Talk:Phillip E. Johnson

message: I think that using the term denialism carries POV connotation, much like the word terrorist or heretic does, as such articles are better if such views are not attributed via the passive narrative voice of the article. But that is not what we are debating we are debating whether the juxtaposition of the statement that "Johnson was involved with AIDS denialism .." with  "The scientific community consider the AIDS denialist arguments to rely on cherry-picking of scientific data as denialists selectively ignore evidence of HIV's role in AIDS." I think that the two together strongly imply that  "Johnson, a denialist relies on cherry-picking of scientific data as denialists selectively ignore evidence of HIV's role in AIDS." Let us take another example "The IRA is a terrorist organisation ..."[as may citations as you like] "Terrorist organisations are known to hijack planes and crash them into buildings"[lots of citations]. The IRA have never done such a thing, but in reading that anyone who did not know would assume that they had or wanted to (otherwise why mention it). It seems to me that this type of juxtaposition that makes an implied unsubstantiated union of facts is exactly the type that one would expect to find in a denialist paper and not one that one would expect to find in a well written non biased publication. -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike terrorism or heresy, AIDS denialism is pretty clear, cut and dried - the evidence is unequivocal that HIV causes AIDS, and denying that fact makes you an AIDS denialist.  Cherry picking is one of the methods.  But still, it's better to use sources that explicitly link to Johnson - though we must contextualize AIDS denialism to be the nonsense it is.   WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WLU you wrote "Unlike terrorism or heresy, AIDS denialism is pretty clear, cut and dried." It is also cut and dried that the IRA bombed the Brighton Grand Hotel, whether it was a terrorist attack or not depends on ones point of view. In the words of  Bruce Hoffman "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore". Once can easily substitute in the word denialism into that statement "denialism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." Like terrorism denialism is a tool employed in a propaganda war, which is easy to do because it is linked to "in denial" as used by physiologists and because denialism does not have a precise meaning. If not, why do some editors insist in using the term AIDS denialism (with it undertones of meaning linked to Holocaust denialism) in the first sentence of this section instead of using one of the alternative formulations I suggested above which would appear to say the same thing? -- PBS (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not about terrorism, it's about Phil Johnson and this section about his denying that HIV causes AIDS.  HIV causes AIDS, the scientific evidence is conclusive.  The comparison to terrorism is not appropriate, while the comparison to Holocaust denialism is.  The Holocaust happened, but despite this some groups attempt to cast doubt on this.  While terrorism often depends on one's point of view, there is no question that HIV causes AIDS and therefore anyone who denies this fact is an AIDS denialist.  Thus, describing them as such is appropriate and accurate.  That is why it is used here - it is appropriate and accurate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I was making is that "denialism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.", If as you say "anyone who denies this fact is an AIDS denialist" and AIDS denialist is not a propaganda term, then you should be equally happy to use the word "denies" rather than "denialist". Eg in "In the 1990s Johnson denied that there HIV is the cause of AIDS." which is far less clunky than "During the 1990s, Johnson was involved with AIDS denialism". -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a wording issue, being clunky, that can be changed.  But AIDS denialism is accurate and should be linked, and if it is appropriate to use it, it should be used.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Philip. Also, the words contrarian and dissident are also used in many reliable sources. The appropriate context for AIDS denialist would be to note that these people are called that by critics. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Their critics are everyone, because HIV causes AIDS.  There is a reason they are so heavily criticized, be it creationists and AIDS denialists - they assert unsupported opinions, and attack actual science, with a motivation other than actually trying to find out the truth about the world.  On wikipedia, the appropriate article to link to is AIDS denialism, and it's also an appropriate word to use on each page.  No easter eggs, particularly when the term is accurate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: denialism carries POV connotations

