Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 29 April 2007

	Rejection of evolution by religious groups was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 22, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 4, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted November 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

To-do list for Rejection of evolution by religious groups: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-05-02 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : *Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science' section. Expand : *'Forums for the controversy' section should go beyond debates, and eventually add an introductory sentence. 'Public policy issues' & 'Issues relating to religion' sections require introductory paragraphs to provide an overview and give structure to their sub-sections.

Template:V0.5

For more contentious discussion of these issues, please see the newsgroup Talk.origins (Misplaced Pages link has information on how to access the newsgroup). For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Creation vs. evolution debate

Archives
The text of the Creation vs. evolution debate page was cut from the Creationism page on October 29, 2004 to reduce the size of the Creationism page to reasonable limits. It was subsequently renamed Creation-evolution controversy to conform to Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy on January, 28 2005.
For full discussions prior to October 29, 2004, see Talk:Creationism and archives.
Antiquity – Nov 2004 Nov 2004 – Dec 2004 Dec 2004 – Dec 2004 Dec 2004 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Feb 2005 Feb 2005 – Mar 2005 Mar 2005 – Sep 2005 Sep 2005 – Dec 2005 Dec 2005 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – Oct 2006 Oct 2006 – Dec 2006 Dec 2006 – Jan 2007 Jan 2007 – April 20, 2007

Structure

I'd like to make the following suggestion as regards to the structure of this article:

• Introduction
• History of the controversy
  • (including) Controversy in recent times
• Arguments relating to the definition of science (will include limitations, theory vs fact, Falsifiability, False dichotomy, etc)
• Arguments relating to science
  • Biology
  • Geology
  • Other scientific arguments
• Arguments relating to religion and public policy
  • Science Education
  • Separation of Church and State
  • Free Speech
  • Theology
• Miscellaneous

Hrafn42 08:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with this arrangement - though common to any using the current content - is that once you leave the history section, every other section is an analysis of a creationist claim or arguements against science. Besides the tangental and short "Quote mining", nothing deals with the scientific claims and arguements against creationism. We really need to come up with a way to allow this to be interleaved a bit. Adam Cuerden 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble would appear to be with the existing content, not with the proposed structure. Part of my reason for suggesting it is an attempt to turn this article into a comprehensive exposition of the disagreements between Creationists and the Scientific (and wider academic) community, rather than a laundry-list of anti-evolution arguments. A large chunk of the existing content will get thrown into the Definition (& Philosophy of) Science bucket (including the Quote-Mine section, which relates to questions of what is & is not "scientific research"), where it can be restructured into something coherent (and the chaff removed). Hrafn42 10:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I support it, then, but wonder if we could come up with better section headers than "Arguements relating to X" Adam Cuerden 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means rename them. :D I was too busy trying to get the broad-brushstokes in my first run through, to worry too much on the details. See comments below. Hrafn42 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguments is so pejorative. Couldn't we replace argument with Controversies? Orangemarlin 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't find 'arguments' to be pejorative in this context, but I'm fine with the one remaining 'arguments' title (the other two having already become 'disputes' & 'issues') being changed. I would however prefer if it becomes something other than 'controversies' -- as I feel that this word implies something a bit too big, for anything below the overall controversy. 'Disagreement' or some other synonym would be fine. Hrafn42 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>Well, it is a big issue. The creationists are trying to force religion into teaching of science (I'm having a brain infarction reading the new book, 40 days and 40 nights, which is about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education case). It is controversy, but not in the case of whether Evolution is right or wrong. Maybe Argument works. Orangemarlin 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm having a brain infarction reading the new book, 40 days and 40 nights" Maybe this book would be a good source for a section on the physical appearance of the women involved in the trial, or the fashion sense (or lack there of) of participants in the creation-evolution controversy.

New Sections

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)

Objections to evolution

Please note that there is already an Objections to evolution article, which is the most appropriate place to document, in detail, specific objections to evolution (and the scientific communities rebuttals to them). Hrafn42 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder (OK, maybe a lot) that we should merge a few of these articles. The difference between this article and Objections to evolution is what? It's so small as to be insignificant. Orangemarlin 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The format is very different. Objections to evolution goes into a reasonable amount of detail on the specifics of each objection, with a fairly flat structure, whereas this article (at least the way I'm pushing it) attempts to give a structured overview. I would prefer to see the two articles differentiated & overlap minimised, rather than see them converge (as they were tending to under the no-structure structure) merge. Hrafn42 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Still repetitive. But as opposed to some other editors, I think the default position is more information rather than less. So if it really doesn't make sense to combine them or that they really provide different information, keep them. Orangemarlin 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Very clever, changing an article on the creation-evolution controversy to an article on objections to creationism. Very clever. Literally.

Please be aware that talk.orgins is not a NPOV RS

It is an advocacy website setup to combat an opposing point of view. As such, references to this website should clearly identify the source of the reference in the prose of the article itself (except in the case where talk.origins is just hosting a document of a well known NPOV RS.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.62.0.252 (talk • contribs) 07:57, April 24, 2007 (UTC)

In neither of the two references that I recently made to T.O is POV at issue. The first was merely delineating the extent of the controversy (if you like, you can add a similar, balancing, one from AiG or similar). If a POV RS is referring to it, then it clearly is part of the controversy. The second was to a direct quote at that website of a well-known creationist. Neither piece of prose referencing T.O contained any POV of T.O, so there is no reason to to "clearly identify the source." Hrafn42 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And the point is what? EVERY single source in the world represents one POV or another. Talk.origins is an outstanding resource to countering claims made by creationists. When I edit these articles, I use the source, but I might pull one of the references cited in every claim that talk.origins use. Orangemarlin 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, then, why not rename this article "countering the claims of creationists."???? But that is not the title of this page. So why this edit diff? You'd be better off citing the Henry Morris article. Relying on talk.origins to accurately summarize the arguments of their opponents is not reliable.

I tried to bring the reference into line with[REDACTED] standards. However, it may still violate original research, in that you really should have a reliable NPOV reference to back up your claim that "Young Earth Creationists have denied..." After all, a party to the controversy could conceivably be taking a single person's comments to imply it is representative of all young earth creationists when it may not be. (It may be representative, but you should endeavor to find better sources than talk origins to establish this).

Reliable sources do not need to be written from the neutral point of view; they only need to be reliable. Every source ultimately has some bias. --h2g2bob 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree. But in this article, (or in any article dealing with a controversy involving opposing viewpoints), a participant to the controversy characterizing an opposing party's argument and then knocking it down is inherently unreliable. For example, would you use an contract attorney's characterization of Bill Gate's business practices if you knew from the outset that the attorney has been (or is currently) involved in a lawsuit against microsoft without mentioning this obvious conflict of interest in the prose? Wouldn't it be better to instead quote the judge (or, if there is no judge, just disclose the conflict of interest while quoting the attorney). See also Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources_of_questionable_reliability and Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. That Misplaced Pages may not have any explicit policy or caution on the use of a party to a controversy's characterization of an opposing viewpoint doesn't really matter. Logic should tell you that in an article about the controversy, such characterizations need to be fully disclosed (or you could just find a RS with no obvious conflict of interest). Obviously, it is just easier to google talk origins, but talk origins is a sophisticated "information" clearing house run by and for one side of the controversy.

