this article is political mudslinging. 
Those who support evolutionary theory should be concentrating on researching and publishing incremental biochemical pathways to current biochemical complexity, not trying to shout Behe down. Wikipedia and the scientific community are looking like total fools in this article. 
Sorry to be so negative, but this article was a great disappointment after reading the book.  --65.78.212.239 03:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 release of book with new afterward by Behe 

message: Re-write is done, sorry for it taking all day.  Whew, this is exhausting.  I've shortened the summary of the book itself, tried to summarize rather than quote reviews, integrated the ELs, added a see also section, and God knows what else.  Feedback welcome.  WLU 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone can find positive reviews of the book in reliable sources, well, it doesn't have any.  WLU 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write done 

message: That the author opening the article is in sympathy with the evolutionary cause is most apparent. Clearly unable to balance the information in a way needed to be a true article. 
Note, just the use of the word "notion" instead of "concept" shows bias. The word "notion" implies the idea is merely whimsical personal inclination of Mr. Behe. The concept of ID set off a firestorm so I would say ID is hardly merely a "notion."
Lets just state WHAT THE BOOK IS! Keep the arguments for/against whatever you are for out of the article. Wikipedia isn't a place for a debate or propaganda on ID. We should be able agree on that. Alright? 
MY SUGGESTION IS TO OPEN THE ARTICLE LIKE THIS AND ELIMINATE THE REST OF THE OPENING PARAGRAPHS:
"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996, first edition; 2006, second edition) is a book written by biochemist Michael J. Behe and published by Free Press. The book introduces the concept of Irreducible Complexity. Mr. Behe proposes that Charles Darwin's theory of life's evolution via natural selection and random mutation cannot account for the origin of complex biomolecular systems."
To open with all the controversy surrounding the book only serves to make the article a debating talking point, apparently for those that are against the book. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. I think we can agree on that.
This article on Darwin's Black Box is not neutral at all, it is Behe Rebuttal Page.  Ex. : In the links you present almost all are anti-Behe, mean that the writer of the article deliberatelly refused to read any pro-Behe text
Rodall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 01:48, September 20, 2008
:The purpose of the page is not to give a summary of Behe's book, it is to demonstrate what the book is and its impact on the real world, and in keeping with the opinions and perception within the mainstream scholarly community.  The mainstream scholarly community's opinion is that Behe's work is terrible, fundamentally flawed, another piece of valueless axe-grinding creationist rhetoric, and does not contribute substantially to the scientific advancement of our understanding of biology, as well as being an attempt to provide a veneer of scientific respectability to a completely baseless, scientifically unrespectable and religiously-motivated topic.  It would be undue weight to present the idea that Behe's books had any respect or was taken seriously by any serious biologist.  The page should reflect the arguments for and against the book so long as they are documented in reliable sources.  Uncritical views of the book should be placed on conservapedia or a creationist wiki, which panders to the blinkered, uninformed and science-fearing creationist crowd.  Here, we must reflect just how badly the book has performed in actual scientific circles.  Also note that we do not write "true" articles, we write verifiable, neutral ones.  The page should be a Behe rebuttal page since that is how it is perceived in the mainstream.  WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WOW talk about a biased article!

message: The critique from Richard Dawkins needs to be redone. The NYT article that is referenced focuses on Behe's later work, not D's BB. Further, the chronology is off. D's BB was published *before* the Kitzmiller trial, while the wording of this paragraph seems to assume that it was published after. Besides--I'm sure someoone can find something legit that Dawkins has said directly about D's BB. I seem to recall that he made mention of it in his The God Delusion. (I'd check myself, but I read a library copy and don't actually have one handy.)
Aasmith (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Dawkins is talking about DBB at that point in the NYT article.  Guettarda (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawkins Critique

message: This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a biased critique.  If you're going to go on and on and on with all of the detractors and people who disagree with Michael Behe's book, then to be fair, how about providing a little balance by discussing all the acclaim for his work?  Just because certain scientists acknowledge intelligent design does not mean that they're not reputable or not reliable sources of validation for a scholarly work.  Mr. Behe did a formidable job, one that can't be pooh-poohed as ignorant clap-trap.  His work at least deserves a balanced hearing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddserveto (talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How About The Rest Of The Story 

message: A few points:
*Outside its target audience of American conservatives, the National Review is hardly "prominent" (in fact I would doubt if many outside the US have even heard of it).
*The NR's criteria would appear to be ideological rather than scientific -- making it a fairly irrelevant endorsement for a book purporting to make scientific claims.
*DBB was chosen by a panel including DI co-founder George Gilder.
*The DBB entry (at only #92) includes this absurd endorsement from Gilder: "Overthrows Darwin at the end of the 20th century in the same way that quantum theory overthrew Newton at the beginning." Amusing that creationists are still obsessing over Darwin himself, over a century after his death -- rather than focusing on the modern science of evolutionary biology which, despite repeated creationist obituaries, goes from strength to strength in the scientific community.
So what does all this add up to? That the DI has influence in American conservative circles -- hardly news. And to state the NR's endorsement without mentioning (i) the NR's ideological bent & (ii) Gilder's involvement in its selection, is an inaccurate representation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the introductory paragraphs of the NR make it clear that Hrafn's claim no. 3 and 4 have no basis. Claim no. 1 is purely subjective and lacks substantiation. Claim no. 2 is invalid, too, since DBB is aimed at the general reader. Northfox (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  here is a quote from the NR article, in reference to Hrafn's claim 2 and 3: But-certainly beyond, say, the first 40 books-the fact of the books' presence on the list is far more important than their rankings. We offer a comment from a panelist after many of the books; but the panel overall, not the individual quoted, is responsible for the ranking.Northfox (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Review ' Non-Fiction 100' 

message: I added a short sentence that DBB was included in a Top 100 list of books by the National Review. My addition was reverted two times by user:Hrafn, who finally tagged it. The NR is a notable source and the selection criteria for the inclusion of DBB in the list are made clear on the NR website. See here </ref>. So, the information should stay in the article. Northfox (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A clarification of what I said above, after reading the comments below by Arxiloxos and JoshuaZ. I actually do not much disagree with them. My objection would be to having the mention without the kind of context to which JoshuaZ refers. But as I said, it would be reasonable to include the information, so long as it is specifically in the context of the book's reception in conservative circles. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *Suggestion How about moving the sentence out of the overview section, where it is now, and placing it at the end of the reception section that follows? What I mean is to put it just after what is now the last sentence of that section ("Behe has responded to some of these criticisms.[11]"), and say something like: "In contrast to the response of the scientific community, the book has been well-received in some conservative circles. For example, [then the disputed text]." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this may be a good proposal. In any event, I think it needs to be clear what the top 100 inclusion signifies. It signifies popularity amongst US conservatives. As long as that context is given, then I don't see any problem. --FormerIP (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Support suggestion basically the book is in the top 100 most popular amongst people who generally support its content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I support Tryptofish's suggestion.  I agree that if the fact is included, it must be within the context of its reception in conservative circles.  Its placement within the "reception" section also helps. I don't think I've ever edited this article, but I edited Uncommon Dissent for a couple of weeks a couple of years ago. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Hrafn's comment above, if a Discovery Institute member was on the selection committee for choosing those 100 books, that needs to be mentioned.  The presence of a member of the Discovery Institute on the panel certainly skews the selection considerably and looks like a large conflict of interest to me.  The summary should also avoid presenting it as part of a trend - one conservative publication, with one highly biased member on the selection board, said good things about it.  That's as far as I'd go (and edited accordingly).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of National Review ranking 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Darwin's Black Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100304170456/http://old.nationalreview.com:80/100best/100_books.html to http://old.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630185235/http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html to http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509084837/http://pharyngula.org:80/index/weblog/comments/behe_pwnage/ to http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/behe_pwnage/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Darwin's Black Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050116082211/http://www.simonsays.com:80/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=407734 to http://www.simonsays.com/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=407734
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041022082811/http://www.cbs.dtu.dk:80/staff/dave/Behe.html to http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified