Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 4

message: While I think that Johnson is a total twit - because no one is debating Darwin, and contrary to an interpretation of my earlier remarks, I did not want anyone to gain from my writings the opinion that Darwin's views have been swallowed hook line and sinker by the scientific community - just the opposite is true. But Darwin did kick off a debate which still continues. Advanced knowledge has now switched on the light to show everyone who looks to see that that this is a much more complicated and complex issue than previously thought. But Darwin is like a 78rpm record. He is not even a revived 45, let alone an LP. Now CDs are moving on to DVDs and beyond as is our understanding of life and the universes. Of course we still can't answer the ultimate questions about the original Big Bang and why it happened or what (or who) caused it to happen, which is why I still believe in Nature's God and Nature's Laws which the USA was founded upon (NOT Christianity! and certainly not the primitive mind set of Mr. Johnson and his friends.) I just wanted to make myself clear. IF this article was REALLY about THAT controverial issue I would be all for it, but this article is really a cheap dressing-up of nothing more than tub-thumping, idiotic, primitive and Elmer Gantry style religion! There's nothing controversial about that and Burt did a great job on the screen of showing anyone with an open mind what Johnson's agenda really is. Merge this rubbish with Discovery Institute. MPLX/MH 02:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we have switched from your previous analogy to a new one, but the comparison is still the same. Of course I am not suggesting that it is merged because Johnson's writings are absurd, I am asking for it to be merged because this article already has a home at Discovery Institute. Again you come back to the group concept but the ONLY group that I am aware of (so far in this discussion) is the Discovery Institute. I did not suggest that your views are primitive because I do not know what your views are. I stated that Johnson was Elmer Gantry in disguise. The only problem is that most people who have any education have already seen that movie many times, laughed, sighed and gone to bed (I am now thinking of Groundhog Day.) MPLX/MH 02:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: your argument is that "the only group you're aware of who invokes TTC is DI."  counterevidence: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355080/posts charles colson], renew america, access research network,  Ohio, and Minnesota.  these are all different organizations.  yes, they work with DI to achieve their mutual goals.  But they are not DI.  I don't think there is reason to believe that, as you said, "DI is the only group who invokes TTC."  Ungtss 02:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: There's a lot left to say, but i've learned what on wikipedia creationism articles, it doesn't matter what you say, because reason doesn't apply.  so let's merge "Intelligent design," "Irreducible complexity," and "Specified complexity" while we're at it, since the same non-reasoning you're using here applies in those cases.  Carry on.  Ungtss 11:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes please! Me Sir, me Sir!

message: ::Darwinism is NOT the opposite of Creationism. Many people in the scientific community have an open mind about the origins of life and the universes, but they do not see a "controversy"  where none exists (between Darwinism and Creationism). This is a DISHONEST bit of religious propaganda in the style of Elmer Gantry with Johnson admitting that education is not his aim. Johnson is just like all dictators who gain a foothold by democratic methods: first they get elected and then they ban elections. In this case he wants to enter the classroom in the disguise of an educator and then strip off his mask and reveal himself as Elmer Gantry. It is a dishonest controversy because Johnson is creating a controversy which he knows does not exist in order for him to be declared the victor. How ironic that Johnson who tub thumps for the 10 Commandments has forgotten one of them. MPLX/MH 14:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not dishonest.  The people mentioned in the article may or may not be dishonest.  It is possible (and necessary) to write honest articles about dishonest people.  The dishonesty of the subject matter does not justify merging it into another article.  it justifies cited, sourced, and attributed instances in which dishonesty was reported.  Ungtss 14:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you think the controversy is settled doesn't mean everyone does. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The dishonesty of this article

message: ::This on Wiki policy:
Wikipedia:Duplicate articles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcut:
WP:DA
Below is a list of duplicate articles that have been created mostly by mistake. They have to be merged into a single piece of work, and one title has to be redirected to the other (or a completely new page must be created) in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Canonicalization.
Categories that need merging can be listed [together] on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion where one category will be deleted after merging into the other.
Although this page does not automatically update as does Category:Articles to be merged, this page has nevertheless been kept because unlike the category page, this page allows editors to make comments about the articles to be merged.
If you disagree with a "merge" indication then you can remove it, or change the template from  to  and discuss it on this page until consensus is reached.
____________________________
::The reason to merge is that two articles are duplicates of each other.    I think that Discovery Institute and Teach the Controversy are clearly not duplicates of each other.  If there is an appearance of duplication, I agree, and it is because others have included extensive ad hominem criticisms of the originators of the policy.  A good article might contain brief mentions of such arguments and links to the other pages, but not lengthy discussion.  This issue of relevancy was discussed above in Archive 1.  The proper solution is to take out these lengthy discussions and move them to a different page, if appropriate, not merging the entire article.
::We have shown widespread support for this policy outside the DI by many other individuals and organizations, as well as implementation or support of the policy by the US Congress, the US President, the state of Ohio (as discussed in the article) as well as the state of Minnesota.  It seems quite strange to claim that this does not deserve a separate article.
::The opinions on merging seem to be lining up according to who likes the policy and who doesn't like it (and who thinks it is a hoax or who has a conspiracy theory regarding it).  Not liking a policy or movement is not a basis for merging an article.  Nor is belief in a conspiracy theory regarding it.  I continue to note that I have not seen much or any substantive criticism of the policy, even though we have a concrete implementation in the Ohio Model Lesson Plan (linked in the article).  All the criticism is directed at the originators.  This also seems to violate Wiki policy.
:::I guess you did not read my comments and talked on past them so I moved them here. My objection is to the title - because there is no controversy over Darwinism - that is a dead duck. This leads me back to my original comment which has not been answered:
The article is a fraud: The article is called "Teach the Controversy" - but there is NO controversy! The article claims to represent a "movement" but there is no movement outside of the coordinated activities of the Discovery Institute. Johnson himself has admitted to his own fraud: he has stated that he wants to wedge himself into the classroom on an issue for which he lacks any qualifications in order to push a religious agenda. He has admitted his agenda. MPLX/MH 15:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that a vote to merge is a vote to violate Wiki policy on neutrality and Wiki policy on duplicate articles and merging.
--VorpalBlade 14:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  unfortunately, such votes to directly violate policy are the rule, rather than the exception, when related to this topic.  they are, in fact, tacitly encouraged.  Ungtss 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki policy on duplicate articles and merging