Taken care of. Creationist cite used for creationist side, and vice-versa. SheffieldSteel 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks.

Nuclear Physics section is now in violation of WP:Undue weight

The ICR 'research' is clearly fringe pseudoscience, and should not be presented as legitimate. Please read the article on the Institute for Creation Research & WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. I would reccomend that, unless somebody can provide evidence that it has been published in a reputable, peer-reviwed, physics journal, that it either be eliminated from the article, or clearly characterised as pseudoscience. Hrafn42 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is about a controversy, and assuming ICR is representative of creationists, how can you write an article about a controversy they are a part of without illustrating their arguments?ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You include their arguments, but you give them (the minority/pseudoscientific arguments) lesser weight (in terms of word-count and/or emphasis) than the majority/scientific rebuttal. Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say "ICR reseach", it says "Creationists point to research indicating that radioisotope decay rates are not constant, and argue that this undermines the radiometric dating techniques used to estimated the age of the Earth." It also states that scientists have "argued that this does not invalidate radiometric dating." ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this 'research' is of negligble scientific credibility, so simply calling it "research", without some fairly stringent qualification, is to give it undue weight. Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't actually know the research. I was assuming that it was real scientific research that was either mis-quoted or mis-applied or mis-interpreted. ImprobabilityDrive 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The compiling of these statements may be a violation of original research (it seems to me that in the context of an article about a controversy over creation and evolution, if a contributor finds quotes directly,[REDACTED] is a secondary source, and not a ternary source that it is supposed to be, and hence this might be original research--especially if the ICR is not representative of creationists) If you want to challenge it, I think you'd have a stronger case for original research. ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The ICR is one of the oldest and most prominent Creationist organisations. The only comparable body would be Answers in Genesis (although it has recently split, so it is less certain if it will keep this profile). Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The scientists are clearly stating that the creationists are incorrect, and the clear implication is that the creationist don't know how to interpret results. ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The scientific view is that the Creationists core results are based on shoddy 'research.' Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more details are needed. My guess is that if you dig deeper, the "creationists" are probably misconstruing statistical variations in decay rates.

If this were an article on evolution, you would have a stronger case for undue weight--though you could probably avoid undue weight to creationists without resorting to calling them pseudo-scientists. ImprobabilityDrive 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts -- Creation Science is pseudoscience. Hrafn42 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look. I am surprised to see such an article on wikipedia. I can understand why it is disputed (not that it is not accurate--I can understand that if one were in any of the enumerated groups, one might feel maligned). But in the case at hand, was this ICR's own resarch, or the ICR simply using, abusing, or otherwise misunderstanding and mischaracterizing real scientific research published by bona fide scientists in officially approved journals? ImprobabilityDrive 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the ICR article at[REDACTED] has a nice example of how to avoid original research. See the two citations for the sentence "The ICR website and the Washington Post obituary for Henry Morris both state that he founded the organization in 1970." In this case, a suspect source (the ICR) is bolstered by the Washington Post obituary (written by a Washington Post Journalist). Assuming the Washington Post is a reliable source,[REDACTED] is not a secondary source, but a ternary (as it should be), even though it also points to a primary source (the ICR website). ImprobabilityDrive 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just read NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. The problem with attempting to apply that to this article is that this article is not a pseudoscientific topic; it is a socio-political topic. I think you'd be better off with original research arguments. See section below. ImprobabilityDrive 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science is a pseudoscientific topic. Therefore the scientific claims of Creationists, (and most particularly those of the ICR, a leading advocate of Creation Science) is clearly also pseudoscience. Hrafn42 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive:

• The "consensus view" is nothing more than the view of SheffieldSteel & an anonymous editor, over a very short period (well under 24 hours). It is not a view shared by Orangemarlin or myself. Reverting me on the basis of this non-existent consensus is therefore unwarranted.
• The ICR do not have (direct) "research indicating that radioisotope decay rates are not constant," they merely have 'research' which "indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago," from which they then infer "The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week." Even were their research credible, the statement would be unwarranted.
• Their research is however not credible, it is widely acknowledged (including by[REDACTED] itself) that Creation Science (of which ICR is the leading purveyor) is pseudoscience. See for example for criticism of their RATE project.

Hrafn42 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of confusing matters, Hrafn42 makes good points on my talk page and below in the talk section headed with "Guidelines for Using primary sources" section, and above. However, I suspect those comments should have been made here. I do not object to Hrafn42 undoing my revert. In light of his point that the research pointed to by the ICR was in fact commisioned by the ICR, I certainly think the article stating "creationists point to research indicating" should have at least been worded differently, perhaps "The ICR points to research they commissioned indicating..." I'll leave the wording of this to others until I have a chance to go through the sources better. But in short it sounds like this was much ado about a sentence that was slightly misleading (unintentionally so, no doubt). ImprobabilityDrive 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of consensus, I would like to offer two alternatives:

The Institute for Creation Research has claimed that:

"Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago."
From this they infer that:
"The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week."

If this were true, it would demolish the hypothesis that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying Nuclear Physics generally, and Radiometric dating in particular.

However, scientists point to an alternative inference that the experiments (which it is claimed were conducted by scientists inexperienced in Geochronology) were merely methodologically flawed.

Alternatively, and far more tersely, my original:

Creationists have denied that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying Nuclear Physics generally, and Radiometric dating in particular.

Hrafn42 06:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This blog entry may give you an indication as to how credible RATE is:

I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were

invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the speakers had any training or experience in experimental geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young- earth geochronologists in the world. He also agreed that the mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a “cosmic-scale event” or miracle. He further conceded that at

this point they have no physical evidence for this miracle.

Hrafn42 06:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for Using primary sources

This (No original research(Primary Sources)) is interesting, how should it (or should it) be applied to this article? It seems by the above criteria, much of the article needs to be at least reworded. ImprobabilityDrive 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out to ImprobabilityDrive:

• ICR was the primary source (it is research they commissioned).
• ICR's research has not been verified by any scientific source, nor has it been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.
• ICR made a MASSIVE (and unwarranted) "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claim.

Hrafn42 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that your your comments here and on my talk page are noteworthy and important in the context of undue weight. I don't want to confuse matters, though. This section (Guidelines for Using primary sources) was about a bigger issue than the ICR pointing to research now asserted to be their own research. ImprobabilityDrive 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to ask ourselves whether ICR is a credible source for:

• What Creationists think (as they are a leading Creationist organisation).
• Primary scientific research (their RATE Project results that "Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago."
• Their interpretation of these results (that "he results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week").
• Their interpretation of the results of other scientists.

I would claim that they are a reliable source for the first point, but not for the other three.Hrafn42 05:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with WP:Undue Weight

With respect, Hrafn42, I think you might be misinterpreting or misapplying WP guidelines on primary sources: An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. This means that we must avoid interpreting claims, not that the ICR must do so. They are a primary source and they are not bound by our guidelines.

Having said that, I'm sorry to see such disagreement and reverting going on as a result of my edits. I certainly didn't intend to kick off a controversy. Luckily, I think we all want the same thing here: a quality, neutral article. I am inclined towards following ImprobabilityDrive's suggestion and seeking a form of words that gives due weight to the ICR claims, for example, "Creationists point to research which they claim implies a variability in radioactive decay rates," ideally following it up with a cited scientific source saying that the research in question implies no such thing. However, I am open to all suggestions, as long as we stick to these guidelines:

• Give both sides a say
• Attribute due, rather than equal, weight (and this particular debate is clearly on science's "turf")
• Make sure the material is put into context (it's all about the estimated age of the Earth)

SheffieldSteel 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel: The problem is that the ICR 'research' is so badly flawed, unreliable and partisan that calling it such without explicit and emphatic qualification or rebuttal would be misleading -- this rebuttal is not "ideal," it is essential to avoid undue weight. Additionally, the research in no way implies the conclusion that they infer from it. The more reasonable inference would be that they had made a mistake and needed to recheck their methodology (or better yet, get somebody who was actually experienced in Experimental Geochronology to conduct them).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation (I'm not sure who this is paraphrasing) & ICR are making very extraordinary claims on the basis of substantiation that is so flimsy that to call it "ordinary" would be gross flattery.

I have made a couple of suggestions for how to handle this issue above in the 'Nuclear Physics section is now in violation of WP:Undue weight' section. The first explicitly rebuts their 'research' and their 'inference,' the second avoids the problem by mentioning neither and merely characterises it as an (implicitly unsubstantiated, as they have provided no legitimate substantiation) 'claim.' Hrafn42 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to dispute your third point. This section is not "all about the estimated age of the Earth" - that is in the Geology section. This section is about Creationists attempting to discredit a fundamental part of Nuclear Physics (constancy of decay rates) in order to support their views on the Age of the Earth. The point being that to win on AotE, they must do massive collateral damage to Nuclear Physics (a far wider and more important field than Geochronology). Hrafn42 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just said; however, I don't like the alternatives posted above (assuming you meant the ones in boxes). The first one seems to give too much space to the ICR statements, and the second seems to be avoiding the issue altogether - I think the ICR claims must be described briefly and then refuted. I'll give it some more thought. SheffieldSteel 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the path that the ICR follow to get to their "nuclear decay rates are inconstant" conclusion is tortuous, the space that they are given is unavoidable, if a comprehensible rebuttal is to be provided. Hrafn42 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much over the hill, through the trees, under the stream, around some trees, over another hill, down a valley, over a stream .... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we have an agreement on the need to present the controversy as one where the scientific side has the overwhelming weight of evidence on its side, but only disagree on how best to do so.

My suggestions to date have been of the type of either "Creationists claim X, the scientific consensus overwhelmingly disagrees" or "Creationists claim W->X, the scientific consensus is that W is fatally flawed, and that you can't get to X from W in any case" (which ,of necessity, requires more details of the Creationist claims in order to credibly rebut them). If there is either an alternative presentation, or a refinement of either of my presentations, I'd like to hear it. Hrafn42 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation (I'm not sure who this is paraphrasing) & ICR are making very extraordinary claims on the basis of substantiation that is so flimsy that to call it "ordinary" would be gross flattery." -- Assuming it is okay to cite the ICR on their own claims (my RFC is seeking clarificaiton on this, and I don't think it is kosher to cite a primary source)..but for the sake of this discussion, extraordinary claims in the article need to be substantiated. A link to an ICR site would substantiate that the ICR made some such statement. That the ICR made this statement is thus substantiated. You do not need to make a case that the ICR's extraordinary statement is correct. ImprobabilityDrive 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with the question of whether ICR made these claims but whether their claims have any shred of credibility. Their claims are extraordinary, thus they require extraordinary substantiation from ICR in order to have them presented as having any credibility at all. Hrafn42 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a third possibility (I've expanded it out to cover the whole section):

Creationists point to experiments they have performed, that they claim demonstrates that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short period of time, from which the infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occured, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying Nuclear Physics generally, and Radiometric dating in particular.

The scientific community point to numerous flaws in these experiments, and the fact that the Creationist scientists conducting them were inexperienced in Experimental Geochronology, and therefore that no such inference can be inferred.

Although scientists have demonstrated that the decay rates of isotopes which decay by an electron capture mechanism can be varied slightly, these variations are of the order of 0.2 percent, far below a level that would give support to the Creationist results, and at a level that it is argued that they would not invalidate radiometric dating, nor is there any evidence of a variation in decay rates or physical constants over time. The consensus of professional scientific organisations worldwide is that no scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion years. It is further argued that "t is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates."

If this formulation is still unacceptable, could people at least either indicate which of the three formulations they dislike the least, or propose a formulation of their own. Hrafn42 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: On the[REDACTED] approved method of using primary sources in a socio-political article about a controversy

I am requesting comment from disinterested wikipedians on the[REDACTED] approved method of using primary sources in a soci-political article about a controversy involving scientists and religiously motivated groups (churches, creation-"scientists" (often read: pseudoscientists), et al).

It seems to me, after reading No original research(Primary Sources) and Attribution pages, that secondary neutral point of view reliable sources (NPOV RS) are to be sought whenever possible; but when not possible, the use of primary sources is acceptable in this article, with certain caveats. Specifically, using such primary sources entails reliance on published material from participants in the controversy. As such, prose in the article should make it clear in the text that this is the view, claim, or counter-claim of some participant of the controversy, and that it not be left as an exercise to the reader to figure out which sources are disinterested by trudging through all of the references. Furthermore, while interested editors are welcome, they should be careful and conscious to contribute as though they are disinterested parties, and not attempt to resolve the controversy but to describe it. This is best achieved by following the explicit rules as well as the spirit of No original research(Primary Sources) and Attribution.

In this particular article, it is not an article about a pseudoscientific topic; rather, it is an article about a controversy among many groups, some of which are scientists, and others of which, in the context of this controversy, are labeled pseudoscientists, and yet others, from conservative parishioners (many of which may not want creationism taught in public schools) to politically savvy athiests to seperation of church and state supporters. While it might be appropriate to make the point on an article on creationism that creation-science is a pseudoscience, making the point in this article is POV, unless handled with tact and care. This is not to say that one is precluded in this present article from referncing and describing material where scientists view creation-scientists as pseudoscientists, or from referencing and describing material in which so-called creationists assert that scientists are actually engaging in the promotion of a pseudoreligion, but we must remember that this is an article on a socio-political phenomenom, and not a pseudoscientific or pseudoreligious topic, and must describe such assertions accordingly.

