Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 17

message: In creating the new structure, I've attempted to populate them with roughly-hewn (chainsaw quality) contents. Please feel free to file off any rough edges you see, in order to get the article running more smoothly together.
Also, the Definitions/Philosophy section could do with some major work, preferably by somebody with a good background in Philosophy of Science, to make the whole thing more clear, concise and cohesive. As it stands it is mostly just a 'bucket' that I dumped all the relevant sections form the old (lack-of-)structure into. Hrafn42 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sections 

message: * There had been long standing concern about this article, to the extent that there was a short-lived attempt to get it deleted, and many of the paragraphs were tagged for WP:NPOV & lack of clarity.
* Additionally, there was an opinion expressed that it gave to much weight to the Creationist perspective, e.g.:
* At this stage I suggested a new introduction, which was throughly discussed.
* I also suggested that a tighter policy with regards to WP:Undue Weight was needed.
* There was a further suggestion that everything after the 'History' section should be deleted.
* I responded by suggesting that if this occurred, then a new structure needed to be put in place to avoid old bad habits. I later proposed a specific structure, which I implemented.
* In implementing this new structure, I noted considerable overlap with Objections to evolution in the some of the pre-existing sections, which I attempted to minimise (as discussed above).
* There has been a disagreement over the 'Nuclear Physics' section, but we are close to a consensus on this.
The results of all this discussion & work went out the window when Odd Nature decided to revert back to the old, heavily-problematical, article. Hrafn42 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support Odd Nature's revert.  Looks like his revert came in at a time when others were gun shy to undo his well meaning but ill timed revert.  ImprobabilityDrive 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes & Odd Nature's revert 

message: I see that somebody has deleted the stub Biology Subsection in the Disputes relating to science section. I included this Subsection because disputes relating to Evolutionary Biology are the largest and most important scientific disputes in the controversy. I left it as a stub, because it is an area that is too large, complex and just plain messy for me, with my limited expertise, to do justice to.
My intention is to restore the stub with a short, one paragraph overview. Hrafn42 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology stub 

message: "...and had ensured that the paper was peer reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." This is Sternberg's POV stated as fact. IT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF WP:NPOV!
:The full sentence now:  "Richard Sternberg was the managing editor of the publication, and asserts that he had the article peer-reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biology who were "teaching at well-known institutions." cited.  ImprobabilityDrive 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umn, that sentence is cited by the USHRCGR Staff Report, not Sternbergs.  I'll try to reword the sentence (it is too short anyway.)  05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This sentence was cited to a journalist working at a notable newspaper.  I'll double check to make sure that I summarized accurately.  You also left out a subsequent sentence that states the Office of Special council ultimately did not have jurisdiction. "However, the office of special council could take no action because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian."  Also cited.  ImprobabilityDrive 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll address this.  ImprobabilityDrive 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV & other violations

message: Below is a list of references I removed from the article as they were not (it seemed, based on my text searches) cited in the article.  I am including them here in case a mistake was made, or in case somebody wants to use them.  Some of these references seem to be very high quality references.  ImprobabilityDrive 04:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.  How were they not used?  •Jim62sch• 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were or appeared to be orphaned references.  ImprobabilityDrive 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed references 

message: :"It was in fact a review article about the Cambrian Explosion, an area of study in Palaeontology, a field wholly unrelated to the journal's subject matter (Taxonomy), or to Sternberg's (molecular evolution and systems science), Meyer's (Philosophy of Science) or the purported reviewers' fields of expertise."
Could you find another source, other than the paper, to substantiate your reading of Meyer's paper.  Wikipedia policy states:
Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This reading is ubiquitous, as a quick Google search for the terms ""The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" and "cambrian explosion" will demonstrate to you. Examples include: , ,  (the last points out that it is just a condensed version of a prior book chapter entitled 'The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang'). Hrafn42 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll let you replace the s with the references you have come up with to support the reading.  It seems to me to be an article requiring specialist knowledge to parse.  ImprobabilityDrive 08:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source to validate Hrafn42's reading of Meyer's paper 

message: ImprobabilityDrive is overplaying Sternberg's scepticism. What the Washington Post article actually says is:
This only says that he claims to be "critical" of Baraminology, and that he is not a "Creationist" -- but then many ID-advocates deny that ID is Creationism.
This means that presenting this in context (and apparent rebuttal to) the pro-ID bias implication of Sternberg's membership of ISCID is at best misleading, and at worst factually incorrect. Hrafn42 08:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not factually incorrect, but I will work to provide context in an effort to address your concerns.  If an ID-advocate denies that ID is creationism, I don't get that part.  Are you saying that those who identify themselves as IDers do not get to define what they mean when they use the term?  ImprobabilityDrive 08:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're being deceptive, no they don't get to define themselves.  If you read the Intelligent design discussions, this is ongoing now.  Federal courts, the Wedge document and Teach the controversy all clearly show that Intelligent design is religion wrapped around pseudoscience.  So, in this case, NPOV would indicate that ID is called what it is:  Creationism.  I'll use this example:  Bill Gates cannot write an article describing the perfect security of Windows XP.  We can quote him saying that.  We can laugh about it.  But the NPOV would be to source the wide wealth of documents indicating otherwise.  Orangemarlin 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "creationism" and even "religion" have developed very bad connotations. They also have important legal implications which creationists and  religious people want to avoid. Therefore, these fundamentalist true believers frantically try to pass themselves off as something else by using a different name. However, this strategy turns out to bite them in the butt every time since they really are nothing more than the same backwards anti-reason anti-thought intolerant slack-jawed yokels and dufuses dressed up in cheap suits.--Filll 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologize for following up with questions on the creationist statement, which was curious to me (as well as the responses).  ImprobabilityDrive 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sternberg's skepticism 

message: The references section uses the Harvard citation methods.  I personally don't like them, because the references go from place to place, so I would like to change them all to the Wikipedia version.  Anyone object? Orangemarlin 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you -- convert away.  Also, if you could check on ImprobabilityDrive's deletion of several sources it'd be greatly appreciated.  Given that the references are established in the body of the text, I fail to see how they weren't used.  Also, could you let us know the status on these removals? -- if they were legitimate references, they should not have been removed and we have the begininings of an RfC for POV and other issues here.  •Jim62sch• 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Is there a page the recommends the alternative you desire?  The problem with that is you end up with effusive citations.  ImprobabilityDrive 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Given that the references are established in the body of the text, I fail to see how they weren't used."  Sloppy editors probably forgot to delete them as they were removing material.  This probably occurred during edits.  When removing material, contributors should remember (IMHO) to remove references that are no longer used.  You're welcome, by the way, for my careful work in identifying these references, cutting them, and pasting them here in a format that makes it easy to reuse if necessary.  I know some of you appreciate it.  ImprobabilityDrive 01:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming good faith with your edits of references, but please note that your aggressive editing tends to bring out suspicion from several editors.  My point with Harvard references is that you have to click three times to reach the right reference.  With other wiki citations, usually in the form of cite web or cite journal, you click on the reference number, it takes you to the reference, and you can choose to get more information at that point.  In addition, Harvard citations tend to end up being long lists.  Orangemarlin 06:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have went to yale:)  Your point about the clicks is well taken, but it has  advantages, too, especially if the same source is cited in multiple locations, or if multiple sources are combined.  Both have their drawbacks, especially when it comes to editing previously cited work.  I would rather call my editing bold than aggressive.  But I do want to form consensus.  ImprobabilityDrive 08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The NPR program is not even cited (for some reason) on the article you cut and paste from.  It might be because that was an article on an alleged peer review controversy, whereas this article is about the creation-evolution controversy.
I would like to invite others to listen to the NPR radio documentary.
Also, the issue was not peer review.  The first sentence in the section as it was modified states:  "This controversy arose out of a conflict over whether an article that has been represented as giving support to the controversial concept of intelligent design was properly peer reviewed before being published in a scientific journal."  
But this is not supported by the Publishers statement:  "[Richard Sternberg].  Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor."  
Note, the editorial practices were typical, not universal.  The paper was not alleged to not have been peer reviewed, it was alleged to have gone through the review process without review by any associate editor.  Sternberg asserts that it was peer reviewed, and provided details.  I provided a sentence and Sternberg's statement.  I had a cited sentence to this effect, which was deleted for some reason.  To say that this is a peer review controversy is POV, short of a citation.  ImprobabilityDrive 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, spoken words are poor reference sources.  Besides, you are expending an inordinate amount of energy on this guy.  I wonder why?  Orangemarlin 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review allegations OR. 

message: The article in question requires specialist knowledge to understand and characterize.  Consequently, I moved the above sentence here pending a citation from a reliable source of the sentence.  However, even if it is cited, I am not certain how it relates to the Creation-Evolution controversy; the publisher disavowed publication, and it's not like the IDers can claim a victory here.  That is to say, it appears to be a POV sentence as well (toward discrediting the author of the paper?).  ImprobabilityDrive 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specialist knowledge?  In what field? •Jim62sch• 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible OR 

message: I also removed the extended quote of the Publisher's official statement because it is condensed in the opening statement, with a citation to the publisher's official statement.  Some had complained that the section was too long, so this is a way to be more concise.  ImprobabilityDrive 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-emptive defense over deletion of extended Publisher's official statement 

message: I also removed discussion of the Sterberg's peer-review apologetics, because they are a red herring to the Creation-evolution controversy article.  Specifically, the Publisher has not commented publically (listen to NPR radio documentary) beyond stating that Sternberg did not seek the collaboration of an associate editor in the peer review process, as is typical for the publication.  Consequently, any apologetics or polemics regarding who, what, when, and how it was peer-reviewed is best left to the Sterberg peer review controversy article on wikipedia.  It only clouds the affair with minutia in this article, and adds length without content relevant to the creation-evolution controversy.  Again, if you disagree, I am willing to collaborate.  Just point me to a reference that shows the peer-review issue is relevant to the Creation-evolution controversy.  ImprobabilityDrive 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a mess, and you're spending an inordinate amount of time worried about this bozo.  Who cares? Your energy makes it appear that he matters.  He doesn't.  He lied, and he's discredited.  After that, I'm not sure he deserves much more ridicule or attention.   In the greater context of this controversy, this guy rates just half of his allotted 15 minutes of fame.  Orangemarlin 06:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I don't care that much.  However, it is a recent episode in the creation-evolution controversy.  He does not matter.  The controversy and treatment does.  BTW, where was he discredited?  I mean, other than allegations that he is a closet creationist (e.g., any independant findings that he violated Journal policy.).  Thanks.  ImprobabilityDrive 07:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discredited in the sense of being a science editor.  He embarrassed the Washington Society of whatever and the Smithsonian.  He got a bunch of scientists all ticked off.  And in the end the notability of this bozo is hardly worth a paragraph.  Kitzmiller, Cobb County and several other court decisions are worth more IMHO.  You seem obsessed with this guy (I note your request for merger/move/something).  Really, he's not worth this much trouble.Orangemarlin 09:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmn.  I became interested in the other article after other contributors asked me to.  I took them up on their offer.  Your loathing of the man is duly noted.  ImprobabilityDrive 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What's not to loathe? Besides, I doubt that loathing has anything to do with OM's edits: from what I've seen, facts matter.  •Jim62sch• 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the removal of Sterberg's apologetics on peer-review 

message: Copied from the creation-evolution article.  Is this supposed to be there?   ImprobabilityDrive 09:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. As it clearly contravenes WP:NOR and has been moved here for discussion, I've now deleted it from the article. It's one-sided, lacks sources, particularly for the conclusions, and is weasel-worded. ... dave souza, talk 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, it's slop.  The last sentence is so asinine as to represent a new low in bogus correlations.  The rest just needs to be taken out and shot.  •Jim62sch• 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, the horse is dead.  Stop kicking it. :) ImprobabilityDrive 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ya never know when it might be resurrected. •Jim62sch• 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal essay? 

message: What I miss in the article is a discussion of the philosophical argument against the scientific nature of creationism.  As I have heard it formulated in its most concise form, the problem with creationism is that, whereas it is science's job to sort the facts into a logical whole and try to find an explanation for them, creationism starts with the explanation and then tries to find the facts that support the explanation.  This is a fundamentally different approach and as such does not fall within the definition of what most scientists would recognise as science.
It should be noted that the argument here goes to method, not the content of the matter.
--Recoloniser 03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section on falsifiability in this article.  If you feel that it is inadequate, be bold and improve it.  ImprobabilityDrive 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the encouragement.  I will, when I can get the references together, which is proving a bit difficult at the moment (any hints anyone?).  Also, I'm not sure that this entirely falls within the scope of the falsifiability issue.  I agree the two are related, but the criticism I am referring to is even more fundamental: starting with the answer and then finding the facts to suit it is not considered science.  In fact it may be argued that, if you indulge in this, you never intended to do science in the first place.  In the case of (non-)falsifiability you may have started out attempting to do science, but you didn't succeed.--Recoloniser 01:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Creationism from a philosphy of science point of view 

message: I've placed a warning template at User talk:ImprobabilityDrive for making the same edits three times on the Sternberg section.  Orangemarlin 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3RR]]

message: Sadly ImprobabilityDrive has once again dismissed the opinions of many editors here out of hand, going so far as to reintroduce a proposal already rejected by every established editor of this article:    This falls squarely in the realm of WP:DE which says a hallmark of disruptive editors vs. constructive editors is that the former "rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators." and "is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." We've also seen here from ImprobabilityDrive tendentious use of sources, echoing "cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." Taken with his "campaigns to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles." and he's hit the WP:DE jackpot. Per comments above, a user conduct RFC is the next step. I'm too busy to pull the evidence together and write it myself, but I am able to endorse the basis of the dispute, and there are a number of other admins who've tried to reason with him who will as well if the group here or an individual here writes and posts it. Please let us know when it is up. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For interested parties I have opened an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that he's already been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a notorious abuser, I'm not sure if this is necessary any more. Hrafn42 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive editing, pt 2

message: Having found errors in my punctuation, I've made this correction. My understanding is that the present block is in place because of a dispute unrelated to Creation-evolution controversy#Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin, but if anyone objects to this change I'll be happy to revert it. .. dave souza, talk 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, looks good. •Jim62sch• 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation