Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:24, 23 August 2007

Creationism Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

signatories affiliation

the DI list clearly says that the signatories are listed either by affiliation (at the time of signature) or university were they earned their PhD degree. Thus I removed unsourced criticism sentence. The list is not updated with present affiliation. The assertion that the DI choses which one to incorporate cannot be made so clearly. Usually it is the signatory who gives such information. Also, that this practice is criticized is not backed up by a citation.

Furthermore, the statement that this kind of list is 'confusing' is a mere opinion of the editor and not NPOV.Northfox 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "confusing" could be changed, but frankly I do find it confusing. The word confusing could be replaced by even more negative descriptions, however. The evidence presented in the article is prima facie evidence of a confusing situation and even misrepresentation. This is never done in academic and professional circles, and therefore the ambiguous affiliations of the list signatories is somewhat suspicious. For example, someone who is operating in an appropriate manner would never produce a list claiming that Gish is at UC Berkeley, even though that is where he obtained his PhD, many years ago. If we have a problem with sources or copying a source too closely, this can and should be corrected.--Filll 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll wrote: revert: you have to make a case for this on the talk page and get consensus if you want to make such a claim. Sorry.

Northfox answers: First of all, I appreciate you recent changes to this article on June 5th. It improved quite a bit. Of course I do not appreciate you reverted of my change :-)

I always thought that somebody who makes an assertion has to do the explaining. Even though you might not have added the sentences in question, you reverted my change back to the original, so I assume that you agree with that assertion in the old version.

1. Thus please explain to me how you know that it is the DI that does the choosing (alma mater vs affiliation at the time of signature). Any sources? 2. How do you know that in case a person has had several affiliations, DI choses the most prestigeous one? Any sources?

3. being confused is a very subjective statement. Please explain why I should be confused by DI's policy to either accept the name of the alma mater or present affiliation. Both should be a valid option (e.g. for retired professors, academics who went to industry, and vice versa, etc). Please make a convincing case that the general reader should be confused by this.

I also find it very interesting that I am the first editor of this page that needs permission to change some contents. Up to my entry, the discussion page was empty.

Finally, it is definitely not me who is making a claim, I was just reverting unsubstantiated claims of others.Northfox 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is pretty in line with WP policy and one of the basic WP pillars

from Misplaced Pages:Verifiability:

Burden of evidence

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.

In line with this, may I ask you to provide references?Northfox 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the main article

Another criticism was that though such statements such as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" commonly include the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification, the Discovery Institute often chooses the most prestigious institutions to list over the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Similarly confusing lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.

is a near verbatim quote of ref 21:

Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe ministry for Rana, and the CSC for Wells. During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated.

I always thought it is WP policy to mark quotes accordingly and to use quotes sparingly.

see Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Why was this not done here? Ref 21 is not a verifiable source for the claim that similar lists (and the original referenced article does not even include the adjective 'confusing'!) were circulated. When, where,by whom, what kind of lists were circulated? Ref 21 also does not say that DI choses the affiliation to be presented. That the authors listed their affiliations strategically is also not clear from ref 21.

Hence I request that my edit is restored.Northfox 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any issue here at all. Verifiability applies to Misplaced Pages's article content and does not extend to the sources that support that content. So please reread WP:V because I don't think you quite grasp it yet. Footnote #21 and the content it supports are perfectly fine by both WP:RS and WP:V:Wedging Creationism into the Academy. Odd nature 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now addressed the complaints. The text is rewritten to make it less similar to Forrest's original article. Forrest's original article is a perfectly good source for this material since it is a respected academic publication, not some ranting drooling creationist rag. I have replaced words like "confusing" with more appropriate and negative descriptions. This tactic is deliberately misleading and worse. It is not clear WHO did the choice of affiliation, but the choice is certainly consistent with the DI having done it and I note this in the text. After all, it happened over and over again, so it looks like it was coordinated, particularly since it is not standard practice to do this. Even if it wasn't, all we have to do is verify what Forrest claimed in a good publication, which we can and did.--Filll 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, is the second sentence of your revised paragraph The institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute of the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. Forrest's view in a citable form, or your POV? It IS very important who made the decisions concerning the affiliations. Your argument is your POV. You are making assumptions, which is OR.

Further down, you have not changed the confusing adjective, and have even expanded the attribute with misleading. Is this your POV? If not, cite who's view this is.Northfox 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you were reverted because what you did was edit contrary to what the citations claim, and introduce a POV slant that clearly was inappropriate. This text had stood repeated scrutiny for many months with no problem, so for you to unilaterally remove material against your own personal POV in an effort to favor the DI is reason enough to be reverted immediately, and to require you to make your case here on the talk page. You made essentially no case, and therefore the material stands as is.--Filll 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That the text stood there for many months is no argument. Especially it does not constitute proof for a perfect article. The month-long inappropriate Forrest citation clearly shows that this article needed improvement. I use inappropriate and not misleading here, because I tend to give the benefit of doubt, this time to User:FeloniousMonk. I am sure in the meantime you have accessed my user page and seen my editing policies and philosophy.

Believe me, I take editing WP seriously. So please don't revert me immediately in future edits, but first reflect on what I did and why.

you made essentially no case is not what my edit was about. I repeat, I edited out the unsubstantiated claims of others. If you don't like the outcome, please come up with some NPOV description of the facts.

As a sidenote: You don't have to use the passive voice you were reverted. The active voice I reverted you or I reverted your edit is more appropriate here, don't you think? You can stand up for what you did.

Let me ask a third party to have a look at this article. As the article is now, The institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute of the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. and confusing and misleading is still POV.Northfox 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Northfox, in accordance with your request I've had a look at the article, the source, your proposed version and your comments above. Firstly, you seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV#Undue weight – we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. As shown above, the reliable source gives the views of Barbara Forrest, who is a credible expert on the majority scientific view. Your proposal and your argument above misrepresent her opinion as though she merely notes the variation in how claimed credentials are shown, and indeed attributes the choice to the individual rather than the DI. The source has her view under the heading "Abuse of Academia", and her statement says "Academic credentials and affiliations were also used opportunistically in 2001, when the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements... Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated" . She is clearly criticising the DI's misleading presentation of the credentials and not attributing it to fortuitous chance as you seem to believe. Filll's revision makes this clear, and emphasises the source of the opinion. From your talk page I note that we previously discussed an edit of yours which inadvertently misrepresented the source, and presumably this is simply an inadvertent misunderstanding on your part. ... dave souza, talk 08:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking you time and summarizing the edits, I value your comments, even though I am afraid that this time it does not clarify the problematic points. Is the sentence that User:Filll edited The institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute of the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. Forrest's point of view? If so, the sentence should be changed to make that clear.

She said (or impiles, or suggests, or any other suitable verb) that the institutions in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute of the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual.

If not, it is OR and POV of the editor.

Nowhere did I state that this is a fortuitous chance. If *I* would sign such a list, and *I* had the choice to chose between my alma mater and my present affiliation, maybe *I* would chose the more prestigeous one. No need to suspect the DI. But if the DI didn't make the chosing, why phrase a sentence that makes them look like the bad guys? We don't know WHO decided on the affiliation. THIS should be reflected in wikipedia. That was my whole point.

In the same vein, where is the rationale for using confusing and misleading? There are still no sources for that assumption. Let each reader decide the appropriate adjectives for himself.

I am sorry for sounding so pedantic here, but I find it interesting how the majority scientific view makes claims that seem not to be backed by sources (refering to confusing and misleading by Filll, and Forrest's report that similar lists were circulated, but not giving a single detail (neither, when, where, by whom, with what content, nilch). If they are the majority view, why go into such length on such thin ice? I never advocated equal space for minority view. But I also do not advocate that unsourced assumptions about the minority view can be made freely.Northfox 11:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Some comments:

• In a certain sense, Northfox is correct. We have no idea exactly what the mechanism was whereby people's affiliation is represented in what appears as a purposely misleading and even duplicitous fashion. If someone was caught with this sort of misrepresentation on a resume, I can guarantee it would raise questions and the consequences might be serious. This method of listing affiliation is contrary to all standard academic and professional practice. This is also not some sort of haphazard accident, since there are clearly several scandalous and glaring instances of it in the list. Some versions of the list include a very small typeface reference to this affiliation ambiguity at the bottom, and some do not. This is clearly something that is meant to mislead. It would be very hard to argue in a legal deposition that this is not intentional; I invite anyone who disagrees to try taking this sort of argument into a courtroom and see how far they get. Did the DI do it? Did the individuals themselves do it? Was it coordinated or just a coincidence? We cannot know for sure. However, my statement that this appearance is CONSISTENT with the DI having done it is accurate, but it does not imply in any way that we are SURE that the DI did it. It is also a paraphrasing of what Barbara Forrest said in a proper publication, and it is referenced as such. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, verifiable and NPOV to introduce it in this article.
• What is the real purpose of this list? No real scientist is going to be "fooled" by a list like this, especially if they look carefully at it. This sort of list is meant to mislead the public and politicians into thinking that some controversy over evolution actually exists, when in fact there is almost complete and unanimous acceptance and approval of evolution as the most currently viable alternative among the dozens of theories for explaining the observations of evolution that we have. The entire existence of the list is to pull the wool over the eyes of the naive and uneducated and to mislead. The general impression that the list gives to the uninformed is that there is a huge mass of leading scientists that think Darwin was full of crap. There could not be anything further from the truth. In fact, appearing on the list is almost a sure sign that the signatory is misinformed, delusional, in denial, confused, etc or has been tricked into signing the list by the very vague statement that signatories are asked to agree to. It is so carefully worded that at first glance, *I* might be inclined to agree to it. However, when one realizes that it really is just a sly trick to get people to agree to creationist interpretations of the world around us, and that is being put forward by an organization with an anti-science agenda to give cover to some of the most vile reactionary hate-mongering intolerant elements of US society, then this statement gives one pause. This type of misrepresentation is bound to confuse most if not all of its target audience and further the agenda of the DI. I spent one year at MIT and am listed as a student at Caltech in two successive years of the Caltech directory, even though I never attended. By these standards, I could list my affiliation as Caltech and MIT and I would be technically correct in some sort of nit-picking lawyerly fashion. However, it is clearly deceitful of me to tell someone that I am at MIT and/or Caltech or to imply it. It gives the appearance of someone who is inflating their resume and acting in a sneaky fashion. It looks dishonest.
• For the DI to even give the signatories the option of choosing their alma mater (or in the case of scientists, which alma mater, since most have several) or their current employer to list, they have already created a situation which is liable to lead to misrepresentation. Sure, the DI might not have made the choice, but they made it possible for others to make a misleading choice and then used this in their extensive publicity campaign. Even by not checking carefully to remove this ambiguity, they have made the choice by default (and are clearly aware of it because of the small typeface notice that sometimes appears with the list). On the other hand, the DI might have made the choice. Certainly the evidence is CONSISTENT with the DI having made the choice, even if they did not. And that is all that the text current says. It is correct. It is in accord with what Forrest and others have said in proper publications. There are citations for this. And so it should and will stand.
• If Northfox truely believes that the Forrest view is not the majority view, in the face of several citations to the contrary, where is the evidence? I am not talking about some ranting from the apologetic press or a "Christian" (using this term very loosely here) creationist website. I think that WP requires something from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the London Times, Science, Nature, the National Academy Press, the Los Angeles Times, New Scientist, Scientific American, or some similar publication that backs up Northfox's assertions. Otherwise, you know what Northfox's claims are worth...--Filll 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if someone removes important material or introduces a POV that is unwarranted, I *WILL* revert it. I do not care who did it and what their "editing philosophy" is. I think most others here would agree with me. If you doubt this, then let's poll them and see. However, if I go beyond this simple prima facie evidence of POV, and consider your putative intentions, then things might get far worse...so let's not even go there.--Filll 13:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I am sorry that my sentence If they are the majority view, why go into such length on such thin ice? led you to believe that I do not think that Forrest's view is the majority. Of course her view is the majority view. This becomes clear in my following sentence.But I also do not advocate that unsourced assumptions about the minority view can be made freely. To clarify this misunderstanding, let me rephrase my sentence: Because they are the majority view, they do not need to go into such length on such thin ice. I think it is clearer now. Still I think the use of confusing and misleading is not NPOV (why? because it is not a statement from Forrest, but of the editor). That Forrest has not included any information about the circulated other lists, is very unfortunate. So there is no chance for the interested reader to check the contents of those other lists.Northfox 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The DI published the list, and as such are responsible for its content. The article needs to make clear that, as Filll says, "This method of listing affiliation is contrary to all standard academic and professional practice." Whether the DI was actively duplicitous or merely incompetent in its fact-checking is of secondary importance. Or perhaps the problem is that they never really thought hard about what the institutions listed after people's names meant - perhaps they just aren't really comfortable with academic standards and practices. Perhaps "misleading" is a less accurate description than "poorly defined" or "ill thought out". It wouldn't be the first time. SheffieldSteel 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking the comments of the discussions in consideration, I propose some minor changes to the paragraph:

Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest pointed out what appears as deliberate misrepresentation of the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". She said that the institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute or the signatory of the most prestigious affiliations available for a signatory. That is, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is completely contrary to standard academic and professional practice and makes the list poorly defined. For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, the schools from which they obtained their degrees, instead of their present affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. According to Forrest, similarly lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas. Also, Richard Sternberg is described on the list as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of a minor journal where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy.