I think this article has great potential. In the end, after it is written, a reader cannot ascertain which side of the controversy the contributors were on, the article could be a truly great article. (per instructions, signed with date only). 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant, since almost no primary sources are being used. In any event, the relevant issue is the undue weught clause of NPOV. As such, creationism in most forms is a pseudoscience, the vast majority of scientists think it has no standing and NPOV requires us to give it correspondingly low levels of weight and make clear the consensus that it is pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the consensus among scientists is that creationism is pseudoscience. But this is an article about a controversy involving, among others, creationists. By making it clear at every (limited) mention, as you suggest, that creationists are pseduoscientists, you have turned this article into an extension of talk origins and other similarly minded advocate evolution clearinghouses. Which, in the context of this article, on the controversy, dimminishes wikipedia. Simply mention the consensus, but do not, as you suggest, censor and limit the creationists component of the controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of censorship at all, rather it is, as Josh pointed out, a matter of undue weight. There are controversies on many things: did aliens land at Roswell; was 9/11 a Jewish conspiracy; did and airplane actually hit the Pentagon on that date; did Oswald act alone; did Pius XI and XII aid the Nazis; did the Holocaust even happen; was Jesus a real person; was the Spanish government responsible for 11-M and so on. However, as these are fringe theories, undue weight requires that they be treated as minority views. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my lack of comprehension, but I don't understand the question / RfC. Can it be paraphrased? Or exposition separated from opening statement, and signed? (just a relatively disinterested editor who'd like to answer the call) Demong 21:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that even socio-political controversies need to be bounded by the objective (and particularly the scientific) evidence. For example, how to deal with Global Warming is a legitimate controversy, but taking a position that it could be solved by Perpetual Motion machines would not be scientifically legitimate, as it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Positions that contradict the objective evidence should be either ignored or, if notable, presented in such a way as to leave no doubts as to their lack of legitimacy. Hrafn42 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"it is, as Josh pointed out, a matter of undue weight."--No, taking the usual undue weight argument that is fully justified in a scientific article is POV in this article. It boxes the controversy into a pseudoscience versus science controversy. This controversy is a socio-policital controversy that touches on science, pseudoscience, religion, spirituality, atheism, philosophy, worldview, etc. Taking the scientific POV in this article is POV, especially since most scientists (and especially biologists) are firmly on the side of evolution and not creation. By taking a scientific POV in this article, you're biasing the article, instead of simply providing an account of the controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

When commenting on aspects that are political, then you are correct. When commenting on aspects that are scientific questions then undue weight applies. All of the matters in question are within the scientific set. In any event, there is no scientific POV here, in fact the scientific POV would be far harsher. JoshuaZ 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"I would like to point out that even socio-political controversies need to be bounded by the objective (and particularly the scientific) evidence."-- Sure, but there are more scienctific perspectives than just biological science, which is the POV that many contributors seem to be giving this article. There is political science. Social science. Anthropological science. Philosophical science. Many of the interested parties responding to this RFC want to stick to the biological sciences POV to avoid giving undue weight to the claims of pseudoscientists. In a socio-political controversy, I think it would be better to stick to a tone and account similar to the political sciences, treating, as painful as this sounds, the assertions of creationists and biological scientists with the same even hand. This controversy is much bigger than what is captured on talk origins. Again, in an article on evolution, or creationism, the biolgoical science POV is what is called for at[REDACTED] for undue weight concerns. But this particular article is different. It is about a controversy that goes well beyond science versus pseudoscience. Having a scientific POV in this article gives POV and undue weight to science. ImprobabilityDrive 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No. This has no policy basis or basis in precedent. When discussing any biological or other scientific matter we must make clear what the scientific consensus is. JoshuaZ 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, this is a socio-political matter involving scientists. An NPOV tone for this article would be the tone used by an historian, political scientist, or anthropologist. The matter at hand is not science, but a socio-political controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive's statement contains a number of major errors:

• "Sure, but there are more scienctific perspectives than just biological science, which is the POV that many contributors seem to be giving this article." I would point out that the Creation-evolution_controversy#Biology section is still a stub. The scientific perspectives that have been in evidence so far have been those of Geology, Cosmology and Nuclear Physics, not Biology.

Your observation is noted, and it is strange, isn't it, that the biology section is a stub. ImprobabilityDrive 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a controversy about differences in perspectives of various sciences. All the sciences are on the same side on this. It is a controversy between the scientific community as a whole, and Creationists, over core scientific principles such as Methodological Naturalism, Testability and Reproducibility.

It (the creation-evolution controversy) is much larger than that. Religious people and scientists disagree on much, but these disagreements are often unnoteworthy. The reason this disagreement is monumental is the venue (school boards, classrooms, courts, political trails, ...) and its ramifications (childhood education, seperation of church and state, the existence of God). ImprobabilityDrive 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "It is about a controversy that goes well beyond science versus pseudoscience." I would dispute this. It is a controversy that it fundamentally about the rival value of the Scientific Method versus Biblical exegesis as a way of knowing the world. This controversy may spill over into education, politics and law, but the entire conflict can be traced back to "science versus pseudoscience."

I'm reading a book on the scopes trial, a famous episode in the creation-evolution controversy. Good book. Noteworthy author. I think the author would disagree with your assertion. With respect, your opinion is as valid is mine, but our POVs should not color this article. ImprobabilityDrive 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary and Problematic Secondary Sources

The table below is just a few sources from the article that are problematic under the RFC, and are quick examples to refute the claim that the article uses almost no primary sources. It did not take long to compile (just start examining each source). ImprobabilityDrive 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of such sources may be allowed, but must be done with care and tact, according to No original research(Primary Sources) and Attribution pages. ImprobabilityDrive 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. First, please explain what original research is going on with the Hovind source? Second, the IAP and the NSTA are interesting but are not problematic. Nor for that matter are they "parties" they are rather reflection of what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Please actually read WP:NPOV. Similarly, the Talk Origins Archive is a resource whose validity and reliability has been acknolwedged by a multitude of media sources and organizations,, inclusing Scientific American, the Smithsonian, and the National Academy of Science. For Misplaced Pages purposes, the Archive is more than reliable. As to the last one, I fail to see how a relevant expert in the field noting what Misplaced Pages says somehow makes the source itself unreliable. In summary, I don't see a single one of the objections above to be either persuasive or have any actual basis in policy. JoshuaZ 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"please explain what original research is going on with the Hovind source" Quoting from the first footnote: "See Hovind 2006, for example." Synthesis. I'm going to sit out for awhile JoshuaZ. I think we need to get some political scientists, historians, sociologists, or disinterested parties to comment. Regarding talk origins, using them as a source to enumerate creationist claims needs to be disclosed, as there is a conflict of interest. Just like using the National Rifle Association advocacy pamphlet on gun control would require a disclosure in an article on the right to bear arms controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here based on a request of comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and read most of the article. My impression is that it is POV towards the "evolution"-side of the debate. I can point specifically to "However, these ideas were seen as a threat to the fixed social order, suggesting it too could change, and thus were rejected. Some progress began to be made in the middle of the nineteenth century towards acceptance, but...". The word "progress" clearly implies a POV. I cannot find anything else that I can point to like that but overall it seems clear that the author's sympathies lie with the scientists. (see Raul's Razor #13). As far as the use of these sources go, it is hard to see if they are being misused without seeing how they are used. Can you please add to the chart the sentence that used that footnote? Jon513 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the "progress" was toward "acceptance", meaning that the idea began to become accepted, progress is the perfect word, given that the meaning is to "step toward, step forward (in direction)". Would you prefer regress?

The use of the word progress does not inherently imply anything positive. We can just as easily note that the Spanish Inquisition began in 1478 and progressed to other areas under Spanish control, including South and Central American colonies. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one can be perfectly NPOV when in this controversy Evolution has science and the preponderance of rational thought behind it, whereas Creationism requires a belief in a supernatural being directing things. Orangemarlin 18:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jim on the matter of the word "progress"- however, I've modified the wording in a way that hopefully avoids the issue. If there are any other matters of phrasing that concern you please point them out. However, keep in mind that the undue weight clause of NPOV gives us little actual leeway beyond such phrasing issues. JoshuaZ 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuing onwards, the Hovind citation seems to be more of an issue of poor phrasing in the footnote than any synthesis, the source is simply pointing to what a major proponent of one side says the controversy is about (something which to some extent someone one either "side" would be a reliable source for). In any event, it shouldn't be hard to find other sources that make the same statement. Improb, the comparison you make between gun-control and this and your statement that we need to have "political scientists, historians, sociologists" to comment indicates a fundamental misunderstanding. There is a difference between scientific and political disputes and Misplaced Pages policy (especially the undue weight clause) acknowledges it. (I suggest you read the RfAr on pseudoscience especially the decision for more information about this). The bottom line is that while Misplaced Pages is not written from an SPOV, policy requires that we make clear what is considered pseudoscience, make clear what the scientific consensus is on any issue, and give weight accordingly. JoshuaZ 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, as the first two sources are provided to delineate the extent of the controversy, it is hardly surprising that they are "parties to the controversy." They were both provided as evidence of what was being argued about not for the contents of their arguments. To consider this to be problematical is simply to grossly misunderstand the intent of the citation rules. Hrafn42 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the new wording, although I think the change is a case of catering to the LCD. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PROBLEM WITH footnote . This is original research. Yes, it is an "example", but how do we know it is representative? We don't. The contributor says it is representative (no offense to the well meaning contributor). Hence, original reserach. This could be rectified by citing a NPOV RS that cites Kent Hovind. Merely citing talk origins making mention of Kent Hovind is not good enough, because talk origins could be selecting Kent Hovind as an easy to knock down straw man, not because he is actually important to the controversy. It would be better to cite a different creationist organization saying that Kent Hovind is important than to cite talk origins. But it would be best to cite a NPOV RS mentioning Kent's challange, and then adding the exisiting challenge. ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that I consider the questions over this footnote to be representative of some wider issues in referencing articles such as this one, I'd like to go into them at some length:

• Kent Hovind, is a prominent Creationist (probably on approximately the same level of prominence as Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, Henry Morris of ICR & Duane Gish). As such and unless the viewpoint can be shown to differ from that of other prominent Creationists on the issue at hand, he can be taken as "representative."
• The extent of the controversy that the editor was using Horvind in order to delineate is a fairly standard Creationist one (I've seen similar in numerous places over the years). As such it is a very ordinary claim and should not require extraordinary substantiation.
• Kent Horvind only has any credibility at all in Creationist (and the supporting Religious Right) circles (something that is true for most Creationists). As such, NPOV references to him will be scarce, making finding one that has him saying exactly what he says on his own website virtually impossible.
• Creationists tend to be fairly egotistical, clannish and fratricidal. It would be highly unusual for them to praise those belonging to a different organisation, let alone a different 'clan' of Creationism (although they tend to be fulsome in praise of those within their own organisation).

In concluding, I think you have to take into account the realities of the dynamics of a controversy in attempting to document it. To be blunt, if the Creation-Evolution controversy was conducted solely through NPOV & reliable avenues, the Creationist side of it would disappear entirely, and the Evolutionary side of it would disappear back into the Ivory Towers of academia, conducted in journals that, however NPOV & reliable, are generally inaccessible to the wider Misplaced Pages-editing public. Hrafn42 03:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PROBLEM WITH footnote . The Myers science blog is use to justify the other four primary sources. Why are these important? Because the contributor who added them thought they were important. Again, it would be better to find a NPOV RS that makes mentions of these sources, and then cite them. As it is now, original research. ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PROBLEM WITH footnote . Original research because no secondary source is making mention of this Ken Ham article. ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply fixing these problems is not what I am looking for in the RFC. Rather, I am trying to seek guidance and groundrules on the "correct" usage of primary sources. Once that ground rule is established (I think it is, but apparently not), then we can go through the article and fix the incorrect use of primary sources. "See Raul's Razor #13", as well as No original research ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'll look at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php you'll see that it's actually a long list of further links, in other words, it's not a primary source in its own right, but a collection of links to about 50 strong, reliable sources. Adam Cuerden 02:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, articles published in journals are not primary sources. ~ UBeR 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, ImprobabilityDrive, I think you might be misinterpreting or misapplying WP guidelines on NPOV. We are required to present sources in a neutral manner; we are not required to find neutral sources. In an article that documents a debate or controversy, this is particularly important, since often the (decidedly non-neutral) statements of the interested parties are the bread and butter of our source material. Of course it would be great to have a large number of quality, reliable, neutral secondary sources which interpret, validate, explain, and put in context the claims made by the primary sources, but unless you can point to some that we've missed, it's difficult to move forward in a productive fashion. SheffieldSteel 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, we are not required to find neutral sources. We are required to find reliable sources, as you and others have so articulately stated. When using primary reliable sources we required to do so with care (this is official policy). And due to strawman, original research, reliability, and other concerns, I think relying on primary or secondary partisan sources summarizing the opposing viewpoint is problematic. See my strawman arguments below. Also, I do think you would agree that netural reliable third party sources are prized more than non-neutral first or second party reliable sources. This may not be policy, but it should be a guideline crossed over with the utmost care, do you not agree? ImprobabilityDrive 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to offer the following perspective relating both to the particular disagreement that sparked this issue, and also to the wider issue:

Humphreys (2005) repeatedly challenges me to publish my criticisms of his work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Contrary to his hopes, the publications of ICR, CRS and AiG have earned no respect in the scientific community. Authentic science journals are no more likely to accept a critique of his Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) article (Humphreys et al., 2004) than a rebuttal of the astrology columns and Big Foot articles in the National Enquirer. Also, before Dr. Humphreys screams about the importance of peer-review, he needs to follow his own advice. He needs to openly and completely publish his work and conclusions in a full article in a legitimate peer-reviewed science journal (such as Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta or American Mineralogist). Peer-review documents don't include a brief abstract in EOS and YEC publications that are edited by RATE members and other YECs, who are more than willing to accept manuscripts that invoke magic to "explain away" scientific problems and questions. It.s obvious from Dr. Humphreys. publication record on this topic (i.e., Humphreys et al., 2003a,b; Humphreys, 2003; Humphreys et al., 2004) that he has no real interest in fully presenting his ideas for critical scrutiny from some of the world.s authorities on zircon and helium chemistry. So, if Dr. Humphreys is really sincere about his devotion to peer-review, let him wean himself off the reliance on miracles for his .accelerated radioactive decay. process, honestly recognize and correct his numerous mistakes, and publish what's left in an authentic peer-reviewed science journal.

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D (Geology)

The problem we have is that the Creationist claims are never published in peer-reviewed journals, so responses to them are likewise rarely published in such journals. The responses therefore tend to come in science-partisanship sites (such as talk.origins) and science blogs (such as Pharyngula). The choices before us therefore seem to be:

• to allow important aspects of a controversy to go undocumented;
• to allow the Creationist side to be presented unrebutted (thus severely violating WP:Undue Weight); or
• allowing science-partisanship sites and science blogs as references for these rebuttals.

Hrafn42 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To comment on your choices. If a third party commentator or source (such as a journalist, political scientist, documentarian, etc.) has not commented on it, the importance of a particular aspect has not been established, and its inclusion on[REDACTED] is a violation of OR policy. That a science partisanship site or science blog refutes a creationist argument doesn't establish that the creationist, his or her arguement, or its rebuttal are noteworthy to the topic at hand. In debates, parties have been known to refute not the most difficult or well stated position of their opponent, but the most preposterous or ineloquently composed assertion.

Even scientists and their supporters are capable of committing egregious logical fallacies, more so on science-partisanship sites and science blogs than in peer reviewed journals. This is not to say that science-partisanship sites and science blogs cannot be used, but they are best used as a backup source. (E.g., a New York Times article on the Creation-evolution controversy mentions a rebuttal on a scientist's blog...in this case, site both the New York Times and the science blog, where the New York Times establishes not only the notability of the creationist, but the scientist, her blog entry, and her rebuttal).

Your second choice is a false choice because the same rules apply to creationists and their claims as apply to those who refute creationists.

Your third choice is actually not in dispute, if what is being rebutted has been mentioned by a commentator or political researcher, and/or if the rebuttal is presented with due attention to the following:

Which is official[REDACTED] policy. Also, that creationist assertions and their rebuttals are rarely published in peer reviewed journals is not a problem. Such items could be (and are) published in popular magazines, newspapers, PBS documentaries, text and other non-fiction books, and other places where controversial topics are explored by third parties. In closing, not to ignore all of your best points, Kevin R. Henke's explaination of the problem sounds reasonable, and it does make the task of rebutting creationist claims more difficult. But I do want to remind you again that this article is the "creation-evolution controversy" and not "science wins in the creation-evolution controversy" article. Our task, in my opinion, is to describe the controversy using reliable sources in a NPOV manner, not to refute creationist claims. If a noteworthy creationist claim has been refuted, and the claim and its refutation has been commented on by a reliable third party, by all means, the importance of the creationist, his or her claim, the scientists, and his or her rebuttal have been established, and mention in this article would be entirely appropriate, citing, along with the reliable third party, links to the original claim and the original rebuttal. ImprobabilityDrive 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes & Odd Nature's revert

• 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.:

The trouble was that a lot of sections read something like:

Creationists claim that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, and furthermore that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Scientists disagree.

You can see the problem. Adam Cuerden talk 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Biology stub

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)

Richard Sternberg

ImprobabilityDrive wrote a hopelessly POV section on Sternberg, presenting uncritically the pro-ID (and thus pro-pseudo-science) side e.g. Meyer, Sternberg, Souder's partisan and unofficial report. The Biological Society of Washington, the Smithsonian, and the wider scientific community's views are completely unrepresented. I have therefore replaced this section with the Intro section for the main Sternberg peer review controversy article. I would strongly advise any editor contemplating adding to this section read that article first. Hrafn42 03:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Work in progress, please read the sources before deleting other contributor's material)"

I have read them.

Neither Meyer, Sternberg, nor Souder's (not the USHRCGR's) report are credible. I'm familiar with all three. Sternberg has been caught in numerous misrepresentations relating to this issue. Meyer works for the Discovery Institute, an organisation with a long history of dishonesty and of attempting to spin people as victimised pro-ID martyrs. Souder has documented ties to the Discovery Institute. Hrafn42 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sternberg peer review controversy article needs work too, but I can only be in one place at one time. While the content of what some of these sources say may be disputed by some, The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Consequently, if it can be verified that Sternberg said something, it doesn't matter if what he says is true or not. On the other hand, you are free to add verifiable (not necessarily true) material of notables who assert that Sternberg et al are not speaking the truth. ImprobabilityDrive 04:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would consider the Sternberg peer review controversy article to be in a lot better state in terms of POV & Undue Weight that your own unabashedly Creationist-POV section. As it is the main article I would suggest that it is more appropriate to hash out any perceived problems with it first. Hrafn42 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider the subject more important to the Creation-evolution controversy. However, after I am done I will certainly consider (and probably will) go over there to improve that article as well. No[REDACTED] policy that I am aware of says that I must take previous[REDACTED] articles as tertiary sources in lieu of outside verifiable and reliable sources. ImprobabilityDrive 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that the section makes no mention of Sternberg's ties to Creationist groups, including his strong ties to ID. Hrafn42 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that his connections to Creationist groups, as well as his responses, has been addressed. I am not sure it is relevant, since government employees are allowed to be affiliated with such groups, are not required to provide an explanation for their personal religious or political beliefs (and whether or not Sternberg is in fact either a creationist and/or IDer is, as far as I know, not known; only his associations are known and at least some of his explanations have been reported.) Religious or political affiliations asside, Sternberg clearly has scientific credentials as well, and has, according to published accounts by third parties, suffered at the hands of zealous senior scientists at the Smithsonian (marriage dissolved, professional reputation assailed, etc.). ImprobabilityDrive 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sternberg is no martyr suffering at the hands of "zealous senior scientists", rather he is a lying sack of fecal matter whose credentials are shoddy at best. Casting him in the role of martyr does a disservice to every human with a functioning intellect.

Your point regarding government employees makes no sense. Try it again. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

POV & other violations

"...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)

"Retaliations ensued." Again, Sternberg's POV stated as fact.

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)

"The office of special council determined that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment and demotion at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History (NMNH)."

No such determination was made, as the OSC (which is highly politicised, and headed by a known culture warrior, who is himself under investigation) never had even the semblance of jurisdiction. All that was produced was a very one-sided "pre-closure letter." Hrafn42 04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I also note that Sternberg "states" things whereas the journal's publisher merely "claims" things. Another NPOV bias, particularly given that the publisher is a more credible source than Sternberg. Hrafn42 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll address this. ImprobabilityDrive 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Errors in this section

"...and had ensured that the paper was peer reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." As the article was in fact about Palaeontology (specifically the Cambrian explosion), "scientists in evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions" are not relevant. It should be noted that neither Meyer nor Sternberg have any experience in Palaeontology, nor was the journal in any way related to this field. This should tell you something about Meyer's and Sternberg's honesty and credibility. Hrafn42 04:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you the full quote: "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." This is cited. Again, see The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But his assertion is demonstrably false on this point. Therefore presenting it unrebutted is a clear violation of WP:Undue Weight. Hrafn42 05:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to being false, it is so vague as to be meaningless twaddle that seeks to ofuscate rather than clarify. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some argue that in order to be scientifically credible, a theory must first be published in a peer reviewed journal. Since Meyer's theories on intelligent design had not previously been published in a peer reviewed journal, it was clear that Meyers's subject was pseudoscience. Therefore, concern among biologists errupted that Richard Sternberg had allowed an article by a proponent of pseduoscience to be published in a peer reviewed journal."

Cited. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with this paragraph is that Meyer's article was not about his "theories on intelligent design" -- it was an anti-evolution review article about the Cambrian Explosion. Hrafn42 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if you find a notable source making this assertion, it should be included. I don't think[REDACTED] will allow us to cite ourselves, though:) ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Meyer article? It makes ubiquitous references to the Cambrian explosion & related matters (e.g. "body plans"), but states no positive 'theory of Intelligent Design' (which makes your implication that it does, Original Research). Hrafn42 05:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference for you, the introduction to Meyer's own paper:

In order to perform this analysis, and to make it relevant and tractable to systematists and paleontologists, this paper will examine a paradigmatic example of the origin of biological form and information during the history of life: the Cambrian explosion. During the Cambrian, many novel animal forms and body plans (representing new phyla, subphyla and classes) arose in a geologically brief period of time. The following information-based analysis of the Cambrian explosion will support the claim of recent authors such as Muller and Newman that the mechanism of selection and genetic mutation does not constitute an adequate causal explanation of the origination of biological form in the higher taxonomic groups. It will also suggest the need to explore other possible causal factors for the origin of form and information during the evolution of life and will examine some other possibilities that have been proposed.

...hence my questioning whether you'd read the thing. Hrafn42 07:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"# USHRCGR, United States House Of Representatives Committee On Government Reform (2006-12-11), Intolerance And The Politicization Of Science At The Smithsonian Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit The Demotion And Harassment Of Scientist Skeptical Of Darwinian Evolution Staff Report Prepared For The Hon. Mark Souder Chairman, Subcommittee On Criminal Justice, Drug Policy And Human Resources, souder.house.gov Mark Sounder's house.gov website Retrieved on 2007-04-27"

Let me correct you. USHRCGR, United States House Of Representatives Committee On Government Reform (2006-12-11), Intolerance And The Politicization Of Science At The Smithsonian Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit The Demotion And Harassment Of Scientist Skeptical Of Darwinian Evolution Staff Report Prepared For The Hon. Mark Souder Chairman, Subcommittee On Criminal Justice, Drug Policy And Human Resources, souder.house.gov Mark Sounder's

I added bold for emphasis. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is in fact not an official USHRCGR (as can be seen from the fact that it is not in the database of congressional reports) but merely a 'staff report' prepared for Souder. This is also why it is on Souder's webpage, not the committee's. Hrafn42 04:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is identified as a staff report in the reference (see above). It also has an official seal on the report. But if you have a notable RS contradicting the seal on the report, let's include that too. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42, let's work together on this. I will try to address your concerns as you express them. ImprobabilityDrive 05:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A government insider's advice: beware reports such as this; they are generated for political rather than legitimate purposes as is evinced by the purple prose title. In addition, staff reports are developed in response to a specific set of criteria defined by the congressperson. For example, if I say, "I want a report on Global Warming being invented by liberal scientists", the title will be, "Global Warming: the Impact of Progressive Political Ideology on the Development of the Global Warming Theory". Get the point? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed references

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)

*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Aviezer
|Given = Nathan
|Year = 1990
|Title = In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science
|Publisher = Ktav Pub Inc.
|ID = ISBN 0881253286
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Bates
|Given = Stephen
|Year = 2006
|Date = ]
|Title = Archbishop: Stop Teaching Creationism
|Journal = The Guardian
|Publisher = Guardian News and Media Limited
|URL = http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = BBC
|Given = BBC
|Year = 2006
|Date = 2006-03-21
|Title = Fears over teaching creationism
|Journal = ]
|Publisher = http://news.bbc.co.uk
|URL = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4828238.stm
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = CISE
|Given = Committe for Integrity in Science Education
|Year = 1989
date=February 1989 <br><nowiki>|Title = Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy: A view from the American Scientific Affliation
|Publisher = American Scientific Affiliation
|ID = ISBN 1881479005
|Pages = 64
}} on-line link to condensed version retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Dawkins
|Given = Richard
|Authorlink = Richard Dawkins
|Year = 2006
|Title = ]
|Publisher = Bantam Books
|ID = ISBN 0-618-68000-4
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Dennett
|Given = Daniel
|Authorlink = Daniel Dennett
|Year = 1995
|Title = Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
|Publisher = Simon & Schuster
|ID = ISBN 978-0684802909
|Pages = 592
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Engber
|Given = Daniel
|Authorlink = Daniel Engber
|Year = 2005
|Date = ]
|Title = Creationism vs. Intelligent Design: Is there a difference?
|Publisher = Slate / Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive
|URL = http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Faid
|Given = Robert W.
|Authorlink = Robert W. Faid
|Year = 1991
|Title = A Scientific Approach to Christianity
|Publisher = New Leaf Press (AR)
|ID = ISBN 0-89221-186-5
|Pages = 196
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = GCAG
|Given = General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
|Authorlink = General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
|Year = 1977
|Date = 1977-08-17
|Title = The Doctrine of Creation
|publisher = Gospel Publishing House
|URL = http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4177_creation.pdf
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Ghedotti
|Given = Michael J.
|Year = 2006
|Date = ]
|Title = Evolutionary Biology at Regis, a Jesuit Catholic School
|Publisher = regis.edu
|URL = http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/evolut.htm
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Hayward
|Given = James L.
|Year = 1998
|Title = The Creation/Evolution Controversy : an Annotated Bibliography
|Publisher = Scarecrow Press/Salem Press
|Pages = 253
|ID = ISBN 0-8108-3386-7
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|last = Hennigan
|first = Tom
|title = An Initial Investigation into the Baraminology of Snakes
|journal = Creation Research Society Quarterly
|pages = 153-160
|year = 2005
|date = December 2005
|url = http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/CRSQ%2012-05%20Snakes%20article.pdf
}}Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname1 = Huxley
|Given1 = Thomas H.
|Authorlink1 = Thomas Huxley
|Surname2 = Huxley
|Given2 = Leonard
|Authorlink2 = Leonard Huxley (writer)
|Year = 1975
|Title = Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley
|Volume = 1
|URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5084
|Publisher = Ams Pr Inc
|ID = ISBN 0404149804
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Morris
|Given = Henry M.
|Authorlink = Henry M. Morris
|Year = 2001
|Title = Back to Genesis: How Not to Defend Evolution
|Publisher = Institute for Creation Research
|URL = http://www.icr.org/pdf/btg/btg-153.pdf
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Myers
|Given = PZ
|Authorlink = PZ Myers
|Year = 2006
|date = ]
|Title = Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?
|Publisher = scienceblogs.com
|URL = http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Nelkin
|Given = Dorothy
|Authorlink = Dorothy Nelkin
|Year = 1982
|Title = The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools
|Publisher = Norton
|Pages = 242
|ID = ISBN 0393016358
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = NSTA
|Given = National Science Teachers Association
|Authorlink = National Science Teachers Association
|Year = 2003
|Title = NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution
|publisher = NSTA
|URL = http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Ross
|Given = Hugh
|Authorlink = Hugh Ross (creationist)
|Year = 1994
|Title = Creation and Time : a Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy
|Publisher = NavPress
|Pages = 187
|ID = ISBN 0891097767
}}
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = SBC
|Given = Southern Baptist Convention
|Authorlink = Southern Baptist Convention
|Year = 1982
|Date = June, 1982
|Title = Resolution On Scientific Creationism
|Journal = SBC Resolutions
|Publisher = Southern Baptist Convention
|URL = http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=967
}}Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Schadewald
|Given = Robert
|Year = 1986
|Title = Scientific Creationism and Error
|Journal = Creation/Evolution
|Volume = 6(1)
|Pages = 1-9
}} As reprinted at talkorigins.org Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Scott
|Given = Eugenie C.
|Authorlink = Eugenie C. Scott
|Publisher = National Center for Science Education
|Year = 2000
|Title = The Creation/Evolution Continuum
|URL = http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = Theobald
|Given = Douglas
|Publisher = TalkOrigins Archive Foundation
|Year = 2006
|Title = 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|Edition = 2.87
|URL = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
}} Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname = WELS
|Given = Wisconsin Evangelical Luthern Synod
|Authorlink = Wisconsin Evangelical Luthern Synod
|Year = 1999
|Title = This We Believe A Statement of Belief of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
|Publisher = Wisconsin Evangelical Luthern Synod
|URL = http://www.wels.net/s3/uploaded/4421/eng.pdf
}}Retrieved on ]
*{{Harvard reference
|Surname1 = Winston
|Given1 = Robert
|Authorlink1 = Robert Winston
|Year = 2006
|Title = When science meets God
|Journal = ]
|Publisher = http://www.bbc.co.uk
|URL = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4488328.stm
}} Retrieved on ]

See below. How were they not used? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source to validate Hrafn42's reading of Meyer's paper

"It was in fact a review article about the Cambrian Explosion<ref>{{harvnb|Meyers|2004|p=213-239}}</ref>, 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. Misplaced Pages policy states:

Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, I'll let you replace the {{fact}}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)

OSC 'Report'

The OSC 'Report' is in fact only a pre-closure letter, as can be seen by reading the text of the document itself on Sternberg's own site. It is also significant that the only explicit "determination" this letter actually makes is to close the investigation. All the rest is just weightless assertion. Hrafn42 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. How do you know that this letter is the report mentioned in the cited article? We should add your assertion that it is merely a closing letter and not a report, as soon as we can find a RS. I'll do some searching. ImprobabilityDrive 08:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We have:

• The fact that this letter was written 14 days before the Washington Post article was published (at which time the Smithsonian had not yet seen the 'report' so it must have been newly written).
• The fact that both the letter and the 'report' were both written by James McVay.
• The fact that if a more authoritative report had been published, Sternberg would most certainly have had access to it and published it on his own website.
• The fact that the Souder report (which had access to all documents) referenced no OSC 'report' beyond the letter, which it goes on to refer to as a "report."
• The fact that no other 'report' has been seen by anybody.
• The fact that the pre-closure letter explicitly states that the investigation will be taken no further, which means that no further report would be warranted.

From this we can conclude that the Washington Post was being rather loose with the term "report."

The Washington Post was clearly basing their article mostly on the pro-Sternberg side, as the Smithsonian had not read the details of the allegations contained in the letter, so were limited as to the degree to which they could respond. Hrafn42 11:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning, sound or not, is not sufficient to identify the report as a letter personally addressed to Sternberg on wikipedia. If you had a reliable reference quoting McVay identifying the report as such a letter, that would be an unassailable reference worthy of inclusion. Of course, other sources may also be sufficient under[REDACTED] guidelines like Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. But, like your suppositions, one might also suppose that they are different entities; that the actual report was not released (but leaked to the three media outlets) due to privacy concerns for all involved; etc. Using your conjectures might be sufficient as a basis for inclusion on a science blog, but would violate OR, POV, synthesis, and so on and so forth here on wikipedia. ImprobabilityDrive 15:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sternberg's skepticism

ImprobabilityDrive is overplaying Sternberg's scepticism. What the Washington Post article actually says is:

An e-mail stated, falsely, that Sternberg had "training as an orthodox priest." Another labeled him a "Young Earth Creationist," meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years.

This latter accusation is a reference to Sternberg's service on the board of the Baraminology Study Group, a "young Earth" group. Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

POV forking

Why are we even discussing this extensive and problematic section on the Sternberg controversy when a separate article on that subject already exists? The entry on this page should be a summary of the existing article, and if ImprobabilityDrive feels the need to make improvements, they should be made on the main article. Attempting to write what amounts to a separate article on this page is tantamount to creating a POV fork. SheffieldSteel 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is discouraging that you feel this way. With respect, it is not necessary for the[REDACTED] article you mention to be addressed before this article is addressed. As a contributor, I am a volunteer, and am working to improve this article. The sources I am using are being used within[REDACTED] guidelines, and, from a conservative newspaper article to a normally liberal NPR, the section lines up with the references. As I previously stated, I may very well go work on the other article, as it needs to be balanced. But I have decided to include a relevant and recent chapter in the Creation-evolution controversy, using reliable sources with sentences that are verifiable against those sources. ImprobabilityDrive 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad that you are willing to volunteer to improve aricles. However, I feel that your efforts are misguided. Whenever you see a link that says, "Main article:X" you should be aware that the section in question ought only to be a summary of article X's contents. Making large numbers of changes which are disputed, to what ought to be a simple summary, only makes matters worse - see WP:POVFORK for more on this. SheffieldSteel 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that {{main}} is not the correct template to use in this context. Please use {{further}}, {{details}} or {{seealso}}. {{main}} should only appear at the top of sub-articles. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant all instances. It's done now. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to reduce the size of this section. It takes up so much of the article, you'd think that this was the most important item ever to happen to this controversy. If someone wants to read more, go to the original section. This is in agreement with SheffieldSteel. Orangemarlin 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The size is appropriate, the pov now looks very problematic. For one thing it has the Post's "lashed out at Sternberg as... a "closet Bible thumper." but makes no mention of Sternberg's creationist connections or the point that he'd resigned in October 2003 and this was his last issue. It also fails to note that the publisher repudiated the article..... dave souza, talk 18:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Since I deleted it, let me try to make it read better and more WP:NPOV. My bad. Orangemarlin 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be restoring it. Another[REDACTED] article on the peer review controversy is not a good source, at least not as good as a newspaper article and an NPR documentary. I will visit the other article later. The NPR story backs up the "lashed out at Sternberg as... a "closet Bible thumper." The point that it was his last issue is interesting, you could simply add that. ImprobabilityDrive 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Planning on starting an edit war? Not a wise move. I'd suggest you try to build consensus. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Planning on starting an edit war? Not a wise move." Actually, I am not planning on starting an edit war. My edits were subjected to persistent and disruptive editing as I was adding the section. I would have appreciated your (or anybody's) vigilance then.

ImprobabilityDrive will probably not form a consensus based on past behavior. His MO is to revert away, then editors clean up later. Orangemarlin 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. I made several good contributions to this article. It took a lot of time and effort to identify the uncited references, for example. And, contrary to others opinions, the section I was working on (with the sometimes difficult to deal with but othertimes helpful input from a person who had very strong views on the matter) was not POV. It was accurate. It was verificable. It needed some work, but work was being done. Please do not attack me personally. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 01:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I knew that, but hope springs infernal. Seems like we have a problem to address then. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack me. I am doing good work here. ImprobabilityDrive 01:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and multiple (two so far) news accounts that do not portray a group of scientists positively is not POV, even though it seems that way to scientists. Furthermore, the other article was not part of the creation-evolution controversy. If there is a requirement that in describing an episode one must use what was written in an article, I would appreciate it. I will be posting more about my recent POV tag. ImprobabilityDrive 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

References

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 Misplaced Pages version. Anyone object? Orangemarlin 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

Peer review allegations OR.

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: ". 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)

Possible OR

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)

Pre-emptive defense of opening sentence

The journal alleged that Richard Sternberg did not include an associate editor in the peer review process, as was "typical". This is citable. Consquently, I changed the opening sentence to reflect the Journal's publishers position about Sternberg's violations. I am very willing to collaborate with others who disagree with this change. ImprobabilityDrive 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive defense over deletion of extended Publisher's official statement

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)

On the removal of Sterberg's apologetics on peer-review

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)

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)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• Religion articles needing attention
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists