Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 5

message: There is no they, there is me and a few others and we all hold different opinions as Mel will tell you quite bluntly. He is certainly not my lap dog, nor am I his! He will also tell you that quite bluntly. Stop trying to push this off on to a conspiracy of they. The fact is that Johnson wrote a book - show a picture of Johnson and show a picture of the book because the title of THAT BOOK is what my beef is all about: there is no controversy in US Public Schools over the teaching of Darwinism, because Darwinism as such is not being taught in public schools! MPLX/MH 20:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of this movement is, "the controversy is not being taught in public schools, but it needs to be."  Thus your argument is irrelevent.  yes.  it's not being taught in schools.  that's why there's a movement called "Teach the controversy."  Ungtss 22:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want to teach kids Darwinism? As what? History? The world has moved on since the Scopes Trial. MPLX/MH 23:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm not here to debate policy with you, friend.  i'm well aware we'll never agree on that.  my only interest here is the quality of wikipedia articles.  Ungtss 04:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The ''conspiracy'' theory

message: This is the book that begat the controversy which really took place years ago in a silly case called the Scopes Trial. It is this SAME issue that is now being dredged up again by Johnson and his Discovery Institute supporters. Why? Now that is the $64 question because I cannot fathom the answer. There is no controversy and the scientific community certainly isn't debating Darwinism as if it had nothing better to discuss or as if time and discoveries had not moved on. The book cover is central to this article because it is about a fantasy where "they" are trying to impose the teaching of Darwinism in schools and shutting out all other possibilities. That is such a load of old cobblers that I don't know for the life of me whether this is a Monty Python script as a follow-up to the dead parrot saga, or just someone pulling a chain. MPLX/MH 20:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The cover of the book tells all!

message: Considering the topic of this article, I am surpirsed that Creationism or some other similar article and Evolution aren't links in the See Also section. I consider Intelligent Design to be somewhat different from creationism, as some IDers preder. Also, I feel that to best help with NPOV for those on both sides of the debate, there should be links to Intelligent Design (which I know is linked, but this is just a list), Creationism, Evolution, and Evolutionary Creationism and/or Progressive Creationism. This gives readers the two extremes of the controversy, Evolution and Creationism, and more neutral viewpoints, Intelligent Design, Evolutionary Creationism, and Progressive Creationism. 
User: Mred64
April 21, 2005
:Good point. Also, the article lacks any namespace categorization. FeloniousMonk 22:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a duplicate link for the article Should We “Teach the Controversy”? by Jason Rosenhouse, and kept the more readable of the two pages. Therayven 22:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on See Also Section 

message: First of all, I don't think this is a particularly significant "movement" but I'm a proponent of broad coverage for Wikipedia, so I support a separate article. I think we ought not to use our POVs to determine what there should or shouldn't be articles on, only criteria such as "Is there actually a movement?", "Does it have a platform that can be discussed and criticised?", "Does it have a membership?" and so on. I don't think it will harm, so long as it doesn't simply repeat the same tired old stuff that tends to be stuffed into all articles on creationism. Talk about the "movement", yes. Describe the "issues" at length, no.
I think recognition should be made, in the first paragraph, that this movement is seen by its detractors as a thinly veiled attempt to push a particular form of religion into schools by pretending it is science. I'm not saying I subscribe to the view, and I certainly don't want to involve myself in the controversy here, but that seems to me to be a view that is widely held, which can be sourced (see [www.pandasthumb.org Panda's Thumb] for many useful links. I wish I could remember to sign my comments!Grace Note 23:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly.  that's what this article needs to do.  Ungtss 04:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree, you should sign your comment. We all should. Oh, and I agree with your other comments too, except merging. FeloniousMonk 12:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro, whether to merge 

message: Where did the content for this article come from? If someone other than Johnson originated it, who was it? If it was Johnson then we should be discussing Johnson - on Johnson's existing Wikipedia article. It was a stub until I stuck some of the content from here over there only to find others sticking it back here. Why did Johnson call his book Darwin on Trial and why is there a separate article for that? How come the Discovery Institute has tacked itself on to this issue and why isn't this topic discussed there?
In short, why does this article - which reads more like a cheap lecture than an encyclopedia article - exist at all? It does not tell you what Johnson wrote, why he wrote it or why he picked such an out-of-date title. Why is this topic not an update to the Scopes Trial article?
This is a movement with no address and an article about a controversy that does not exist. MPLX/MH 23:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a work in progess, but it's a vast improvement over the version from eleven days ago  which I described then as a DI press release. FeloniousMonk 13:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: The article states that (T)he term "teach the controversy" was coined by Phillip E. Johnson in 2000 in his book 'The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830823956/qid=1113327238/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-8781116-5960730?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), ... "
I took a look at Johnson's Amazon listings and his rant is always the same: he does not like Charles Darwin as so many of his titles inform the reader. But this present article goes on to state that Johnson said: "What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to 'teach the controversy'. The term evolved into a political action strategy and movement with the impetus of members of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, of which law professor Phillip E. Johnson is a member.
This is vanity at work by a man who has absolutely NO academic qualifications on the subject that he is always writing about - as his article page also points out.
So Johnson came up with a way to sell books which he is not qualified to write: get everyone talking about them! What a snow job! What a fraud! MPLX/MH 23:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've said that several times. Repeating it doesn't increase the likelihood of it being true. DJ Clayworth 13:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but repeating it on as noisy a page as this increases the likelihood of it being heard.  (The "truth" of it is already well documented).  Guettarda 22:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers

message: Teach the Controversy is a movement created by Phillip E. Johnson who first coined the expression and then promoted it with the help of the Discovery Institute of which he is a member. Johnson has written a number of books about Charles Darwin and the subject of evolution, his only qualification being as an elder of a Protestant denomination.
The Discovery Institute has promoted controversy following the commercial release of books by Phillip E. Johnson with the stated aim of creating a debate in US public schools about Creationism and Evolution. MPLX/MH 00:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about money, there is interesting controversy surrounding the funding of the Discovery Institute - see below. Ian Pitchford 13:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I guess the logic looks like this:  some of the personal beliefs of a man who gives money to an organization that promotes an education policy that in part inspires both houses of Congress to approve it and that in part prompts a state to put it into practice fatally taints that policy.  Everybody got that?  This is ad hominem conspiracy theory logic to the highest degree.  We could believe this conjecture, or we could just look at what Ohio did and judge it on the merits based on the facts.  Which is more consistent with Wiki policy?  --VorpalBlade 14:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said:).  Ungtss 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. It's best if all that Wikipedia readers know of the "movement" is how VorpalBlade and Ungtss would describe it. We shouldn't take into account what members of this movement actually say they believe. Ian Pitchford 14:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And if a communist gave money to the democratic party, would that make the democratic party communist?  Ungtss 14:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are shared beliefs and joint policy aims here. Additionally the movement is largely funded by Ahmanson. I doubt we're talking about no-strings attached "donations" here. Ian Pitchford 14:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Libertarians, fascists, and republicans would share "beliefs and policy" in a socialist regime, simply because the system would be too far to the left for all of them.  the mere fact that they share certain goals does not mean they share all goals.  just like a communist would support a democrat against a republican, because it's closer to his policy goals.  but it's non sequitur to say that because an extremist supports a moderate, that the moderate is extremist.  strings there might be -- but that's personal research and conspiracy theory i'm afraid.  i'd support a link and summary in the criticism section, but not a quote.  Ungtss 14:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: (To put this clearer, if an extremist supports a purported moderate, it doesn't say anything about the purported moderate.  but if a purported moderate supports an extremist, then you know the moderate is not a moderate at all.  this case falls into the first category.  it doesn't say a thing about DI or johnson, i'm afraid.)  Ungtss 15:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Next time you are making an argument on behalf of an organisation, your quote "We shouldn't take into account what members of this movement actually say they believe" is going to come back to haunt you. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (i think mr. pitchford was being sarcastic in that case).  Ungtss 14:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, not my usual approach except to exceedingly tiresome and dishonest debate. We all know that "teach the controversy" advocates don't have the slightest interest in improving science education. Call me an old-fashioned anarchist but I happen to believe that we could end up with some sort of worthwhile democracy if people actually have access to reliable information on how political groups get their funding and what members of that group really advocate, not what they pretend to advocate in order to get what they want. I don't want a Wikipedia that hosts propaganda campaigns and nor should anyone else Ian Pitchford 15:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, Ian. I apologise. DJ Clayworth 15:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: for all practical purposes, what they "pretend" to advocate is what they advocate, as long as it's the only thing they talk about or propose for legislation.  it doesn't matter what you wish for at night or talk about in church.  it matters what you propose to congress.  Ungtss 15:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll discover that people find credibility, consistency and honesty important. Ian Pitchford 15:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found johnson to embody all three quite admirably.  Ungtss 15:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Closer to the truth

message: I moved a long list of quotes by Johnson out of the "Criticism of Johnson" section and into the "Philosophy" section, since he presumably isn't crticising himself. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree that this section needs to be pared down and improved, but we should to try to work with Monk on this to find consensus on how to do it.  He is the one who added this section.  I think there is way too much quotation on a topic that goes to how to educate and nurture Christian children outside of public schools.  I don't think it belongs in the Philosophical Basis section.  Let's discuss.  --VorpalBlade 14:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  we definitely need quotes etc ... but they must be relevent to public education.  johnson's a law prof.  he knows about the 1st amendment.  1st amendment says the state can't promote or hinder religion, but it also says you can speak freely in public.  it is extremely misleading to overlay his goals for society generally with his goals for public schools.  we need to limit quotes to the agenda for public education.  Ungtss 14:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Above all we musn't let readers have any inkling of the wider agenda! Ian Pitchford 14:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you give the context for the wider agenda, it'll be fine.  but this article is not about the wider agenda -- it's about teach the controversy.  Ungtss 15:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell the truth for goodness sake! Ian Pitchford 15:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i am:).  there's nothing wrong with advocating christianity outside the state.  the only problem is advocating your religion under color of law.  Teach the Controversy is only unconstitutional insofar as it does that.  Ungtss 15:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with advocating any religion or philosophy of life. However, trying to hijiack the science curriculum in order to spread the beliefs of a small cult is monstrously evil. Ian Pitchford 15:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The quotes in the Phillip Johnson criticism section relate directly not just to personal agenda, but to his public policy agenda and they speak to his method as well. I argue that they are highly relevant to the reader's understanding of the method of TTC's proponents. FeloniousMonk 17:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Monk, can you pare them down to something reasonable?  --VorpalBlade 17:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism/Phillip Johnson section

message: We already have a consensus for merging with the DI article, if we ignore the fact that you voted twice. Let's act on that. Ian Pitchford 17:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not vote twice and a 6-6 split is pretty much the opposite of consensus.  Even 6-5 or 7-5 is nothing close to consensus.  That is why  votes are discouraged on Wiki.  --VorpalBlade 17:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: majority is not consensus.  consensus is 2/3.  you don't have it.  Ungtss 17:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even 2/3 is not consensus.  --VorpalBlade 17:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough:).  but on wikipedia, per vfd guidelines, 2/3 is consensus for purposes for purposes of a delete or merge vote.  Ungtss 17:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: So let's merge Intelligent design, Discovery Institute, Teach the Controversy, and Phillip Johnson into Ahmanson, shall we?  Ungtss 18:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In one sense yes! I have just checked the Johnson edits and I noticed that two editors here are going around in a pack to obliterate all other edits on related articles to make sure that they stay unrelated! The two on the Johnson article are DJ Clayworth (5 times) and Ungtss (three times) after I made my edit with DJ Clayworth editing my contribution by obliterating it with these words: "remove stuff which is arguing about evolution and not about Johnson at all. " Clearly this is not a educational agenda but a religious undertaking by zealots who are using Wikipedia for their own purposes which ultimately serve the interests of Howard Ahmanson, Jr. We need to limit these articles and link them to show their related interests, cross-connections and agenda. Based upon this I would now be in favour of turning this article into an expose of the what Howard Ahmanson, Jr is up to. But in any event there needs to be an immediate addition to all of these articles to show their interrelationship! MPLX/MH 18:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Showing interrelationship is fine.  merging is not.  Ungtss 18:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rich! I tried to edit the Johnson article and all of a sudden it was obliterated by repeated edits from two contributors to this article with their intention made quite plain as stated above! MPLX/MH 18:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unaware of any "obliteration."  i came to the page and divided it up by topics.  you had falsely grouped his statements about public education with his statements about private christian education, and i needed to remedy that.  Ungtss 23:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments on merging