Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)/Archive 1

message: He's a biologist. He has a Ph.D. in Cell and Molecular Biology from a prestigious university and he has published papers. Also, he debates biologists about the naturalist history of life.
Why do people try to present him as a person who is ideologically motivated?
: The presence of a Ph.D. does not make one a biologist, nor does having two papers. Period. As for the ideological motivation, the relevant quote is right in the article "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." JoshuaZ 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to your first comment- absolutely not. There is no reason to compromise on facts here, Wells is not a biologist. Note in contrast by the way that Duesberg has a multitude of biology papers (not just two) and actually has taught a variety of bio related courses. Disagreement with their views is not the issue. Productivity as a biologist is. JoshuaZ 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In his most recent book he had no problem identifying with "traditional Christianity" in any event the basic point that he is an apologist not a biologist is accurate. JoshuaZ 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * Wells has a legitimate biology degree.  In my book, that makes his a biologist, no matter his religious beliefs. Is there some other definition we should be using instead? I understand where the objection is coming from, but saying that he's not really a biologist because he's an ID proponent is NPOV. Is the Surgeon General not a doctor because he doesn't see patients anymore? eaolson 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I tried to explain earlier the reason he isn't a biologist isn't because of his religious beliefs. He isn't a biologist because all he has are two minors papers to his credit and his Ph.D. That doesn't make him a biologist. JoshuaZ 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a person is trained as a biologist, then it seems to me he is a biologist even if he has never written anything. An M.D. is a medical doctor even if he never does research, writes or practices medicine in any form. That is his training and part of an accurate description. Doc ♬ talk 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not exactly. For an MD it would not be accurate to just say that such a person is a doctor. A lack of any medical work would be an important point. And unlike in medicine, in math or the sciences one can be in that category without an end level degree in that area (an example would be the mathematician Andrew Casson who does not have Ph.D. (hmm, we really should have an article on him. I'm surprised we don't but a google search should give you the idea). In these areas what you are doing determines what you are, not what degrees you have (and you will note this is for instance consistent with the defintion given at biologist and other articles for types of scientists). JoshuaZ 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biologist?

message: After checking out some of the links the facts given in the article seem to me to be pretty accurate.  However I think it would be a much more effective article if its tone was a little more neutral.  But that's just my opinion.  Wishing you well.  Steve Dufour 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral point of view

message: I removed this:
:Wells dropped out of his undergraduate geology course. In 1964 Wells was conscripted into the US Army and served for two years. In 1967 he was recalled as a reservist, but refused, was court-marshalled and jailed for a year and a half[7].
No citation was given for his dropping out of the geology class, if there is put it back in.  A link to a NYT story was given for the information on his army record, however both Johathan and Wells are common names so there is no evidence given that these are the same person.  Again if there is evidence put it back in the article if you like.  Was he protesting against the Viet Nam war or what?   Steve Dufour 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and mentioned that 1967 was during the time of the Vietnam war.  Some of the younger readers might not know that, or it might not come to mind.  I have no way to know if he was protesting the war or was afraid to go over there or if he had some other reason altogether for refusing active service.  Still I don't think there should be a problem with mentioning the fact that the war was going on.  It might even make the article a little more interesting.  Steve Dufour 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more uncited info

message: I added this to the section on "Background":
:Some time after this he joined the Unification Church, founded by Sun Myung Moon.... He has written extensively on Unification theology, and since 1981 has taught from time to time at the Unification Theological Seminary.
I honestly don't see what the problem with this is that caused someone to remove it.  Steve Dufour 04:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections I'll try putting it back.Steve Dufour 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah. I don't see what's wrong with that either. No idea why it was removed. JoshuaZ 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I put it back in 2 days ago.  •Jim62sch• 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and put it back again.  I would think that the information on his church membership and activities would support the main theme of the article which, it seems to me, is that he is a religious crusader pretending to be a scientist.  Steve Dufour 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I don't see a theme to the article, but if there is one, that might be a cause for concern. On the other hand, it may be that a neutral presentation of the facts leads you to conclude that. JoshuaZ 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "central idea" be better than "theme"?  Steve Dufour 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: my additions removed

message: I'm sure he was not born in 1956 if he was drafted into the army in 1964.  My guess would be that he was born in 1946 and someone got one number wrong when they repeated it.  Steve Dufour 19:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the NYT says he was 25 in 1968.  That would make him born in 1942 0r 1943.  I have added this to the article. Steve Dufour 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: I was just visiting the article on Luther Burbank, who also worked in the field of biology and was certainly more important than Dr. Wells (although he didn't have a PhD. :)).  They have about the same size WP article.  Steve Dufour 03:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luther Burbank certainly had a tremendous impact on science, but only a minimal impact on social and political dialogue. Wells hass had a far greater impact on the social and religious dialog. Justin Eiler 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure he would be glad to hear you say that.  :-)  On the other hand Burbank's development of the Russet Burbank potato did have a certain social impact.  Steve Dufour 04:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "social and political dialogue." The reason for Wells to have a proportionately larger article than his actual contribution to science is because his arguements are frequently quoted and cited in support of Intelligent Design, which is a very hot topic right now politically. HTH. Justin Eiler 04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize he was so important.  Steve Dufour 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He shakes a pretty big stick in the Creationist/Intelligent Design communities. Justin Eiler 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Wells is not that important, but he has more enemies, and they cannot resist attacking him. Roger 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, they would be much more effective if they took a bit of the conspiracy gonzo jargon out of the article. I don't expect this to happen however.  :-)  BTW Burbank had some critics too.  Steve Dufour 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it won't happen. They are on an ideological mission to badmouth anyone who criticizes Evolution. Roger 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least Darwinists, unlike Marxists, don't shoot people. :-)  Steve Dufour 14:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A reminder of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL would go around. Now if you have any substantial problems, instead of making ad hominem attacks why don't you explain what "conspiracy" elements are in the article that are not well sourced to reliable sources. JoshuaZ 01:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is very well sourced. Steve Dufour 06:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so...JoshuaZ 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way the article could be improved is to cut out the opinions and just give the basic facts about Wells. Steve Dufour 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, how are well-sourced notable opinions not relevant? How would this be an improvement? JoshuaZ 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you like you can check out Luther Burbank's article again.  It gives the basic facts of his life and work, and mentions the criticism he received in just one short paragraph.  It makes for an interesting article to read. Steve Dufour 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relative importance of subject?

message: The following statements of some of Wells' key positions were deleted from the article. The only rationale given was that they were "pointless." I think they should be reintegrated into the article:
* "Empirical science requires theories, somehow and at some point, to be compared with evidence. Prudence will dictate that theories long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of exaggerations and distortions evinces a desire to promote an idea regardless of the evidence, then it is our right, it is our duty, to criticize that idea as a philosophical doctrine rather than a scientific theory."
* "All the peppered moth pictures were staged ... Scientists have known since the 1980s that the moths do not normally rest on tree trunks." 
* "As a graduate student at Yale, I studied the whole of Christian theology but focused my attention on the Darwinian controversies. I wanted to get to the root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine. In the course of my research I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th-century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design." (ibid)
-Exucmember 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still some more pointless stuff that should be removed. What is the point of the comments on HIV/AIDS and the age of the Earth? Roger 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the discussion of the cover picture of one of his books, and that was put in by a supporter I think. :-)  Steve Dufour 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm missing something here. The grad student comment, the icons quote seem relevant. Of course the HIV stuff and the age of the earth stuff is relevant. I don't see the cover picture matter or his quote about what he thinks theories should cover are relevant. JoshuaZ 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put the grad student comment back in the article then. Steve Dufour 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The specific points Wells makes against evolution can go in the Icons of Evolution article. They don't all need to be rehashed here. I favor the principle of once and only once, since I'm a software engineer and I don't like maintaining redundant material (it makes extra work). --Uncle Ed 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like me to take a stab at removing the stuff in the article which is not about Jonathan himself? Steve Dufour 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted statements of Wells' positions

message: The New York Times article which is cited about his army record says he was 25 years old in 1968.  That would make him born in 1942 or 1943.  If the person in the article is the same Jonathan Wells. Steve Dufour 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the whole army thing was removed.  I thought it added some human interest to the story. Steve Dufour 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of Birth

message: Should we include Wells claims about the nature of cancer discussed here? JoshuaZ 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about cancer 

message: That kind of thing, a job or position in an organization, is not notable enough for WP.  It can be mentioned in the article but if it is given in the first sentence as a reason he is notable then maybe he is not and the article should be deleted. Steve Dufour 06:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a fellow of the DI almost makes you notable by itself. Fellows of the DI are at the center of the ID movement and Well's presence as one of the mainstays of the ID movement has been precisely as one of the people at the helm of the DI. Almost any article about him his association with the DI for precisely those reasons.  JoshuaZ 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the article should be about the DI itself if Wells is only notable for his role in it.  I think that would be WP policy. Steve Dufour 07:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I was misunderstood.  I think the information should be included in the article, just not in the first sentence. Steve Dufour 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wells is notable as ID activist.  His other achievements (jailed for refusing to go back to Vietnam, getting a PhD, his work at the Unificationist seminary), while noteworthy, do not constitute notability.  The DI is the force behind ID.  All of the major proponents of ID are associated with the DI.  Regardless of the causal relationship, his association with the DI is a key component of this ID activism, which is the reason he is notable.  So yes, it definitely belongs there.  Guettarda 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article on the Discovery Institute.  Steve Dufour 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...there are also articles on Bohemian Grove and Area 51. (just kidding)  :-)  Steve Dufour 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Being a fellow is not notable

message: The New York Times story which is referenced dates from 1968 and is about a man who was 25 at that time, 64 today.  Is there any reason to think this is the same Jonathan Wells?  If there is evidence for this please put the paragraph back.  It does add a little human interest to the article, as I said.  Steve Dufour 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wells told me he spent time in the brig for draft evasion, when I first met him two dozen years ago. Like me, he's a bit of a rebel. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a link from Wells himself: http://www.darwinismandid.com/then/index.php Guettarda 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That is a great source and clears up some other points in the article.  Steve Dufour 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Army record removed

message: *
This is one of the external links.  It doesn't seem to me to be a very reliable source of information.  A few weeks ago I e-mailed them to tell them that they have Jonathan's birth date wrong.  He couldn't have been born in 1956 if he was drafted into the Army in 1964.  The wrong date is still in their article. Steve Dufour 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be removed from this article then.  It doesn't give any additional information anyway. Steve Dufour 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the NNDB

message: So what's the real problem with having a link to the Notable Names Database in the External Links section? This common at Wikipedia, and NNDB not being offered as a reliable source supporting article content, so the justification for deleting it  is specious. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be high quality.  I already mentioned how they are saying he was born in 1956 when he was drafted into the army in 1964.  How can we trust anything it says? Steve Dufour 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Names Database 

message: A shot of the cover of Wells's book has been added to the article.  Do we still need to explain the picture in the article?  Steve Dufour 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try taking it out.  If anyone thinks it should be in the article please put it back. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the book cover is fair use, it's far easier to justify its use if we describe the cover (as opposed to just the book).  Removing the description is a bad idea.  Guettarda 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem then.  I was not aware of that issue at all. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need to explain the title of the book?

message: Here is a simple overview of common US positions:
2004 Gallup Poll on human origins
Evolution: <BR>Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life...	Evolution: <BR>Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life...	"Creationism"
... but God had no part in this process                                                              	... but God guided this process                                                                      	God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so
"Darwinism"                                                                                          	Creationism                                                                                          	Creationism
Some say that:
The majority of Americans believe in evolution
Supporters of Evolution	"Creationists"
51%                    	45%
Others say that:
Americans overwhelmingly reject evolution
"Evolution"	Creationism                  	Creationism
13%        	Progressive creationism (38%)	Young-Earth creationism (45%)
Each side claims the entirety of the "middle ground", based probably on different intrepretations of "Theistic evolution". --Uncle Ed 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But due weight should probably go to those trained in the relevant subjects. So with respect to evolutions, biology and geology this skews the numbers remarkably. Of course some may consider the scientists brainwashed rather than knowledgable. David D. (Talk) 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think hes noting that creationists in the USA are at least 45% and thus should be heard. David D. (Talk) 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence my point about due weight above. David D. (Talk) 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, his point is likely that "progressive Creationism" (a bullshit term if I ever heard one) is claimed by some to be evolution.  Maybe?  Weird point that defies logic, but.... •Jim62sch• 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, i just discovered we have an article on progressive creationism too. And to suggest it is rejection of evolution is a bit strange.  It is not evolution that is being rejected, it is the creation of Kinds that is being rejected, along with a literal interpretation of the bible. This is disputed? David D. (Talk) 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's an old concept with a new name that should be taken out and shot; and yes, it is anti-evolution.  To say that it is not is akin to saying that ID, phrenology, astrology and alchemy are science. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Glad my tables could shed some light for you, David. :-) --Uncle Ed 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A version of Pascals wager? David D. (Talk) 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about providing a source for what you Steve Dufour, Exucmember keeping claiming, that the Unification Church does not oppose evolution? The one you provided earlier says just the opposite and Exucmember said it's 'laughable - one single unnamed Japanese member claiming guidance from a church philosophy writer. Not RS and should be deleted immediately.' 151.151.21.99 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I recognize that this discussion goes beyond Wells and into the realm of the broader issues attending to Wells's stated views.  Insofar as there are at least a couple of folks reading this who appear to subscribe to some form of progressive creationism or theistic evolution (as opposed to a basically deistic view), I can't help but wonder what the 38% of Americans subscribing to the view of progressive creationism would speculate God actually does?  Does God, according to the progressive creationist, (A) decide the manner in which random mutations occur every step of the way? or is it (B) just an occasional tweaking so the appearance of randomness remains? If (B), is this designed to test one's faith in the scriptures? (choose one: yes/no/neither-yes-or-no/both-yes-and-no). Or, does God (C) only get involved in deciding when speciation will occur among more complex organisms which develop in keeping with punctuated equilibrium? Does God, according to the progressive creationist, (D) merely decide when the planetary and climatic stressors leading to punctuations in the equilibrium will occur, or (E) actually make the decisions about how species are specifically directed to genetically adapt? [If E, is it (E1) a "hands on" decision or (E2) merely advice? (If yes to E, choose one: E1/E2/neither/both)]. Or, is there (F) some intermediary miracle involved, as in "poof", voila, a sudden new reality that can never be traced, as in "what just happened"? or is it a (G) more subtle directivity that appears to involve natural selection, but is actually something else? Does God (H) also make the decisions about specifically what interspecies conflicts will contribute to punctuations in the equilibrium of the more complex species?  (I) Fill in a brief additional answer _________________________________.  (Choose one or more of the above, or none of the above.., Note:this set of questions is of course far less than exhaustive.  But, a quick reminder, if one is among the aforementioned 38%: it appears to have taken some 3-4 million years to get from Lucy (Australopithecus) to now, and some 4,000,000,000 years to get from the first microbe to here; while humans have only been seriously investigating and tracking these developments for about 150-200 years to date, which is less than 1/20-millionth of the total time elapsed since life, according to currently accepted theory, began on Earth.) ... Kenosis 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I would suggest that this isn't really an appropriate forum for such a discussion. eaolson 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as to this whole talk section. ... Kenosis 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saying "opposed to evolution" is just too ambiguous to be useful. There is a range of views that people have. The article on Wells should stick to Wells's prominent views, and leave the views of others to other articles. Roger 10:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but no.  Wikipedia is not a free host for public relations departments, including that of individuals such as Mr. Wells.  Mr. Wells is notable because he makes his way by opposing certain major trends, most notably because of his direct involvement in the intelligent design movement.  Thus the discussion of others' response to Mr. Wells's response to their positions is quite central to this article.  With that said, arguments about precisely how the WP editors will do this appear to constitute a very reasonable discussion. ... Kenosis 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:DENSE. •Jim62sch• 14:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some tables

message: Wells is only noteworthy because of his controversial ideas and activities, period.  He is by definition a controversial figure so writing about him poses many challenges.  If a couple of people here feel there is too much criticism in the article, then go ahead and make some non-critical imrpovements instead of adding bogus re-write tags and such.  And keep in mind Wells claim to fame is his dishonest portrayal of biology, specifically evolution.  
Keep in mind there are two types of sources who write about Wells, those who perpetuate his deception and lies (the Discovery Institute comes to mind) and those who are critical of his underhanded and misleading tactics.  One of those groups is far more honest and relaible than the other.  That makes using sources somewhat of a challenge regardless of how you feel about the guy.  Obviously Wells is not bothered by people pointing out how profoundly dishonest he is, otherwise he's stop making a living from lying to people. But, as I mentioned previously, simply add some neutral stuff to the article if you feel there is too much criticism and spare us the tagging.  Mr Christopher 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we make the article really brief: "Wells is a disingenuous charlatan who portays himself as a scientist and is loved by the bible-thumping crowd and members of alternate religions".  Both sides, neat, short (per Steve's request).  •Jim62sch• 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's too brief.  It just seems to me to be an obvious solution, if you feel there is too much criticism in the article then add some non-critical substance to it.  Mr Christopher 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, I would like to know where he was born and something about his family. Steve Dufour 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then research it and add it, Steve. Mr Christopher 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or:  "Jonathan Wells is an author who says that his life's purpose is to destory Darwinism.  His most well-known book is Icons of Evolution, published in 2000."  :-)  Steve Dufour 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: claims of too much criticism

message: Do any of the editors who insist on tagging the article care to explain their position?  The tag says "see talk page", but I don't see anything on talk.  Since they refuse to address their gripes, this is just specious.  Guettarda 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't tag it, but I agree with the tag. The article is very unbalanced. Almost every paragraph is written from the perspective of his critics. There are plenty of comments here explaining the unfairness of the criticism. Roger 10:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you agree -- one of your icons is not being granted the hagiographic treatment you desire.  Fact is the article is well sourced and rather than bitch find other sources, add more info.  But no, that would be work and it is easier to bitch. •Jim62sch• 14:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since by "critics" you mean the scientific community, the amount of real estate in the article given over to their views appears entirely appropriate considering that they view ID as pseudoscience and Wells' opinions are a notable set of ID arguments and policy, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Given that, it appears to me that the scientific community's view's here are actually under-represented and need expanding, something I'll be working on. FeloniousMonk 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. The article is exceptionally well-sourced as it is. Since the content present is accurate, further ojections are more likely to result in more sources being added rather than article content being removed, which appears to be the goal of a particular group here. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced

message: Everyone, can we tone down the acrimony a bit? It seems that the edits and discussion on this article are becoming more and more heated every day. There are accusations of vandalism over obviously good-faith edits, and accusations of personal attacks where it doesn't seem warranted. See Wikipedia:Civility. eaolson 14:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will keep your advice in mind. Steve Dufour 16:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A call for civility

message: I wonder if the average reader would be able to understand much of what is talked about in these two sections:
:Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving
:In a 2004 paper in the intelligent design journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, Wells proposed his "Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving" (TOPS), which was intended to provide a mechanism by which intelligent design "could lead to new hypotheses and scientific discoveries".  The idea is based on two fundamental assumptions, that "Darwinian evolution" is false, and that intelligent design is true.  Rather than seeking experimental verification for intelligent design, TOPS "explore[s] what happens when ID rather than evolutionary theory is used as a framework to ask research questions".  
:In the paper, Wells sought to apply this to cancer and centrioles.  Wells stated that "cancer is not correlated with any consistent pattern of DNA mutations, but it is correlated with abnormalities at the chromosomal level -- a phenomenon called "chromosomal instability", and that many researchers see cancer as a "centrosomal disease" rather than a DNA disease.  This led him to centrioles.  Since centrioles look like turbines under electron microscopy, Wells used the TOPS metholody to conclude that "if centrioles look like turbines they might actually be turbines".
:In response to Wells's assertion that cancer was a disease of chromosomal instability and not genes, Ian Musgrave, writing in the The Panda's Thumb replied that "this knowledge seems to have eluded most researchers in the field" and pointed out that where chromosomal translocations underlying cancer, "chromosomal instability can be traced to a mutation in a single gene".
:Centrioles
:Using the TOPS methodology, which assumes that intelligent design is true and "Darwinian evolution" is false, Wells revisited the issue of centrioles in a 2005 paper entitled "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?" in Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum."Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?"  Wells's paper "assumes that [centrioles] are holistically designed to be turbines", and goes on to develop a hypothesis of how they work.Wells vs tiny flies Ian Musgrave. The Pandas Thumb, August 9, 2006. The Discovery Institute lists this paper as a "featured article" on their list of "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design." Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) by the Discovery Institute This has been challenged by History and Philosophy of Science professor John M. Lynch, who points out that Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum is edited by Italian creationist Giuseppe Sermonti and largley publishes only research outside the general scientific consensus. Lynch said of Rivista: "While there may be interesting ideas here, there is no indication that they represent mainstream thought in biology. And while this might be an 'internationally respected biology journal' within certain (anti-Darwinian) communities, it cannot be considered so among the majority." and "the influence of Rivista, we see that - as one would expect from the above - the journal is of negligible importance at best ... in the case of Rivista could not reasonable be called 'internationally respected'."Revisiting Revista Dr. John Lynch. Stranger Fruit, June 2, 2005. The Discovery Institute's statement that Wells's paper is a peer reviewed article published in scientific journal runs counter to the testimony of intelligent design proponent Michael Behe in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the judge's findings and ruling. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science
 Steve Dufour 17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In keeping with what Steve Dufour appears to be saying here, the WP article on Wells already reduces such issues to a simple and understandable approach of pointing out the standing of Wells's views in the larger community of biologists and the scientific community in general.  Dr._Lynch's commentary (also_cached_here) is a reliable source and appears relevant insofar as Wells's notability is directly connected to his involvement in intelligent design.  But I agree the article need not go this far.  To the extent that the WP article on Wells continues to be controversial as to its content, it may yet be appropriate in the future to be more specific in verifying the statements the WP article makes.  Those statements in the WP article on Wells currently include several specific observations about Wells advocating directly against certain scientific consensus positions.  If they need to be verified, it would be a reasonable approach, in keeping with WP policy, to put such things as the statements of Dr. Lynch and other relevant material into footnotes verifying statements the article makes. Indeed, it would not in my opinion be irrelevant to have a brief section on Wells's involvement in the intelligent design peer review controversy. And, in keeping with WP's continuing growth, if such a section were to get too long, an article such as Wells peer review controversy might even be appropriate, and can be interlinked with the Sternberg peer review controversy and other relevant articles.  As Steve Dufour points out above, it's readily verifiable. ... Kenosis 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting that you only propose to remove content that shows Wells' views being rejected by the scientific community. What you seek to do is remove a significant view of the majority viewpoint. Doing flies in the face of the "article(s) should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." clause of WP:NPOV. Given that the scientific community's views are being given short shrift here, I'd suggest we cut some of the fluff around his background, which reads weasely right now. FeloniousMonk 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make much difference since almost no one would have any interest in reading the article as it is. Steve Dufour 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can improve the readability of these sections, by all means do so.  I don't see how there's too much detail here though.  As for the book cover - that "silly digression" is a requirement for fair use.  Guettarda 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to give that a try.  However I am afraid that any changes I make will be quickly reverted.  Steve Dufour 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In 2004 and 2005 Wells published two papers in which he looked at centrioles from the point of view of Intelligent Design.  These papers have been rejected by the scientific community.
The papers are listed down the page. Steve Dufour 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  We're talking about readability, not deletion of content.  How does this possibly benefit the reader?  Guettarda 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or am I missing a joke here?  Guettarda 19:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the two sentences give the basic facts about the papers.  If people are interested they can check out the links for further reading. Steve Dufour 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presupposing readers will go and seek out relavant information defeats the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. "Interested readers" will be given the relavant information right here. Raul654 20:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give people some basic information on a subject and make them want to learn more. Steve Dufour 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that standard, why do we need anything more than the lead and a link to google.  Guettarda 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to tell them a little to get them interested. :-)  Steve Dufour 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if Steve is saying that "our readers is as dumb 's a can o' paint", or if he thinks an encyclopaedia bio should read like the average blurb on a dust jacket of a pulp novel, but either way his statements are disconcerting.  Our aim should be for more detail, not less.  •Jim62sch• 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are very few people interested in reading about centrioles and polar forces. I don't think that makes them dumb as cans of paint however. :-) Steve Dufour 06:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much detail?

message: Care to explain this change?  What's the point of this?  Guettarda 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is very hard to read because it keeps going off on side tracks.  One of these is the discription of the book cover picture.  That could not be removed unless the picture itself was removed.  The picture can be seen on the book's article if anyone is interested. Steve Dufour 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh no.  •Jim62sch• 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is: Icons of Evolution.  In fact it shows up bigger on this page. Steve Dufour 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ?  I don't think anyone was disputing its existence, but rather your reasoning. •Jim62sch• 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought your "Uh no" was in response to my, "The picture can be seen on the book's article if anyone is interested." :-)  Steve Dufour 21:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of picture & discussion 

message: Any man who says that his life's purpose is to destroy Darwinism is bound to attract heaps of critcism. Wells has flung his hat into the ring. We cannot reach into the ring for him and take it out, now that it's being trampled upon, merely because we share(d) his religion. 
I prospose that Steve, ExUC and I back off on this point, let the (well-sourced) criticisms pile up, and stop trying to remove or challenge them. If there's something "positive" about him that's worthy of inclusion, we can always put that in for balance.
Agree:
*Uncle Ed
*Steve Dufour 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Interesting, when called on it, Roger removes the word libelous .  Hmmm.  One wonders how many things in an unmoderated forum like a blog Roger might say that are less than factual, or how many things here he might be inclined to change here if taken to task. •Jim62sch• 01:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Wow, I didn't know you had a law degree.  Get off it, Roger, save your words of unwisdom for the Buzzites.  By the way, calling a liar a liar is not libelous -- see the infamous Oscar Wilde sodomy case...yes, different country, but still applicable. •Jim62sch• 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't think the libel issue amounts to much.  Wells is a public figure and there is almost no chance that he will sue anyone for criticizing him. Steve Dufour 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What libel?  Criticism ≠ libel. •Jim62sch• 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Truce

message: After a few go-arounds on editing disputes, tempers can get strained.  Please be aware of the option to ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process. -- Ben 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I would like to see the article be about Wells himself. Steve Dufour 14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If anyone asks for an outside opinion, then I suggest also offering Steve's alternative: User:Steve Dufour/sandbox Roger 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That version ignores the reception of Wells's ideas by the scientific community as a whole, it will never make it past the NPOV sniff-test. 151.151.21.101 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking that the facts that 20 years ago Jonathan dedicated his life to destroying evolution and that evolution is still here kind of speak for themselves. :-)  Steve Dufour 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: Not directly relevant to Wells but definitely of interest to anyone editing this article.
:Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules By CORNELIA DEAN Published: February 12, 2007 in the New York Times.
It wrestles head on with the question of creationists working towards a secular degree that contradicts their religious views. David D. (Talk) 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That is an interesting article. Steve Dufour 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If Wells's personal views presented a problem to those profs giving him a PhD, I suspect that his greater problem was with the theology profs at Yale. I doubt that the dept. has any Moon followers. Roger 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought both sides had valid concerns. Steve Dufour 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A tangent

message: Regarding, this anon's reversion of my edit. Do people think the information should be there? My reasons for taking it out are I think well summarized in my edit summary. JoshuaZ 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty irrelevant to me. i support the removal. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that it serves any purpose. •Jim62sch• 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, this a) amounts to OR and b) is a weak argument. Random House publishes both science books and psuedoscience for example. Unless some notable independent sources has brought up the matter of the publisher as evidence it should stay out. JoshuaZ 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, not every bit of possible sourced info should go in or is relevant. In fact, even Brauer and Forrest only note the matter as a parenthetical. That doesn't mean we need to add conspiratorial notes here. JoshuaZ 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went and read the cite again and found myself even more interested in the AIDS denial folks.  Wells, er, Dr Wells promotes himself as a biologist I believe and the DI portrays him as someone with lofty scientific credentials who practically walks on water, so I think the fact he has what may be a minor part in the AIDS denial movement is well worth mentioning.  We might argue over how best to present it but I think it's very relevant, yet not as significant as his ID activities.  Mr Christopher 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree. Unless the article is asserting some significance to the shared publisher, it shouldn't be here. As it is, the article seems to be implying some sort of guilt by association, without actually coming out and saying it. eaolson 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read my own comments and realized I wasn't clear, the part about the publisher seems out of place and conspiratorial.  Wells' role in the AIDS denial is what I was giving significance to with my comments above. No doubt Wells runs with and/or associates with lots of crack pots but I think we should avoid any conspiracy assertions.  Mr Christopher 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Christopher well summarizes what appears to be a developing consensus that the fact that Wells's publisher also published a book on aids reappraisal is not sufficiently relevant to merit inclusion in the article. I'm going to revert back to JoshuaZ's last version. ... Kenosis 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, the material that should not be in this article would shine in AIDS denial related article(s). Mr Christopher 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, and one POS at a time please. I still fail to see how the fact that both of Wells books are published by one of the most prolific publishers of pseudoscience in the US is not relevant to this article. Particularly since Wells's notability completely hinges on his promotion of views that the science community calls pseudoscience. Seems like a no-brainer to me. 151.151.73.168 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, Regenery self-identifies as publishing "conservative" books. At this point, there happen to be three more or less pseudoscientific notions which have wormed there way into American conservatism (HIV denial, global warming skepticism (in some of its forms), and ID). Regenery is publishing in that context, not in a context of wanting to publish pseudoscience. And in any event if it even seems so minor that Forrest put it in parentheticals it can't be that important. JoshuaZ 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Roger, I hope we can put you and our new anon in a room together for an hour or two and see what happens. Removing all criticism and all involvement in other pseudoscience is not NPOV, we've been over this. Stop trying to push your whitewashed version. It isn't any better, indeed is arguably worse than the version pushed by our anon. JoshuaZ 01:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Steve's version is not whitewashed. It includes dropping out of school, going to jail, joining Moon's church, attacking Darwinism, and even signing that silly AIDS petition. It sticks to the facts, and gives you all the reasons you need to conclude that Wells is outside the mainstream. It just skips all the name-calling, innuendo, and unsupported attacks. Roger 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wells went to jail as part of an ideological issue. As to joining the Unification Church, I'm not sure why you presume that including it is somehow evidence of not whitewashing (is there something wrong with him being a member of the church?). The matters that are whitewashed are threefold: 1) as already discussed he have multiple reliable sources who seem to think he did a bit more for the HIV/AIDS denialists than just sign a petition 2) Steves version discusses "Darwinism" in the vague DI-POV and indeed is written in that POV 3) That version does not adequately describe the scientific reaction to Wells's ideas. I don't see anywhere in that "name-calling", "innuendo"(except possibly in the now removed sentence about the publisher) or "unsupported attacks". JoshuaZ 03:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publisher sharing.