Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

message: Reading in the thread below the justification for this article is the claim that A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is not actually rooted in science. But I see nothing in the article refuting the peer reviewed science used to support the organization.
FOR EXAMPLE: Scientist Douglas Axe has peer reviewed published data that PROVES that random mutations could not possibly produce new proteins to account for complex life on earth. I see nothing in this article refuting that data. 
Who does the author of this article think he's fooling? Who do you think would even care to read this article? 99.9% of the people who want to know more about "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" are people interested in the movement like myself. And you have just proved to me beyond all doubt Darwinism now needs propaganda for support. The idea that bacteria slowly turns into people isn't even a coherent idea, never made any sense to me. I wasn't aware there were hundreds, I think thousands of scientists openly agreeing with that thinking.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.216.133.128 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Talk:Evolution/FAQ, Evidence of common descent and the "Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience" header at the top of this talk page.  This talk page is also not a general discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM) so more specific article improvement suggestions are welcome.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a good likeness of Darwin's theory itself, silly nonsense 

message: :That may very well be true. I'm focused more on the lead section, where, the deeper I look, the more I see sources that kind-of-sort-of-but-don't verify the content. Take the first sentence for instance. I had, "The statement departed significantly from the overwhelming scientific consensus in support of the theory of evolution," with two sources that directly verified the content. This was replaced with, "The statement is misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings," citing this source whose reliability is questionable for this point, that doesn't even verify the content, and that doesn't appear to represent a consensus view among the sources. The sentence is a stretch interpretation of the sources at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In support of your edit, you now say it has "two sources that directly verified the content". The first source, as far as I can access it, is about Wells' Icons of Evolution and not about this petition. Please quote the words in that source that refer to this petition. The second source, New Mexico Doesn’t Want Your Kids to Know How Old the Earth Is – Mother Jones, is astonishingly enough about New Mex. science standards, not about the petition. Searches don't find the words "Darwinism", "random" or "complexity", so no evidence it discusses the petition at all. Please explain. . . dave souza, talk 23:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources say that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus accepting evolutionary theory. It's true, these sources do not say that the Dissent departs from the theory of evolution. I assumed that the sources cited in the body of our article would verify this. If they don't then we have a much bigger problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For goodness sake, please read the article and its sources carefully, and stop WP:SYN on the basis of your preconceptions. . dave souza, talk 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow. What synthesis are you referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In this edit, you synthesised the incorrect claim that "The statement departed significantly from the overwhelming scientific consensus in support of the theory of evolution", using two sources which don't mention the statement. Try reading the #Statement section and its sources to work out where you went wrong: if you find that too difficult, I guess we could try to clarify our article, though it looks pretty straightforward to me. . dave souza, talk 21:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Like I said, the sources were not intended to verify that the Dissent varies from the overwhelming scientific consensus. It is intended to verify that there overwhelming scientific consensus accepts evolutionary theory. What you are calling synthesis is standard in lead section sentences, which often summarize multiple items in the article body. As an alternative, we could say, "The dissent departs significantly from evolutionary theory. There is overwhelming consensus among scientists for evolutionary theory." Would that satisfy you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you've still got it wrong. Continued after outdent.... dave souza, talk 22:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see what you mean, but what does this have to do with the synthesis issue we're discussing, or the verifiability issues I raised at the start of this subsection? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Step 1; you said you had "The statement departed significantly from.... the theory of evolution" with "two sources that directly verified the content", but they don't – that's synthesis.Step 2; since you now see what I mean, you realise your synthesised wording is wrong about the petition statement.Step 3; I'd changed the wording to cover two points, the first of which is "The statement is misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings," citing this source which says "The signatories appear to attest to a statement about the ability of natural selection to "account for the complexity of life" — in other words, a statement about how evolution takes place. Given the anti-evolutionary tone of the introductory paragraphs, a layperson reading the advertisement might well assume that the signatories objected to evolution itself... Many scientists — including many associated with NCSE — could in good conscience sign a statement attesting to natural selection's not fully explaining the complexity of life!"Step 4; You now question the reliability and relevance of that source: step 3 shows it's directly relevant, and I assure you that the NCSE is a reliable expert source on ID. The same point is made by Petto in the paragraph that starts with "Like Behe's (1996) argument", but to understand that phrase you have to look back a few pages in the book to where that's covered, so for simplicity I added the NCSE source. The same point is made in the body text, cited to Gross PF, Forrest BC (2004). Creationism's Trojan horse, OUP. What made you say it "doesn't appear to represent a consensus view among the sources"? . . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I have re-added the POV tag because this article is blatantly biased, using highly prejudicial and even inflammatory language. It is a polemical piece, not an encyclopaedic one, reflecting the opinionated views of its author as if they were indisputable fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CE:201:D8A0:F073:E121:FEE8:36A5 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break: sources needed to verify content

message: Here's the list as of March 2, 2019, with the dead and a couple of duplicates removed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LY5ueeM63nbtnmo1om6rXu3G_cQIrE60yLhpq5YaoSg/edit?usp=sharing Thangalin (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There was either a list or a category, maybe both, but they were deleted some years ago. The relevance of this list and its signers is probably much lower than it was back in the day. I doubt it's worth trying to recreate. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Dissenters