Talk:List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

message: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
should we start putting some of those names up?Minnyhaha (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I found a new list

message: The initial 103 signers did not sign a document entitled "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."  They only signed an untitled document with the two sentences quoted in the original ad published by DI.  
DI appended the two-sentence quote to an advertisement critical of the PBS series on evolution.  The advertisement carried a headline, plus two paragraphs that the signers never saw or approved.  I have this on personal knowledge from one of the original 103.  The project may have further evidence from the NSCE interviews with other signers.
It was disingenuous of DI to equate healthy scientific skepticism with "dissent."  Any scientist who takes his or work seriously examines all theories -- most especially his or her own theories -- with a skeptical eye, so as not to become self-deluded.  Obviously, healthy skepticism is essential to science, and is not the same as dissent.   
For example, I construct theories from time to time, and then I ask myself how I could assess whether the theory on the table is an accurate model or not.  Dissent only comes after one has resolved the question with undeniable evidence that clearly refutes the theory.  In the meantime, the accuracy of the theory is an open issue, neither believed nor disbelieved.
While the public might be gullible enough to conflate scientific uncertainty with dissent, the members of this project need to be scrupulously careful not to buy into DI's propaganda machine.  Just because DI took the unjustified liberty of labeling the two-sentences as a "dissent", the members of this project should not repeat their fundamental error.
Unless one of the original 103 signers expressly affirms that they are a "dissenter from Darwinism," it would behoove Wikipedia not to so label them, in furtherance of DI's doubtful agenda.
Moulton 13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia only refers to them as signatories. It does not label them as dissenters. "Dissent" is the correct title of the petition, so it is an accurate reflection of what the petition is titled.--ZayZayEM 06:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If they're listed in any of the publised versions of Dissent From Darwinism, they're fair game to be listed. I've restored Picard, which you've removed. She's verifiably in the current list,  regardless of what you claim she signed or her intent was. Odd nature 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sorry this doesn't have a title, but I didn't know what you wanted this called

message: I was thinking of another word than corroborate, but I forgot, sorry
Please see :Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"
These need to match up.
Additionally this list should be divided in a non-alphabetic way to prove its encyclopedic value alongside this category.
I would suggest listing by date of signing
eg: Original signatories, Signatories added in 200x etc. Removed signatories (anyone removed?) and Alleged signatories (if this is applicable, RS are provided and non-BLP violating)
--ZayZayEM 06:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Organizing the list by date of signature would be tough and confusing to read, but adding columns for 'date of signing' and 'still listed' would make sense. Odd nature 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exact date, just sectionise original signers, and then by Year after that. Lists need to provide navigational aids not supplied by categories.--ZayZayEM 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not merge this article to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism?  Steve Dufour 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would make that page to big. This article serves a useful purpose as a seperate entity.--ZayZayEM 01:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could just put the list at the bottom of the article.  Here is the opening line of the other article, BTW: "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or Dissent From Darwinism, is a list of signatories attesting to a statement, produced by the Discovery Institute, expressing skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory"." It says that the petition itself is a list, so why not include the list of names in the article? Steve Dufour 14:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This list needs to corroborate with the category 

message: Given the controversy over the claimed affiliations on the document and the actual current affiliations of the signatories, should we indicate in some way (e.g. by bolding) which affiliations were used by the DI in the list? Skomorokh 19:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliations