Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

message: I think it might be a good idea to introduce sections dividing the campaigns into classes, e.g. 'persecutions' (Roger DeHart, Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Francis J. Beckwith), freedom of speech/teach both sides (Teach the Controversy, etc), petitions (A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity). As things stand, all of these major threads are knotted together in one section. Hrafn42 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign classification 

message: The phrase "Instead, it advocates for teaching methods that introduce intelligent design textbooks indirectly through the Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", or "Teach the Controversy":" may be slightly garbled. Is it really meant to be claiming that "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", and "Teach the Controversy" are all part of "Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans"? This would seem unlikely, as these plans were developed pre-Kansas Hearings, and the "Explore Evolution" campaign is a relatively recent innovation. Hrafn42 15:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans 

message: They spend an enormous amount of energy spinning on this point. Is it big enough to warrant its own heading? It's not an issue that seems to be addressed in any of the other ID-related articles. Hrafn42 11:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" a DI ID campaign? 

message: Odd Nature is emphatically in favour of leaving the following sentence in the article:
An example of the indirect method the Institute uses to introduce intelligent design into science curricula is its Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science. This "teacher's guide" relies upon an incomplete quote from the President of the National Academy of Sciences as justification for 'teaching the controversy' and thereby introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory" . Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science Discovery Institute, 2006. [citation de-refed to be readable]
I don't consider it to be either a particularly clear example of the "indirect method" nor a particularly notable one (I personally have yet to see Casey Luskin write anything that is notable for anything except its inanity). Odd Nature however considers it to be "important". Does anybody else have an opinion? Hrafn42 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explicit justification for this view is contained at WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." The disputed paragraph is clearly "interpretation" of the DI document (the primary source), without any citation to a secondary source. HrafnTalkStalk 03:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect method example 

message: Did the DI have an explicitly-named "Media Complaints Division" at one time? I see the phrase frequently used in the anti-ID blogosphere, but can't find a reference of the DI using it themselves. I think that they may have erased the title as embarrassing. Any references (Wayback machine or otherwise)? Hrafn42 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you're not talking to yourself.  I notice that DI "hides" things just to prevent problems.  I've never used the wayback things.  Maybe a quick google search?OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already tried Google -- numerous mentions by the pro-Science side, but none that I can find from the DI. It is possible that the phrase was simply the pro-Sciencers calling a spade a spade, but I have the nagging suspicion that the DI might have used that (or a very similar) title early on. HrafnTalkStalk 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember that, or something close to it.  That makes me wonder if the Panda's Thumb continues to refer to the DI named "Evolution News and Views" as the "Media Complaints Division".  Kind of like how they do the DI's "Center for Renewal of Science and Culture".  But you need to way back machine and I've nver used it. Angry Christian (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find anything, but then Wayback is generally of most use when you know specifically where to look (and preferably when) as well as what you are looking for. HrafnTalkStalk 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The DI's 'Media Complaints Division' is what people call . Odd nature (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But "people" doesn't include the DI who call it "Evolution News and Views" with their usual misdirection, since they really mean "Anti-evolution News and Views", unless of course their banner is meant to indicate it's about the evolution of the DI. Which is unlikely, as they still appear to be fossilised. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was just wondering if the DI had, in a brief lapse of honesty, originally called a spade a spade, and then tried to erase the fact (which they have done from time to time). But it appears that the descriptor is purely a pro-Science invention. HrafnTalkStalk 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DI "Media Complaints Division"? 

message: The DI is continually trialing campaigns, and many of them, especially their petitions, fall flat. Additionally, it is the nature of media campaigns to tend to be transitory. This means that the sentence on notable campaigns in the lead needs to be fairly selective.
In spite of an extensive article, none of the references in Free Speech on Evolution appear to indicate that the media actually noticed it (all references appear to be to underlying issues & the DI's harping). It is therefore quite likely that this article doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Stand Up For Science was a temporary attempt to 'astroturf' in the midst of the Kansas evolution hearings, and has sunk without a trace. Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity runs a very remote second to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Explore Evolution may eventually achieve notability as a textbook, however as a media campaign it has had negligible impact.
I would also like to disagree with a comment Odd Nature made in a recent edit summary -- the list of petitions is not complete, as it does not include the Academic Freedom Petition. I would also point out that Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which he reverted these petitions back over, has achieved far greater coverage than all of these petitions (excluding ASDFD, which I had retained) combined. HrafnTalkStalk 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable campaigns in the lead 

message: According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be a "an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Given that the DI has been continually "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" we now have quite a large number of campaigns, more than can be listed individually in this "short summary". I'd like to suggest that we try to achieve some sort of consensus as to which ones are the "highlights" that deserve individual 'top billing'. Here's my personal view:
*Definitely (received major press coverage, which tends to resurface periodically):
**Teach the Controversy, and its slightly revamped/reworked successor Critical Analysis of Evolution
**Kansas evolution hearings
**Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
**Sternberg peer review controversy
**A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
*Possibly (received some coverage, but have tended to peter out):
**Guillermo Gonzalez
**Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
*Not (ones that made little initial splash & have since sunk without a trace or been merged into other campaigns):
**Free Speech on Evolution
**Stand Up For Science
Does anybody agree/disagree with this list? Also it might be an idea to include a thematic summary as well. HrafnTalkStalk 10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the highlights?