message: In a recent edit, Freakshownerd wrote that professors are unwilling to discuss "Islamic terrorism". I should certainly hope so, as it's not clear what that is. We can all agree, I would hope, that it would be unacceptable if an editor characterised Johnson's positions as "Christian denial" or "Christian bigotry". There's no need to blame a religion for the actions of individual adherents. Let's leave our individual POVs behind when we log in and try to follow the sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I wrote. That's what Johnson wrote. For some reason you keep lying and misrepresenting. I object to that entire section of cherrypicked quotes from a primary source. But if it's to be included, the context is important. Johnson was asked about 9//11 and was discussing its impact. Please stop disrupting article work and engaging in dishonest deception. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what you wrote, and you've made your own positions abundantly clear. If you wish to quote Johnson, quote him. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply see it as lacking context and adding little to the paragraph in question, which is why I removed it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is noted, but we write articles based on coverage in reliable sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources on the page aren't reliable?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck  wood? Several sources are being misrepresented. What does your question have to do with this section discussing the cherrypicking and repeated misquotation of the article subject by Keepcalmandcarryon? Taking snippets and string them together in a way that pleases you isn't how we write articles. Find a secondary source that covers the issues you want addressed. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If a source is being misrepresented, present them.  Otherwise, stop complaining.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: I am proposing that Reason in the Balance be merged here as a bare redirect for the following reasons:
*It would appear to fail WP:NBOOK.
*WP:MERGE#Rationales #3 (Text), & #4 (Context). The article on the book is extremely short, and offers no context or other useful, and has been tagged (by another editor) as its lead section (which constitutes half the article) "may not adequately summarize its contents."
I am seeing little indication that the book had any substantive impact on the Creation–evolution controversy‎, so do not see the merit of an independent article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *What you are essentially saying is that you "don't like" any mergers -- which makes for a very uncompelling reason for opposing a specific merger. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the article has reliable sources, whats the matter? Portillo (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I would note that this website is both (i) self-published, and (ii) a questionable source, so that it is not an appropriate source for material that may be deemed "unduly self-serving". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *None of which reviews were cited in the article, so complete and utter irrelevant non sequitor. "More than any oneperson Phillip Johnson shaped the course of the origins debate in the 1990s." = "Very self serving." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.darwinontrial.com 

message: Reliable sources have been added for the Reason in the Balance article. Reliable sources is sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:NBOOK says that a book must have been reviewed by sources independent of the book, which it has. 1. Portillo (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Assuming facts not in evidence' -- the only reviews cited in the article were in Reason magazine (Ruse) and Christianity Today. No, a publisher's blurb is neither independent nor a reliable source (as WP:RSN has found repeatedly) -- so adds nothing to notability. And thank you for ignoring my points 1, 2, 4 & 5. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm no such thing. But in answer to your question, a proposed-article that is several paragraphs long (as opposed to several citations for a single sentence), based upon several full-length reviews published in independent sources (with a strong preference for at least some that are both more prominent, and published by less in-the-trenches sources, than Reason magazineand Christianity Today), would be a very good start. Something along those lines would make a very strong case for a WP:SPLIT proposal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason in the Balance 

message: The Weinberg quotation should not be in the lead, and if it is included in the body it needs to be much more nuanced.  Including the fact that a Nobel Laureate has said something positive about Johnson misrepresents Weinberg's actual point - not that Johnson is an authoritative representative of a movement, but that the movement itself is disingenuous and wrong.  Weinberg's overall point is not praise.  Including this in the lead is way too much detail (particularly since it's not mentioned in the body at all) and does not honestly represent Weinberg's full opinion on Johnson or the intelligent design movement.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So Weinberg saying that Johnson is "probably the most respectable academic critic of evolution", is not worth of inclusion? Is this because it is not allowed to say one good thing about an intelligent design advocate? I understand that Weinberg's comments are not praising Johnson, and I have no problem with making that clear, but he did say that. Portillo (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a book from 20 years ago.  In that time, intelligent design has failed a legal challenge and once again creationism has shown it is not a challenge to evolution.  And the book it self states after that sentence fragment "...may currently be" - and again that was 20 years ago.  Creationism is not a challenge to evolution, and it's not an academic criticism, it's pseudoscientist.  Weinberg is politely saying Johnson may have the best credentials of all the pseudoscientist creationists available in 1992 and again goes on to say Johnson's opinions are not based on science but are in fact due to religious beliefs.  The article is better off without that statement, and particularly doesn't need "Nobel Laureat" in it.  If it is included, and I don't think it should be, it should be in terms of "Although Weinberg said Johnson was..."  But best is not to include it, since the meat of Weinberg's statement (from 20 years ago), the vast majority, is not "Johnson is great".  It is "Johnson is a religious zealot despite his credentials."  That is an honest summary.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weinberg quotation 

message: Why did WLU revert my edit?!?! Dark windows of the soul (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked WLU on their talk page, which seems the right place to ask (WLU should have provided a meaningful edit summary).  As to whether it was an appropriate revert, I think it was reasonable.  I don't see why we would quote a physicist on the subject of evolution.  -- Scray (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone reviewing Dark's contributions (there's less than 30 so far) should see immediately that his edits are not made in good faith.  But specifically regarding that edit, there are numerous problems.  The source is old, preceding the incredibly important Dover trial which ruled intelligent design to be creationism.  Weinberg's overall comment regarding Johnson is not praise, so including the phrase "probably the most respectable academic critic of evolution" is inappropriate.  Really, what we have here is a Nobel Laureate pointing out, politely, that Johnson is essentially lying for Jesus.  Plus, as Scray points out, it's a book, by a physicist, about physics, that touches on creationism only to point out that it is not scientific.  I don't want to waste any further time on this or any of Dark's edits, since the effort is not to improve wikipedia.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with WLU. WLU is trying to suppress a point of view he disagrees with, and to censor Wikipedia. Dark windows of the soul (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why?? 

message: I've added a WP:Undue tag to the extensive summary of The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism which is currently being added: while a concise mention may well be appropriate, secondary sources are needed to show the significance, if any, of this particular book, and to show how the views in it have been received by the scientific mainstream. See WP:PSTS. Wikipedia's not for Summary-only descriptions of works, and article structure shouln't segregate out criticism. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I made some unwarranted assumptions.  I assumed that since the book was an expansion of his paper that appeared earlier that it would be of significance.  (I have since done a quick search and found several dozen critical reviews.)  I also assumed that the readers were competent enough to know that when reading 'Johnson says' or 'Johnson states,' etc. that they would realized that that what followed was just Johnson's opinion and not necessarily truth.  I also assumed that the readers would appreciate a concise summary of the book so that they would not have to wade through the entire document to find the salient points.  Perhaps, Like Johnson's other book Darwin on Trial, this may be better as a page of its own.  --OtisDixon (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue:summary of The Wedge of Truth

message: The statement "The clear consensus of the scientific community considers Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience.[5][7][8][9] " clearly violates the Wikipedia policy that "encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)"  Changing this to " Many within the scientific community consider Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience." is more truthful, as there are scientists who do not consider Johnson's views, especially in regards to evolution, to be pseudoscience.  In fact, one of Mr. Johnson's principle arguments is that there are two definitions of the word "science" being used in culture today, and since this is a biographical entry in wikipedia, his response to the view that his views are "pseudoscience" must be added in order for this article to read from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia policy states that "When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed".  When i made my minor edit, I didn't delete wholesale what had already been there. However, that (deletion) is what was done to my edit.  My edit was deleted in its entirety in the spirit that "undue weight" was given to "fringe" views.  That is hardly the case.  I didn't delete "The clear consensus of the scientific community considers Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience.[5][7][8][9]" Truthenthusiast (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, your proposal is wrong, and violates WP:NPOV by giving undue WP:WEIGHT to the fringe pseudoscience Johnson promotes. Your omission of the consensus point seem to be trying to give "equal validity" to his views. Also, Born again (Christianity) isn;'t the same as the broader description as Christian. The point about "materialist mythology" is covered earlier in the lead. If you want to add more, that should be developed in the body text and based on a third party source showing the mainstream view of his fringe views, not just "the-good-news/creation-and-evolution" interview. . . not clear why you seemed to be duplicating that source at the start. . . dave souza, talk 15:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Trouble is, clearly you misunderstand the WP:NOV and WP:WEIGHT wikipedia policies.  Replacing "the clear consensus of" with "many within the" is hardly an attempt to give "equal validity" to his views.  Would changing "many within the" with "the majority of" be more better in your view? It is clear that the way the lead is currently written is that the intention is to give the casual reader no reason to consider Johnson's viewpoints at all.  Intelligent Design Theory would fall under "questionable science" not "pseudoscience", as Intelligent Design is a hypothesis which has a substantial following.  Critics may describe it as pseudoscience.  However the way it reads now it is described as unambiguously pseudoscientific.  Wiki polcy states while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on a point, it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific.Truthenthusiast (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not any reasonable academic debate as to whether ID is pseudoscience, it's creation science relabelled. . dave souza, talk 19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

text: No it is not creation science relabeled.  Calling ID a relabeling of creation science then attacking it as a pseudoscience is attacking a strawman.  Obviously your definition of "reasonable" includes only positions which comport with your point of view, a vivid example of the very bias Johnson says lies within the scientific community.  The article still contains editorial bias towards your particular point of view.  The need for it to be fixed remains.Truthenthusiast (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As Dave said, "There is not any reasonable academic debate" about that question. Your opinion does not matter. The positions of experts who publish on the subject do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your opinion Hob.  Trouble is, your opinion doesn't matter either.  I think (or at least hope) that facts from a neutral point of view is what we all are striving for in establishing the wiki biography of Dr. Johnson.  It remains a fact that the article still contains editorial bias.  The fact remains that there are scientists within the scientific community that agree with Dr. Johnson's point of view regarding evolution, so it is not a "clear consensus".  The AIDS denialism is a separate issue and should be treated as such.  Truthenthusiast (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus does not require unanimity. And our Intelligent design article is quite clear that ID is creationism relabelled and is not a science, cited from multiple reliable sources in the fields of science, law, education, and philosophy. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

text: According to the dictionary "Consensus means "a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group".  All scientists, as a group, do not agree with the summary as currently written, so yes, a "clear consensus" DOES require unanimity.  Again, accuracy, not opinions, should be the goal of everyone here.  "The majority of scientists" as opposed to "the clear consensus of scientists" is the truth, and the accusation that the change gives "undue weight" to his views is off base.  Remember, this is a biography of a person, not a forum to disparage Dr. Johnson Truthenthusiast (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific consensus is clear on evolution, Johnson isn't a scientist and the handful of creationists with some scientific credentials (including Behe who's about the only cdesign proponentsist with claims to be a scientist) are too fringe to affect the consensus.  . . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

