Talk:Michael Behe/Archive 2

message: I have reworded the sentence about irreducible complexity, to better define the narrow range of his research. As I understand it, Behe is not opposed to evolution in a general sense (unlike some other ID proponents). Behe's claim is that natural selection alone cannot explain the existence of complex systems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark92 (talk • contribs) 
:I reverted your addition, since the phrase "unguided natural selection" is an oxymoron.  Guettarda 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how about just "natural selection"? Aardvark92 15:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure.  If you (or he) says that a structure could not have originated through natural selection, does that mean that he allows that they could have evolved through other mechanisms?  As I have read it intelligent design is a If not X then Y system, not an If not X then NOT X.  If he accepted other evolutionary mechanisms, why would he need to come up with a non-evolutionary mechanism?  Guettarda 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, Behe is not opposed to evolution per se. He acknowledges that evolution has occurred. His argument is that natural processes aren't sufficient to explain everything. The wording of this sentence (before my edit) implied that Behe does not believe in evolution at all. I think that's misleading. Aardvark92 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it was misleading, this is also misleading, because it specifies natural selection.  Do you have any reason to believe that Behe suggests that these structures/pathways could have originated through other evolutionary mechanisms, either known or unknown?  Guettarda 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. How about if I change "natural selection" to "evolutionary mechanisms"? Aardvark92 21:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening para

message: Anyone want to tell me where Michael Behe's bio is? This seems to be a storehouse for his theories or work, which appear to have its own article. SynergeticMaggot 16:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The academics section covers his education pretty well. FeloniousMonk 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They dont really cover anything "pretty well". Need to expand that part significantly. Ansell 01:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after a week of serious searching for Behe biography material beyond what we have here, I've come up with nothing. Maybe you'll have better luck. FeloniousMonk 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow of the article 

message: The article currently includes a reference to an article by the Onion concerning a "rogue scientist" from Lehigh University.  While it wouldn't surprise me that the use of Lehigh by the Onion writers was meant as a reference to Behe (it's the first thing that came to my mind when I originally read it), it's just not clear enough for WP (to my mind).  Aside from the Lehigh reference, there's nothing else in the Onion article that ties the "rogue scientist" to Behe.  Yes, it does discuss lots of pseudoscientific theories, but none of them are creationist pseudoscience.  Further, the scientist in question is even a chemist rather than a biologist.  If the Onion really wished to do a hatchet job on Behe (I can dream ...), he's more than provided them with enough ammunition over the years to do a proper job.  This isn't it, and I believe should be removed.  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with regards to the "chemist vs. biologist" issue, a biochemist is more of a chemist than a biologist.  Guettarda 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say it pretty clearly spoofs Behe.  But whether that's clear enough to belong in the article - I'm not sure. Guettarda 12:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onion article 

message: I was curious if Dr. Behe has had any trouble with the administration
of Lehigh University.  From the evidence, it seems not, aside from the
entirely blunt disclaimer of his views provided by his department.
This is actually a bit surprising, since universities can be take 
"intellectual correctness" to extremes -- but it certainly it reflects
on the whole "academic freedom" issue relative to ID.  The disclaimer
also defended Dr. Behe's rights to express a minority opinion.
I'll have to similarly check on Philip Johnson -- I mean, the guy's from
UC Berkeley!  Then again, the law department isn't likely to get 
as upset as the science department would be.
MrG (27 Nov 06)
: They think he's a crank, (well duh). , though funding for him won't be a problem.  If they sacked him though, no doubt he'd throw a carefully orchestrated and govrenment-endorsed temper tantrum like Richard Sternberg. Humps 14:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Behe & Lehigh University 

message: The statement from the University of Lehigh states specificially:
It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Thus the line:
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including his own department, the Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University.[2]
is mis-leading.
It is only "intelligent design" that the department feels should not be "regarded as scientific", they say absolutely nothing about irreducible complexity.
I corrected this last year sometime.  It is really very simple....the published statement says what it says and can simply be quoted....what's so hard about that?
As it stands, the footnote, which appears to be the source materials for the entire line and represent the "scientific community" doesn't even accurately reflect the opinion of his university's department.
I will edit this again, and hope that this simple point can be well taken.  I will leave in the unsourced assertion, now without attribution, that "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community".
Note that reverting the correction of a demonstrated misquote is a serious Wiki offence.
KipHansen 20:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Behe's own page on the Lehigh site states the following: "My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them." Blackmetalbaz 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ZZZZZZZZZ.... Irreducible complexity as argued by Behe is an argument for intelligent design. Meaning whatever his department says about Behe and ID will apply to his unique notions supporting it as well. Odd nature 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That dosn't follow. A: The reason the Queen has two heads, is that the sun shone yesterday. B: The Queen doesn't have two heads. Nevertheless, you are right that the sun shone yesterday. Thehalfone 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ignore.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Univ. of Lehigh statement mis-characterized - again 

message: Much arguing here can be avoided by accepting that no one always practices his/her craft perfectly.  Psuedoscience can be committed by any competent scientist on occasion.  Aside from ID, I'll wager that Mr Behe has done some work that meets the standards of his peers.  The insulting term `psuedoscientist' should be avoided entirely.  Moreover, something doesn't become scientific fact just because an icon (eg, Einstein, Newton) said so.  Arguments should be valid based only on their objective merits rather than the company they keep.  It strikes me as NPOV to label ID as psuedoscience, yet still consider Mr Behe a scientist.
Twslandlord 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behe's scientific output since joining the ID movement has been vanishingly small. His main activity appears to be the promotion of the pseudoscience of ID. This would justify calling him a pseudoscientist. Hrafn42 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn42, sorry, I do not see the logic in this.  Stephen Gould, Julian Huxley, Richard Dawkins, et al also promote evolution.  According to Wikipedia, this makes Gould a "public figure" and Huxley a "popularizer" of science and a "public figure".  But when they are acting as public figures (promoters), they are not conducting science (or pseudoscience).  ImprobabilityDrive 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  psuedoscientist vs psuedoscience 

message: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2402383 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.112.218 (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks legit to me. I know the Behes well (I'm best friends with one of them.) and will check it out to make sure it is actually a Behe doing this. I will let you know when I get a chance. But until then don't use anything from the site. Of course, if this doesn't meet guidelines on Wikipedia, it doesn't much matter. Who knows the guidelines for a situation like this? N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9' T a l k 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any event, this is not reliable and not notable. JoshuaZ 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was legit but I have nothing to prove that. There was nothing really new there anyway.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9' T a l k 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some new? info on something awful; 

message: Current sentence:  "Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism".http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html"
Problems with this sentence and reference.
1.  The reference says "creos" use the term "Darwinism".  I did not find any mention of Coulter using the term at the reference cited.
2.  The reference turned up no hits for a text search of the terms "third" or "1/3" or "percent".  
3.  Likewise, the term "polemical" and "polemic" do not appear in the reference, to the best of my searching abilities.
<b4>4.  The wikilink to Ann Coulter's book is sufficient.  This is not an article on Ann Coulter's book, but Michael Behe.
5.  And, most importantly, the refernce is not disclosed as a blog entry on a evolution advocacy web site in the text of the article, which will become important if somebody can explain how the pandasthumb.org blog entry is related to the sentence to which it is attached as a reference. 
Now, technically, the denotation of the term polemic is accurate, and probably does not need a reference.  Strictly speaking, the reference (Ian Musgrave) provided to the sentence is also engaged in polemical attacks, only this time on Ann Coulter's book.  It seems to me that the terms polemic or polemical might have negative connotations.  If true, a netural alternative for "tenacious refutation of the opinions or principles of another" should be found.  I have moved the sentence and reference to the talk page  pending further discussion.  ImprobabilityDrive 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost complete disagreement with your reasoning above. However, the sentence shouldn't be here anyways since this page is about Behe not Coulter's book, so I'm not going to go into detail about problems with the above reasoning.  JoshuaZ 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Musgrave's blog at Panda's Thumb as source 

message: As I was browsing through the article I noted the following statement:
Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[29]
This seemed remarkable to me, so I followed the link to the source: s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139. However, as far as I can tell, this source does not support the very strong language used in the article. While I'm no fan of ID, I feel that it is important that statements made on Wikipedia closely follows what is said in the source quoted, especially in a case such as this, where it could be argued that the current wikipedia-text accuses a living person of admitting fraud while under oath.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the text or the source, but I feel that unless a better source can be given, the above text should be removed from the article. --Tengfred 08:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have noticed the same thing in the evolution series of articles. In Icons of Evolution there is never an explanation of what the author states. Just criticism. It seems unfair to me. TheBestIsYet 11:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this problem stem from the cited legal record not being an actual transcript of what was actually said?  The cited record is a summary, rather than verbatim, so one might expect some departures in content.  As it happens, the cited legal record does record a somewhat similar point to that currently in the article (i.e. that Behe's work can be used in support of evolutionary theory), but it's fair to say that the detail's different at least, and that the cite might not be the best one.  Anyway, can someone help sort this out?  Is there a better (more complete?) source available?  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you explain how you see this as deviating from the source?  I'm not entirely sure what the problem is.  Guettarda 14:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You think the section quoted above accurately describes what is said in the source? The closest the source gets is: "In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used." There is no mention of any 20,000 years, nor does it say that his simulations actually showed the opposite of what was stated in the article. As Plumbago says, more may have been said in court, but without an actual source to support that, this paragraph is original research at best, and libel at worst. --Tengfred 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are far more civil ways to answer a question: when someone asks you a question they are usually looking for more information.  People will be much more willing to help you if you reply to their questions with more information, instead of with insults.  Try it sometime.  I simply asked what parts of it you considered inadequately sourced.  Ok, let me try again: which parts of the statement do you think are adequately sourced by that ruling?  If you demand people to go digging through the actual testimony for you, at least tell us exactly what you want sourced. Guettarda 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I sounded rude. I can't see that any part of the quote above is supported in the source. The source talks about "not ruling out" and "might support", the article says "had in fact shown" and fairly specific claims, that are not mentioned in the source at all. If the source really is the transcript, then that is what needs to be cited. I'd look through it myself, but I have no idea where to find it. Tengfred 10:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't [i]n fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used support this?  Obviously they are both actually referring to what he said in his testimony, and the only thing missing is the 20,000 number.  Guettarda 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The original diff included a link to the actual testimony on TO, which has the 20,000 number.  If you feel it important, feel free to restore that link (although I think the link to the ruling should remain).  Guettarda 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't belive that is support enough. It is as you say obvious that they refer to the same part of his testimony, but the version in the article is considerably stronger in its wording, and without having read the testimony, there is no way to verify that the article is accurate. Also "even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible." sounds biased and/or ORish to me. Restoring the link to the testimony, and rewording slightly. Thanks for clearing this up. Tengfred 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. It's plenty of support and the article was accurate before you changed it. Odd nature 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I undid the change - you changed the meaning in a way that contradicts the source.  Guettarda 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The statement is accurate since Behe said that in his testimony, which the judge then referenced in his ruling. Odd nature 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly sourced claim 

message: I'm not sure that I agree with Behe's (re-)inclusion in this category. He is an (ID-)activist who happens to be a Roman Catholic, but I don't think that you can claim, even at a stretch, that he is an activist for any viewpoint of, or movement within, Roman Catholicism. I would therefore suggest re-removal of this category. Hrafn42 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't know there was a discussion.  As FeloniousMonk eloquently puts it, he's Catholic and he's an activist, therefore, he's a Catholic activist.  What else to say?  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orangemarlin: the trouble is that by that logic, the majority of activists in Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Poland, South America (and any other Catholic-majority country or region) are "Catholic Activists". This creates a category that is so overly broad as to be essentially meaningless, and one that violates WP:OC, in that it is a "trivial intersection" (between being an activist and being a Catholic). For it to be a meaningful category, the activism needs to be directly related to the Catholicism. Hrafn42 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize if you weren't one of the good guys, I'd probably think you're nuts  But valid points.  Not being Catholic, I wouldn't know--all Christians sound exactly alike to me.  :)  But FM may not agree.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Roman Catholic activists]] 

message: I find it interesting that every rebuttle of Dr. Behe's theory's is given at least a 
paragraph of exposition.  In comparison, when Dr. Behe has issued a document, essay,
or comment, contradicting those who oppose his theory, all that is mentioned is that 
he has refuted the claims with no information as to how.  It seems only fair that his
rubuttles should be included in a non-biased discussion or is that not what we want?
After reading several of his essays I can see why a pro Darwinian editor would not want
his review of the "acid test" cases include.  He refutes them very well.12.10.219.36 18:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason Behe's 'rebuttals' aren't given equal time is WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. You may find these rebuttals compelling, but I have yet to find an expert in Evolutionary biology, Immunology, etc who agrees with you. They generally find Behe's understanding of their fields to be defective, as they do the claims he makes about their fields. Hrafn42 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The scientific method is both a philosophical and standardized methodology to test a theory or hypothesis.  Where you fail in your arguments is that you think I "believe" in Evolution.  It's not a belief, it is a factual understanding of the change of organisms over time.  Super floods and mega volcanoes were never ridiculed--they were scientific theories that were debated through scientific analysis, through peer-reviewed journals, and through discussion.  As the theories were tested and the hypothesis confirmed, they were fine-tuned.  Most, if not all scientists, have no "prejudice" against Dr. Behe, they just don't find his scientific reasoning to be valid.  That is based on an analysis of his logic, not based on his Christianity.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hrafn42 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find it interesting  

message: :Category:signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" is now :Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". If you attempt to change it back in the article, it will point to a non-existent category. Hrafn42 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"]] 

message: Given that the The Edge of Evolution is not discussed in this article, merely listed in the 'Books' section, may I suggest that external links to reviews of it should be moved to this book's own article? Hrafn42 13:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews of [[The Edge of Evolution]] 

message: Would someone please write Behe's name phonetically? 
Max86.141.54.49 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "kwak" comment is certainly out of place here.  Could you please be more specific about the article's weasel words?  Which are you particularly objecting to?  Also, you're as entitled to edit the article as any anyone else, so if you feel that it can be improved, please just go ahead and edit it.  Regarding your specific complaint about bias towards the scientific community, well, Behe is a scientist, so the scientific community's view of his ideas is extremely pertinent.  Or, at least, it would be were he to publish these ideas in a peer-reviewed journal (the bread and butter of scientific research).  Anyway, have a go at editing if you think you can improve things.  Cheers, ---- Plumbago (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think before complaining about "bias-toward the 'scientific community'", the editor should read WP:UNDUE. Behe's claims have no substantial following in the scientific community, are well outside his field of expertise (both in training and in published research), and have been thoroughly shredded by the genuine experts in relevant fields. Any article that did not reflect this massive preponderance of expert opinion would be biased. HrafnTalkStalk 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this name pronounced? 

message: Since DarthSidious seems intent on making an issue of this, I think it's better to deal with it here, rather than on user-talk:
Please stop adding "Category:Pseudoscientist" to the page for Michael Behe. He is a qualified scientist, who has done a lot of work outside of Intelligent Design advocacy. You're only stating that discrimination should be upheld against ID supporters, regardless of their scientific merit.
DarthSidious 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientist" and "pseudoscientist" aren't mutually exclusive. Behe has been largely inactive as a scientist since taking up advocacy of the pseudoscience of ID. He has not "done a lot of work outside of Intelligent Design advocacy" in well over a decade. Please stop making illogical and unreasonable fatwas. HrafnTalkStalk 04:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Behe has gained fame by throwing his credence as a minor scientist behind the pseudoscience of religious creation science, renamed intelligent design. He has not used intelligent design in the little scientific work he's done in the last decade, and it's very questionable if he's notable at all as a scientist. However, he's clearly notable as a pseudoscientist. While he may think he's opposing atheism, he's actually supporting empirical theology in opposition to the position held by the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, that their religious beliefs are not subject to empirical testing. If anything, ID lends credence to an atheist argument. ... dave souza, talk 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Pseudoscientists]] 

message: I just noticed this article is lacking in any pictures of him. We should probably dig one up. Raul654 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May have to have a whip round, and see if anyone's got a freely licensed image snapped at one of his performances. In the meantime, this seems relevant.... dave souza, talk 11:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The ID page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design contains this statement with the following reference 
Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."
^ Orr, H. Allen. "Devolution", The New Yorker, 2005-05-30.  This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: Behe, M.; Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Berlinski (2003-03-26). Has Darwin met his match? Letters—An exchange over ID (HTML). Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2006-11-30. 
Should this be in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID? 

message: There has been numerous attempts on this talkpage to represent Behe as being (still) a legitimate scientist. I think this graph and this one clearly demonstrate how moribund he has been scientifically since he became active in ID -- only one published paper (presumably the infamous & discredited Behe & Snoke) in the last decade, and only a single first-authored paper in the 6 years before that. We cannot be sure if ID killed Behe's scientific career, or if he took up ID as a result of his scientific juices drying up -- but either way, there is strong evidence linking the two. HrafnTalkStalk 09:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behe's scientific output 

message: Who has specifically debunked his work? And in what way? We need citations for the 4 different claims in this very strongly worded paragraph. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Far more than four are already listed in Irreducible complexity‎. It is not necessary to repeat them in this article, per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions. HrafnTalkStalk 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need citations for all statements that are challenged. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debunked his work?

message: Arguments is a more neutral word. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments vs. claims

message: My edit, which was reverted, was partially to correct incorrectly sources statements. The opening said that scientific consensus was the Behe was wrong, but the citations were only individuals disagreeing with his work, not a claim of consensus regarding his work. I changed the statements to "some scientists" because they were more closely supported by the citations. And someone reverted my  tag, claiming it violated NPOV, which is ridiculous. How the hell can a  tag violate NPOV?GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked over the actual wording again, and it's ridiculous. Behe's ideas about intelligent design are discredited? By a consensus? The only consensus cited is about ID in general, it has nothing to do with Behe's ideas about design. Read what you guys are defending.GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejection of ID in general necessarily subsumes rejection of Behe's arguments in favour of ID in particular. Additionally, Irreducible complexity cites numerous specific critiques of Behe's work. HrafnTalkStalk 09:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what the hell are we fighting about? Let's put those specific critiques in here. What you are proposing is original research; we have to extrapolate that because scientists disagree with ID they disagree with Behe. And the wording right now is simply wrong; "Behe's ideas about ID" makes it sound like it's a controversy within ID. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Where are you being disruptive? On pretty much every Creationism/Evolution-related article/talkpage you've edited on, as well as the talkpages of numerous editors. HrafnTalkStalk 10:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Challenging biased material, and asking for sources is not disruptive. Can you please be more specific? GusChiggins21 (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Specific criticisms of Irreducible complexity that have already been cited in Irreducible complexity are "clutter" in a general article about Behe? Yes, most certainly they are. HrafnTalkStalk 10:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, where are you getting this from?  The only time the word "consensus" appears in the article is with regards to Behe's acceptance of the age of the earth.  With respect to the last change you made, Behe's ideas have been rejected by the scientific community (and his own department at Lehigh).  Changing that to "many" is incorrect - it implies that some have not.  In the decade since DBB, no one (not even his fellow IDists) have tried to test any of his ideas.  No one has used Behe's ideas as a springboard for research, mostly because they're useless.  Even Behe himself has made no attempt to test his own hypotheses.  Despite what he wrote in DBB about the need to create a research agenda (or look foolish), Behe has done nothing of the sort.  In short, from the perspective of working scientists, Behe's ideas have been utterly rejected.  His latest book has also been found to be riddled with inaccuracies and errors.  Saying "many" of his ideas have been rejected would suggest that some weren't.  Which would those be?  Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard is not truth, but Wikipedia:Verifiability. I agree that, if you went out and polled most scientists, they would disagree with Behe. However, it doesn't seem to me that we have a citation for the claim of consensus, which addresses this point very specifically: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources" Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So, we need a source that states explicitly that 1. scientific consensus is 2. that Behe's ideas are discredited. The sources we have only confirm 2. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, attacking Guettarda is always a smart move.  Good luck Creationist dude.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "[I]t doesn't seem to me that we have a citation for the claim of consensus".  What claim of consensus would that be?  As I said, there is no claim of consensus.  Guettarda (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus about Behe

message: I had a civil discussion with him buried in that stuff above. If he wants to add a few paragraphs describing how Behe is viewed by the ID community, evangelicals, and political commentators, fine. That's valid, doesn't violate undue weight, and is a perfectly legitimate addition to the article, as long as he doesn't cross the line of saying that that endorsement validates Behe's work. He seemed to grasp that concept. Let's see if he can perform.
To Gus: I really suggest that you place your suggested addition on the talk page, or, if you prefer, on my talk page. It's pretty obvious that your actions the day you got blocked left a pretty bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths, and if you put it directly in the article without discussion it may lead to some unpleasantness.Kww (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. A note of caution – there are evangelicals opposed to creationism, who have no problem with evolution. .. dave souza, talk 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I remember one or two evangelicals being prominent in Kansas Citizens for Science. Also I seem to remember one writing a negative review on one of the recent ID books -- might even have been of Behe's Edge of Evolution. HrafnTalkStalk 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith B. Miller, was one of them. HrafnTalkStalk 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We could definitely include the evangelicals that support theistic evolution somewhere in this project. And if I'm not mistaken, Behe believes in common descent, which would imply evolution. I think Hugh Ross, a prominent old earth creationist, believes in theistic evolution. GusChiggins21 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Behe seems to believe in evolution to the extent that it cannot, by somebody with any biological background, be denied -- but insists on crowbarring sufficient spurious 'gaps' of what it 'cannot do' to allow a God of the gaps to be shoehorned in. It seems to be a not particularly coherent, have-cake-and-eat-it, position that is likely to yield derision from both sides. HrafnTalkStalk 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Leaping on Gus For a Minute 

message: Thoughts? I think this really helps to change the tone of the article, making it feel a little less like an attack on Behe. It also still allows us to state that scientific consensus is against him. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gives undue weight to creationism, so I've reverted it. Have a look at level of support for evolution, and you'll find that anti-evolution isn't as popular as you seem to think. Please try to make proposals on the talk page rather than just putting them in the article. .. dave souza, talk 08:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is also misleading. Leaders of the ID movement have explicitly rejected and denounced theistic evolution on a number of occasions, and Behe's most recently expressed beliefs have exhibited insufficient movement to bring him into the theistic evolution fold. HrafnTalkStalk 08:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: "It is also misleading. Leaders of the ID movement have explicitly rejected and denounced theistic evolution on a number of occasions, and Behe's most recently expressed beliefs have exhibited insufficient movement to bring him into the theistic evolution fold." Therefore, support for TE has no relevance to Behe or ID generally. I gave up on discussing it with you Gus because of your tendentious editing made further discussion pointless. HrafnTalkStalk 09:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fact: the majority of these 90% you keep irrelevantly citing do not support Behe's position of "common descent, but a few gaps for God" either. Fact: "Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw." -- which is straight out of WP:TEND. HrafnTalkStalk 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and tendentious editing isn't even a policy, so quit citing it like it is. Back, again, to the article: If you read carefully, I didn't say that the majority support Behe's position. I said the majority believe in either special creation or theistic evolution, which is true, about 90% believe this. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never stated that WP:TEND was a policy (funny that you should feel the need to rebut I point I didn't make). It is however a very good summary of why I, and a number of other editors, have an extremely low opinion of you, and your contributions here. No, you did not say that they support him, but you did insert this irrelevance in at a point that it would clearly tend to create the inference that they did. This is very dishonest, as well as being exactly what the section from WP:TEND I quoted to you above was talking about. HrafnTalkStalk 09:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the world are you saying? Is your argument now that what I wrote shouldn't be included because it might cause someone reading it to believe that everyone supports Behe? If that's the case, you need to be more specific, and help us re-phrase it. Otherwise, while, they may not support some of his specific positions, on the subject of whether there was divine involvement in the origins of life, YES, almost everyone does agree with Behe on that point. Is it dishonest to state things that are true and verifiable? Isn't that exactly what wikipedia is supposed to do?GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bare issue of "divine involvement" is only a very tiny part of Behe's thesis. Popular agreement with this point is therefore largely irrelevant. I was arguing that it shouldn't be included because it is irrelevant and serves no purpose other than to mislead. You are again drawing illegitimate and tendentious inferences, so I see no point in further discussion on this topic. HrafnTalkStalk 10:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, the whole point of wikipedia is to COLLABORATE. If you're unable to do that, and instead insist on whining and lawyering whenever anyone disagrees with you, I suggest you find somewhere else to "contribute". I put contribute in quotes, because you actually don't contribute anything. Either discuss things and attempt to improve the article, or shut up and quit editing. This is getting ridiculous. 06:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that piece of bogus, self-serving and completely fallacious advice Gus. It is impossible to "collaborate" with somebody who does nothing but spout self-serving, spurious and tendentious illogic. Either make well-reasoned, substantiated comments, or please decamp to Conservapedia, where ideology matters and logic and substantiation don't. HrafnTalkStalk 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a troll, you are engaging in personal attacks, you refuse to collaborate with other editors, you display an attitude of ownership of articles, you are dishonest, and you constantly violate wikipedia policy on reversions. As a result, I will no longer respond to any of your talk page statements that do not make any sort of rational or logical appeal. If you want to discuss the article in a constructive way here, I would love to do so, but until you choose to do that, I'll be ignoring you. Thanks. GusChiggins21(talk) 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're acting like a silly boy, Gus. Take the good advice you've been given to improve the article, or leave it alone. ... dave souza, talk 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. So does a discussion of popular support for creationism/theistic evolution belong in other ID/creation/evolution articles? Which ones? I'm trying to add something that will balance the tone of the articles (which presently very strongly stress the opinion of the scientific community). There's nothing wrong with writing very strongly that the scientific community thinks creationism is retarded, but I think we're giving undue weight if we fail to mention that these ideas have a large following in the general public. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gus, if you've read through the links I've posted above, you'll have found that it's policy that scientific (or pseudoscientific) claims have to be shown in the context of the scientific consensus and its critical appraisal of the evidence and the arguments. It's a good idea to find a reliable secondary source about the extent of support for the ideas in the general public (inside and outside the US) and for theological commentary on the ideas, but these are likely to be about ID as a whole rather than Behe in particular, and primary sources closely associated with the DI are simply unreliable. My impression is that they make distorted claims, commissioning polls and claiming that everyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution supports them. The "level of dissent" petition shows the pattern – an ambiguous statement that many evolutionary scientists could sign while wholly accepting the modern evolutionary synthesis is presented as support for ID. So, find outside sources and discuss them here, and I'm sure we can work out an addition to the article. .. dave souza, talk 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a bit to the opening

message: the use of 'claim' for the expression of one's personal belief or conviction is inappropriate. "The pope claims he believes in God" would be equally inappropriate. If there is evidence of the contrary, though, it would be an appropriate verb,  for example "He claims he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but in a 1985 interview he said that he has always doubted it.". Since there seems not to be any such contrary evidence, the neutral verb 'say' is better.
Northfox (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is supposed to be the norm on wikipedia, but wikipedia policies don't apply on intelligent design pages, for some reason. I already tried to fix the issue, and it was reverted multiple times. On articles about people that hold viewpoints that wikipedians don't like, you can write whatever you want, without properly sourcing it, and if anyone removes it, they will be banned. Just to let you know. GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, he says one thing and contradicts it elsewhere.  So there are two competing "claims", not so?  Guettarda (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they would be.  Good call Guettarda.  And last I checked, WP rules apply on all pages.  Sorry if you don't get your way Gus.  Baegis (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  claim vs has said