message: Thanks to Hrafn to add a columnist comment. But is Michael Mayo, a Soviet and Eastern European Studies bachelor and an award-winning sport columnist who has opinions on everything (his own words), such a great source? Northfox (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the the bill is being sponsored by a retired dentist (Alan Hays) and a former English teacher who has been described as the "Tammy Faye Bakker of Tallahassee" (Ronda Storms) and stumped for by a speech-writer turned actor (Ben Stein), I claim WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources. Unlike the claims of this bunch of snake-oil salesmen, Mayo's point actually has some logic to it. HrafnTalkStalk 08:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom petition 

message: The Florida legislative part of this campaign seems to be generating considerable press coverage (nicely summarised by the NCSE here), which gives no sign of abating. Although most of this coverage is negative, it seems to have become the most notable DI campaign in some time. Is it time to consider giving this campaign its own article? This is slightly more urgent as I initially wrote it up as a Petition-campaign with the legislative part as a mere afterthought -- but the legislative 'tail' is now decidedly wagging the petition 'dog'. If it does get its own article, what should we call it? 'Academic freedom (evolution)', 'Discovery Institute academic freedom campaign', 'Academic freedom bills', or some other permutation (none of the ideas I've come up with seem to be a snug fit)? HrafnTalkStalk 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the masses of input I've received on the topic, I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead & created it as a new article: Academic Freedom bills. HrafnTalkStalk 01:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a separate article on 'Academic Freedom' campaign? 

message: *The following campaigns are claimed to be "notable": Free Speech on Evolution, Stand Up For Science, & Explore Evolution. As far as I can tell, all of these campaigns died an ignominious death in obscurity, having never made significant impact. Can anybody provide evidence (not bare assertions) that they were notable beyond the growing list of campaigns currently not mentioned in the lead?
*Currently missing from the lead are mentions of
**'Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics' (which featured in Weikart's From Darwin to Hitler, West's Darwin Day in America, Coral Ridge's Darwin's Deadly Legacy & in Expelled)
**'Campaigns claiming discrimination' (a perennial favourite, again featured in Expelled)
**'Academic freedom campaign' (which has spawned bills in seven states over the last four years)
I would therefore like to suggest the following paragraph as an updated replacement:
The intention is to (1) only cover the highlights & (2) give some impression as to how these campaigns fit together. HrafnTalkStalk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable campaigns" in the lead 

message: Does Wikipedia agree with the NCSE and other pro-evolution groups that ID *is* creationism? Or is it neutral on this question, in light of the Discovery Institute's denial of this? 
For example,
In a video interview, Stephen Meyer said,
*Intelligent Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority. 
I realize that "courts have ruled", but my question is whether Wikipedia is going to endorse those rulings or simply note that there is a dispute.
If the answer is "endorse NCSE" or "endorse Judge Jones", then can we at least include a minority viewpoint, i.e., a denial or two from people like Meyer that ID is creationism? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you present a WP:RS for this viewpoint (reliability would entail that i) the claim wasn't self-serving (ii) was made by somebody with some expertise in the matter who (iii) does not have a track record of dishonesty)? As it stands we have a wide range of WP:RSs stating that it is creationism, and none that it isn't -- so per WP:DUE, this is the viewpoint we present. HrafnTalkStalk 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Ed, how does your question relate to this article? There doesn't seem to be any assertion that ID is creationism, there's a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" which reports the denials and the majority view that it is creationism. . . dave souza, talk 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent design and creationism

message: Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights:
* Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to "creation science," which became "intelligent design"
* Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator." The words are "strengths and weaknesses." 
* Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement. 
Odd nature (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source 

message: The result was not to merge. -- HrafnTalkStalk 11:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The good reason to merge is overlap. It's like having an article on Darwin's darwinism. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Darwin's darwinism is a reasonable sub-article of Charles Darwin. Seriously, as sub-articles necessarily overlap with the main article, in which they are summarized, that "overlap" can not by itself be a reason for merging. Merzul (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: There is in fact an article on "Darwinism" (Darwin's and Creationists'). HrafnTalkStalk 04:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071201001711/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons%20Response.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons%20Response.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071201001712/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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/20070630002824/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521123102/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/ to http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6LZiqbyLh?url=http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html to http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210113446/http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/the_banning_of_pandas_-_a_fina.php to http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/the_banning_of_pandas_-_a_fina.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207130846/http://www.evolutionnews.org:80/2007/12/west_wins_in_minn.html to http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/west_wins_in_minn.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214040619/http://scienceblogs.com:80/pharyngula/2007/12/how_the_west_was_won_with_spin.php#more to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/how_the_west_was_won_with_spin.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001712/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215205204/http://vangogh.fdisk.net/~welsberr/kvd/ to http://vangogh.fdisk.net/~welsberr/kvd/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729032153/http://aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm to http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212214558/http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/Statement_Anti_Evolutionism.pdf to http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/Statement_Anti_Evolutionism.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806232139/http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php to http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001713/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf
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) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. 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/20061230215318/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0116/news-shapiro.php to http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0116/news-shapiro.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217031633/http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4825206 to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4825206
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531055952/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php
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) 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Brian Alters, the president of the National Center for Science Education‘s board of directors, said in 2006, "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." I don't know if that exact number is accurate, but the sentiment is absolutely true--there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of evolution. So why can't I find a reliable source that says this? Seriously... this is should be easy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Found found --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific consensus 

message: I've just supplied 4 easily found citations for the claims made in the intro. So whoever is going through trying to cast doubt on the claims obviously has an agenda. By doing this they in fact bolster the claims made in the article. Edit: make that 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel tango (talk • contribs) 10:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why these were tagged for citations since it's the lead (WP:LEAD) which should simply summarize the article.  You may want to improve the  Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics section (the citations may be more appropriate there, with the lead including a summary of that section without the need for sources).  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Please assume good faith. I added those tags because citations were missing, both in the lead and the body. I didn't delete anything, and I appreciate you adding the missing citations. My agenda here is to make a more robust, policy-compliant article, and together we appear to have accomplished that goal. Not everyone whose edits you don't like is some sort of rabid creationist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed tags in lead section