text: There we go again, redefining or picking less-scientific definintions of lay-language terms to include that which one wishes rather than using a scientific framework to discuss science. That's right in line with something being not really science as science currently stands. DMacks (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

text: There we go again?  And you apparently think you know what I wish?  My only wish is that the lead in this BIOGRAPHY article be written from a neutral point of view.  Remember, this article is primarily a biography of a living person who is most noted for his views on evolution, not primarily an article to persuade the reader against his views.  A neutral point of view is not the same as the mainstream scientific point of view.  Therefore, the lead to the article should not conclude the way it does currently.   It can still describe the scientific consensus of his with the 4 citations, but since the article is a biography about Johnson, all I am saying that Johnson's views about the scientific consensus towards these views need to also be included in the lead.  A biography is an account of a person's life, not an account of what others think of a person's life.Truthenthusiast (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnson's views about the scientific consensus are included in the lead. As required by NPOV policy, it also shows how these views have been received by the scientific community. . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial summary paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Phillip E. Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021000249/http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=397 to http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=397
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228190939/http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm to http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140730105830/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=b0cb194b-51d3-4140-88f7-e4099445c554 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=b0cb194b-51d3-4140-88f7-e4099445c554
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220073757/http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview to http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've taken out all the material about the book, I agree with user:dave souza but more importantly most of this was added by User:OtisDixon, a sock of a banned editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. All of their edits may be removed. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedge Strategy/Wedge book and a sock puppet 

message: Remove 'pseudoscientific' from the beginning since it says later that most scientists consider ID pseudoscientific. That’s enough. Wikipedia should not *editorialise*. David (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020 

message: Please change "The scientific community considers Johnson's defense of intelligent design to be pseudoscientific" to "Some in the scientific community consider Johnson's defense of intelligent design to be pseudoscientific" 130.65.254.15 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020 

message: If the US would declare that it is objectively true that the Christian God exists, how would we call such political system? Theocracy. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all part of the grievance culture fomented by poor billionaires deprived of their right to freeze peach and oppress the masses; one nation underdog. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, my take was about a sourced change to the article, in case it needs discussion. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask a rhetorical question .... ok, had a look and the pithiest quote was in Center for Science and Culture#CSC's Wedge strategy – the goals are "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science." and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."  Modest aims, paraphrased in the Wedge strategy article, and sure looks like theocracy. . . . dave souza, talk 07:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no! It's not necessarily God, it's just the Designer! Wink, wink. So, um... schediastocracy? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which reminds me of the frustration I experienced when I learned that "scientific facts" and anti-science apologetics, fed to me by the literature of the denomination I was raised in, were full of falsehoods.  I would less distrust the organization today if it left science education alone and focused on universal values, faith, ritual and community (and understood traditional myths as symbolic and inspirational narratives)...  —PaleoNeonate – 14:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocracy 

message: "In his later years Johnson retreated from his contention that intelligent design was scientific. In an interview[72] in 2006 he described it as follows:"
This misrepresents Johnson's position. The source given does not say he does not think ID is scientific. He is just saying there is no theory of ID.
This was one of the most powerful responses to ID: "You say the theory of ID should be taught. So, what exactly is it?" Nobody could ever give an answer to that, since ID is just a loosely connected bunch of defective attempts at finding gaps in the theory of evolution and filling them with the God of the Gaps. The question met first with failed attempts at masquerading those as a "theory", then, after the refutation, with a quick change of subject. Then, Johnson admitted, many years later, that there is no such theory. But he still said that  That means he continued to (wrongly) categorize ID as science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is also that the WP text misinterpreted the quote.  What I personally read in the quote: a claim that it's in development by some scientists, that it's not mature enough to be able to refute or replace current scientific theories, or to be accepted as a scientific theory.  The above comment is also relevant, it may very well mean that it's the scientific community that's not ready for it (i.e. and is expected to eventually embrace "theistic science").  It would be nice if we had several independent sources to interpret these words for us, instead of having to guess...  —PaleoNeonate – 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ID theory 

message: Phillip Johnson lifetime work as a scientist synthesizing Intelligent Design was seminal to reminding the academic world that science has always been at the mercy of Faith in a Creator.  Further, Johnson's anything but "pseudoscientific" efforts as the compass of the intelligent design movement was graciously pointing people to the unfathomable riches of God. 73.37.217.150 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Also, he was the opposite of a scientist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

text: —that is the task of the Church, not of the university, not of the National Academy of Sciences, not of the Royal Society, and not of a country like US or UK. tgeorgescu (talk)  11:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023