That makes clear that it is Forrest's standpoint, and thus not the POV of the editor. The paragraph does not claim that it was DI's sole decision (something difficult to prove). It changes misleading to poorly defined, and removes the 'confusing and misleading, something that Forrest did not say in the citation.Northfox 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Northfox 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the New York Times made the same observation in an article they had a while back. I don't have the time at the moment, but someone may want to try to track that down. JoshuaZ 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is not just "Forrest's standpoint" -- what she is listing are facts, which exist independent of her views. Unless Northfox can cite counterexamples, where the DI is not opportunistically citing the most prestigious affiliation (even when, as in the Sternberg example, the affiliation is tenuous), I think the text should stand as is. Hrafn42 05:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42, I don't see how this would make a difference. Forrest's words can be cited (WP:V), true or not. I have absolutely NOTHING against that. What should be made clear is that these words are from Forrest and not the POV of an editor. As the second sentence of the paragraph is now, it is not clear if Forrest wrote those words. You completely misunderstand the other problematic point: It is not clear who made the choice (give the choice any adjective you like) of the affiliation. If the choice was made by the signatory or DI does matter. The sentences as it is now, makes the DI look like the deciding body. We don't know that. I read Forrest's article. It seems to me that even she does not claim that it was DI's choice. Please show me where she did.

Filll, I myself am guilty of using weasel words in the past. People say I have a steep learning curve and I avoid them now. Please only cite Forrest's reference, and avoid your POV (meaning potentially confusing and misleading). Nobody has ever complained here that a weasel word should be used. similar lists is the phrase Forrest used in her article and a description along that line will fulfill the NPOV policy. Negative adjectives are your POV and thus should be removed. Of course if you can cite negative standpoints that include your adjectives, please do so.

These are my final comments. Northfox 08:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The DI maintains this list, it therefore bears ultimate responsibility for maintaining the consistency, and ascertaining the accuracy, of the listed affiliations of the signitories. This is particularly true for those, such as Wells and Sternberg, who are Fellows of, or well known to, the DI. Hrafn42 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the weasel words recently added. Forrest's is describing a easily verified fact and her testimony in the Dover trial was given full weight in that ruling, so its reasonable and accurate to keep the original phrasing. Adding weasel words to make uncomfortable details more palatable for one side of an issue is not called for by policy, but accurately describing verifiable facts is. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have your support. It was becoming clear that no matter how far I bent over backwards, the other side was not going to be satisfied. You just cannot please some people.--Filll 18:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, then please change the citation (now it is Forrests' publication Wedging Creationism into the Academy in Academe, American Association of University Professors in which she does not use these two adjectives, as far as I know) to the appropriate place in the Dover ruling, where according to your sentence above, the exact quote should be localized. I am always for keeping verbatim quotes. Northfox 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

First you object when it was a direct quote, and now you object when we do not use their exact words. So, no. We only need to accurately summarize sources per policy; verbatim use of terms is neither necessary nor required. And it's clear at the source that Forrest and Branch mean the DI is being misleading. Of course I can always ask them... FeloniousMonk 05:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

since the discussion is in a new stage, let me clarify. I never objected a direct quote. I can prove this, because I never objected the (in my opinion too long, but this is not the point) direct quote of Myers in the preceding parapgraph. What I objected here was the Forrest was used verbatim without giving the quote. Please do not misinterpret what I wrote. If Forrest implied in her article what is written here remains a valid objection from my part. Is The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. (your choice) really the same as But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. (Forrest's words)? I still don't think so. Northfox 06:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? So the section called 'Abuse of Academia' is not about the Discovery Institute being misleading?! You must have a very different notion of what constitutes "misleading" behavior. "intelligent design proponents have flaunted their academic credentials and affiliations for all they are worth—or beyond. ... Academic credentials and affiliations were also used opportunistically in 2001, when the Discovery Institute..." Hmmm, "Flaunted ...for all they are worth—or beyond". "Used opportunistically". It's clear to me what Forrest and Branch mean here. I still don't any rational basis for your objections. FeloniousMonk 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this entire affair starts to smell like someone who is being unreasonable on purpose and is trolling. We could of course contact these people directly. We could find many other citations but I do not think this would satisfy Northfox. It is clear he wants to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.--Filll 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

These are my final comments. Oh really? I guess not. Oh well. So I gather you have decided that a new policy that WP has to follow is to always write in verbatim quotes, never to paraphrase or rephrase. So when will you be writing a WP article to give us this new policy?--Filll 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, a polite request is not the same as a comment :-) Northfox 06:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Chesterfield County Public Schools

As reported at Creation and evolution in public education#Recent developments in state education programs, proponents still seem to be presenting this list to school boards. Why don't they listen to the DI saying they don't want ID taught in schools?..... dave souza, talk 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the wedge strategy in action. What has happened is that a lot of confusion has been injected by the DI into the public sphere. What the DI runs is really just a series of public relation campaigns. I think that the DI is probably torn. Some of them want to wait to introduce ID into the schools, and some clearly are pushing for it right away, because of their actions. This is where Misplaced Pages can help out. We have to make the information about the ID and the DI readily available here so that these school board members and the public can make more reasonable decisions, and that the defenders of evolution can arm themselves with more accurate material.--Filll 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true that we're here to inform, but don't exaggerate our importance. It's pretty clear from News Release, Science textbook statement from School Board Chair Thomas J. Doland, that he and presumably the board would love to teach the controversy, and are instructing their officials to try to find a controversy to teach, but as Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life makes clear with "asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic." that they're painfully aware of the Kitzmiller judgement... dave souza, talk 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but these days EVERYONE goes to the internet and Misplaced Pages to understand these issues. And so we can actually play a useful role.--Filll 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

There is a dispute over the verifiability and POV in the criticism section.05:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC) _{(an unsigned comment from Northfox)}

Claiming there is a valid dispute and there actually being one are two very different things. So far your past claims have proved to be baseless, based on a flawed understanding of policy. Care to explain exactly what it is you dispute? Your last objection over "...Barbara Forrest and ... Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual." proved to be frivolous. The passage is completely supported by Wedging Creationism into the Academy by Forrest and Branch in Academe, published by the American Association of University Professors. I don't think there's a valid objection to be made here, and making repeated frivolous objections disrupt the project. FeloniousMonk 05:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I disputed the verifiability and POV of this sentences in the criticism section:

The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. Neither from the document A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism itself nor from the cited references in the criticism section is it clear that the Discovery Institute made the choice.Northfox 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is a controversy over the use of the adjectives confusing and misleading in:

Similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas. Another editor, SheffieldSteel, has suggested using poorly defined or ill thought out instead, and I have suggested to omit the adjectives altogether.Northfox 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I suggested the following edits, but they were not implemented.

Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest pointed out what appears as deliberate misrepresentation of the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". She said that the institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute or the signatory of the most prestigious affiliations available for a signatory. .... According to Forrest, similar lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.Northfox 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking your points in order:

1. "The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual." is an accurate summary of the Abuse of Academia section of Wedging Creationism into the Academy by Forrest and Branch in Academe, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors: "intelligent design proponents have flaunted their academic credentials and affiliations for all they are worth—or beyond. ... Academic credentials and affiliations were also used opportunistically in 2001, when the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements in three national publications..."
2. "Similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas." is again another accurate summary of the Abuse of Academia section of Wedging Creationism into the Academy by Forrest and Branch in Academe, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors: "intelligent design proponents have flaunted their academic credentials and affiliations for all they are worth—or beyond. ... Academic credentials and affiliations were also used opportunistically in 2001, when the Discovery Institute purchased advertisements in three national publications... During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated."
3. Read WP:CON, having suggestions which are given due consideration but ultimately rejected does not a valid dispute make. Looking at your stubborn refusal to accept any use of the source at all, I can see why your objections fail to gain consensus here.

Looking through your contributions to this talk page I see that when you first came to it you claimed that Wedging Creationism into the Academy was not a valid source "because it was not verifiable", betraying a flawed understanding of WP:V which was pointed out to you. Next you objected to use of direct quotes from it which were not attributed; this was fixed. Now you object the summary of the source. I'm seeing a pattern here, and it's not going to get you the results you appear to be seeking. FeloniousMonk 06:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk. You just gave a good reason to change the disputed sentences. Replying to your points in order.

1. "intelligent design proponents have flaunted their academic credentials" then means that the signatories are responsible for the information that appears after their name. Is it not? The proponents are the signatories. Arent they not? their is a possessive pronoun of the subject, the proponent. Hence it is not the Discovery Institute that is responsible for flaunted credentials. You have read my comments, so you should know that this is what I was trying to bring across towards the end of our long discussion.

2. The passive voice were also used refers to the Discovery Institute. For what were they using the information? Forrest says that the Discovery Institute was using the flaunted (her words, not mine) credentials opportunistically and for advertising in 2001.This is different from compiling and editing a misleading list. Furthermore, and I am sorry to repeat myself, Forrest and Glenn do not use confusing and misleading in their sentence During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated.

3. of course I know WP:CON

4. You are right. At the beginning of the discussion I was saying that the Forest reference was not a verifiable source. I was wrong. I am sorry, but please assume 'good faith', even though it might be hard to believe here. But please also bear in mind that her source is not the content of this dispute.

Before I started this discussion, the article was below WP standards. Because I initiated the discussion, the article improved. If I would have stopped immediately after my small edit was reverted, the article would have remained so. Then, why not make it even better by adding Forrest's (and Glenn's) name to the disputed sentence The institutions appearing in the list are consistent with a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute or the signatory of the most prestigious affiliations available for a signatory.? Then all ambiguity is gone. They said it, it is verifiable. Full stop! If they did not say it, (maybe that is why nobody feels comfortable changing the sentence) it is POV of the editor. And remove the 'confusing and misleading'. I leave this now for the public to decide. Northfox 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to AGF when one surveys the past activity on the article and on the talk page. Sorry.--Filll 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing and misleading are accurate, and they stay. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The petition's definition of "Darwinism"

I think it may be worth noting that the petition's definition of "Darwinism": "random mutation and natural selection" is far more limited than the current scientific conception of the Theory of Evolution which, as discussed in the Evolution article, also includes Recombination as a source of variation, and Genetic Drift and Genetic Flow as mechanisms. This means that the petition's definition of "Darwinism" is a strawman, whose ability "to account for the complexity of life," without these additional mechanisms and source of variation, the mainstream scientific community would likewise be "skeptical" of, meaning that the "dissent" of the petition is non-existent. Hrafn42 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely correct. I am not sure if this is because of ignorance or intentional misrepresentation. Maybe the people who wrote the statement for the Discovery Institute did not understand the current state of understanding of evolution in the scientific community. However, this works to their benefit in potentially "tricking" people into signing the petition because of its vague and misleading wording. So maybe we need a section on this?--Filll 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No reason to adopt AGF outside of Misplaced Pages in this case. The various "studies", petitions and surveys that the DI has conducted make it perfectly clear they aren't just misunderstanding but deliberately misrepresenting these terms. No one who spent years discussing evolution could honestly mix up the scientific fact of evolution and Darwin's theory of evolution. Malc82 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a first draft of what I'd be suggesting (addition in bold):

As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, the statement refers to evolution as "Darwinism." It has come under extensive criticism from a variety of sources as misleading, poorly phrased and containing only a miniscule fraction of scientists in the relevant fields and representing an insignificant fraction of the total scientific population. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community, with an article published by the National Institutes of Health saying "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".It should be noted that the modern theory of evolution additionally includes Recombination as a source of variation and and Genetic drift and Gene flow as mechanisms, meaning that it does not in fact claim "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." This creates a degree of ambiguity as to what it is that the petition is a "dissent from."

Hrafn42 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

doctoral degree

user:Filll asked the right question: a list of what?. I am just taking it to the logical next step: A list of what kind of people?. The list is exclusive. What is the criterion to join? A doctoral degree. This is also mentioned prominently on the list itself. The word scientist is used in the wiki article, but it is a bit ambiguous, since being a scientist does not require a doctorate. What is the rationale not to mention doctoral degree holder in the article?

User:ConfuciusOrnis wrote in his revert summary: (have a look at the history next time.) I did, but couldn't find any discussion of why the doctoral degree should not be mentioned. Sorry. There was, though, a discussion about current affiliation vs institution were the degree was earned, but that is a different issue. 210.128.52.4 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that was a bit off hand, I was referring to an earlier attempt to spell out the qualifications of the signatories that didn't survive long. Personally, I'm inclined to say: "so what?" as you point out a doctorate is no guarantee of scientific literacy. ornis 02:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If think an important question is a doctoral degree in what? Many of these purported 'scientists' have their doctoral degrees in Engineering, Mathematics and Philosophy, so are in fact not scientists. Hrafn42 03:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

if you have a look at the scientist entry in wikipedia, you will see that mathematicians and engineers are included in the scientist category.Northfox 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not really an authority in this regard. Engineers and mathematicians can be scientists, but in general they are not scientists.--Filll 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some also have masters degrees, or MDs or Law degrees. So it is sort of a nonsense list.--Filll 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll -- can you confirm this (either a source or some examples)? I was aware that they played fairly fast-and-loose with "scientific," but was not previously aware that they were letting anybody on who did not have a PhD. Hrafn42 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked a bit at the list. Many of those people could easily have Master's degrees. Some have Medical degrees, although they should be on the list meant specifically for that (Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity).--Filll 14:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the two lists are not excluding each other. Also timing may play a role. The 'dissent' list is older, as far as I know, than the 'integrity' list. Meaning that a medical doctor might have joined the dissent list earlier, and then not seeing the necessity to join the other. Or she/he only knew about one of the list, or, etc, etc. etc. But basically, isn't it up to the individual which list to join? Even being on both lists should be permissible for a medical doctor. Still, all members of the 'dissent list' are listed either by their PhD (or equivalent) or by their academic position (Professor or similar). So it really strikes me as odd that the fact that the signatories are doctors is not mentionned ONCE in the whole article. Attempts to include that have been reverted, no reasons given. Northfox 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC

Since the lists are nonsense anyway, it is all sort of arbitrary. Some signatories are "doctors.", some are medical doctors, some are PhDs. Some are not. So what?--Filll 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Northfox:

• Not "all members of the 'dissent list' are listed either by their PhD (or equivalent) or by their academic position (Professor or similar)." Sternberg affiliation was listed as "Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute" when in fact he was never employed by the Smithsonian, but merely had access to their collections for research as a 'Research Associate.' Nor has it been explained why they tend not to be listed by their academic position, where their position is with an explicitly partisan organisation (not one DI member lists their affiliation with that organisation).
• It may strike you as "odd that the fact that the signatories are doctors is not mentionned ONCE in the whole article," but the fact is that there is no reliable source backing up that claim. The DI may claim this, but that is a self-serving, contentious, self-published claim by a group that has already been proven to have misrepresented this list (in that the signatories are not all scientists, and that some of their affiliations have been misrepresented or obfuscated).

Hrafn42 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The list that I downloaded (as of Feb. 2007), lists one 'Richard Sternberg' on page 11 as Ph.D. Biology (Molecular Evolution) Florida International University. Also: Ph.D. Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) Binghamton University. Northfox 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Northfox, you assert that the scientist entry in wikipedia shows mathematicians and engineers as included in the scientist category. Where does it say this of engineers? It does say "There is no sharp distinction between science and engineering... and some engineers do first-rate scientific research.", but that's not what you're asserting. It also says that the term was coined by William Whewell, well known as a theologian. Wonder why the signatories are so shy about their day jobs as theologians? ... dave souza, talk 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Northfox:

• Scientists also includes, Social scientists, who would not generally be considered to be 'scientists.' Further, the article is tagged as "This article does not cite any references or sources" & "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims" -- making it fairly unreliable, even by Misplaced Pages standards.
• Neither Category:Science occupations nor Category:Scientists include Category:Mathematicians or Category:Engineers as Subcategories.
• Further, you have failed to even attempt to justify the inclusion of Philosophers.

Hrafn42 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the list. From my viewpoint (and I may be mistaken) there are 18 people where I am not sure if they have a doctoral degree. Maybe they have. All others are listed by their degree or by current affiliation that is normally reserved for people with a doctoral degree (like Prof. Assoc. Prof., university lecturer, Department head, etc). The 18 are: B. d'Abrera, D.D. Rathman, J. Brown, D. Chambers, R. Ice, M. Rodrigues, T. Takagi, M. G. U. Gomez, K. S. Siddiqui, C. Morbey, O. Havrysh, D. N. Rose, J. Stamper, J. Lary, T. Wang, J. Vanamala, B. K. Nelson, D. B. Rusch, and M. Krause.

Since at least 98.5% of signer do have a doctoral degree, I suggest to change the third sentence of the lead paragraph to

The document states:

   We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. 
   Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

It has been signed by more than 700 people, the vast majority of them holding a doctoral degree, and including many university professors.

haven't counted how many professors (yet?) but I guess 30-40%? That will qualify for 'many', I think. Northfox 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>There are lots of faculty members without a doctoral degree. Some of those listed are retired, or their former positions are listed, with no indication of their current position. What appears to have been done is to push the boundaries as far as possible and list whatever present or past affiliation might appear as impressive as possible to someone who does not know anything, like a member of the public. I do not think we need to assist the DI in their promotion efforts here. That is not our job.--Filll 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Our job is to give adequate information. Describing the signatories as 'people' is not adequate. I was trying to give my input to make the description of the list more adequate, but it seems you are not the slightest interested. Do you think you are doing a good job? Northfox 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are doing a good job. And I think we are trying very hard to keep the article and the others from turning into religious tracts, and it is not easy.--Filll 15:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that we should work to keep the articles NPOV. But it is hard to imagine that adding information about the scientific background, which is a very important piece of information about the signatories of this list, will turn this article into a religious tract. You labeled the list 'nonsense', and you are free to express your opinion about it. But since it is a notable object, we should strive to describe it the best possible NPOV way and give all the basic and crucial information.

This includes:

1. Change signatories from 'people' to 'people with (insert an adequate phrase that describes their science background)'
2. Change the lead sentence from being already critical about the list to describing the original purpose of the list (can be found on dissentfromdarwin page. Criticism belongs in its own section.
3. remove outdated information (e.g. Sternberg). The list, being frequently updated, is an ongoing event and the wiki article should be checked against the actual version. Older versions were criticised of having just 25% biologists on them. How about the newer version? More? Less?

If there are archived previous versions of the list, we could even make a subsection Development of the list or history of the list, which then could include the Sternberg issue (if this is an issue at all). Northfox 06:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that we have, to date, two sources for the claim that all the signatories have doctorates:

1. Northfox's own OR, whose methodology has been questioned by Filill.
2. The DI's invitation, "If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement..." -- whose implicit eligibility definition appears to be violated by the 4 Philosophers and 1 Economist on the petition.

Either way, I would suggest that the claim lacks a reliable source. Hrafn42 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Northfox.

1. Change signatories from 'people' to 'people with (insert an adequate phrase that describes their science background)' The point is not all of them have scientific qualifications, so at best such a sentence would read something like: "..despite the name, many of the signatories are MD's, philosophers, mathematicians or engineers..."
2. Criticism belongs in its own section. No it doesn't. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, but generally criticism sections are frowned upon as they attract trolling, and tit for tat, point, counter point, edit warring.
3. remove outdated information Eh? I guess by that reasoning we should delete the article on lysenkoism, the ussr, lamarckianism and julius caesar? ornis 07:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On Northfox's suggestions:

1. May I suggest "people, most of whom have neither training nor experience to validly judge the Theory of Evolution, and many of whom have no significant scientific training at all."
2. "The original purpose of the list" is dishonest propaganda. The dissentfromdarwin page is entirely self-serving and controversial self-published material -- making it entirely unacceptable as a source for Misplaced Pages.
3. So when the DI were caught lying and therefore had to amend the list, we're meant to simply forget about it? Why? It is part of a continuing pattern of dishonesty on the DI's part, and so is emphatically not "outdated information."

12% of signatories have "Biology" or "Genetics" in their description (case sensitive). 17% have Engineering, 14% have Chemistry, 10% have Physics, 6% have Medicine, 5% have Mathematics and 5% have Biochemistry. Of course there may be some overlap, and numerous subcategories not included, but this does give a general gist.Hrafn42 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need to characterize what sort of 'people' they are, there's no real unifying characteristic to the group outside of their lack of relevant qualification on the topic. Leave it a simple 'people' and let the readers decide.

The Dissent from Darwinism list is suitable as primary source - for what is in the list - but only as that due to its partisan nature.

Covering all aspects of the list, including the controversial ones, is absolutely necessary for a complete balanced article according to WP:NPOV. Odd nature 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Odd nature, of course criticism is very important for the article. But in the lead sentence? About your recent reverts: I added a description of the 'scientific integrity' list, because the title does not make it clear what this list is about. Since there was an editorial comment after the 'clergy' list, I thought it would be good to have one here, too. The other links are self-explanatory. Sternberg is not listed with Smithsonian anymore. We know this now. Then, wouldn't the reader like to know how he is identified now? Northfox 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I see no criticism. What are you referring to? And how does the title not make it clear what it is about? I think that Sternberg's previous AND current affiliations should be listed. BOth are interesting information.--Filll 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Filll, then please go ahead and mention his two Ph.D.s in Biology, his unpaid Smithsonian's affiliation and his present position in the article. Northfox 13:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

with criticism I meant the 'critical responses' section. This section is very important. The primary reason for the list was not an appeal for authority, as is claimed in the lead sentence, but what is stated in the subheader of the advertisement from 2001: Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

On the contrary, the PBS series announce sounds pretty appeal to authority to me. I am quite busy at work, so I have to limit my wiki-activity to one short session per day. My future responses will thus be delayed and shorter. This does not mean that I sneak out of the discussion, but please give me a break. Northfox 00:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I see no particular reason to "give you a break". This list is indeed an "appeal to authority", as many of the previous similar creationist lists going back decades have been. This does not mean that the scientific community has not countered with similar "appeals to authority", but I do not think that the PBS series falls in that category, compared to the lists of Nobel Prize Winners, National Academy members, endorsements by dozens of scientific organizations with millions of members worldwide, etc that establish completely convincingly where the dominant scientific consensus is. The difficulty is that this list gives a completely misleading impression of where the dominant scientific understanding lies. If a tiny fraction of 0.1% of the relevant fields sign a vaguely worded and purposely misleading petition, does this really mean anything? What it means to me is that the sponsors of the petition are basically crooks and dishonest jerks, little better than their hate-filled huckster televangelist cousins, in the same category as glossolalia, demon possession, snake-handling, and thrashing seizures of religious fervor exhibited by the faithful writhing in the dirt while the preacher screams damnation and threats to all and sundry and flies into a religious tantrum. This sort of list needs to be revealed for what it is. Why are we protecting the DI? WP is not a religious tract to help them recruit. --Filll 00:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signers Category?

Filll has just eliminated one of the signers from the "see also" section because "articles on individuals who signed the statement should not be here...it will get too crowded" -- quite correctly to my mind. Would it be appropriate to create a Category for 'signers of the Dissent from Darwinism' instead? Hrafn42 15:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Or a separate article called List of signers of the "Dissent from Darwinism".--Filll 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the alternatives can be found here:WP:CLS. I would have a mild preference for a Category over a List. Hrafn42 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Signatories to... and yeah I think a Cat would better than a list. ornis 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I started a category but I am not sure it will work. I do not know how to make categories. I read the directions but I do not know how to do it still.--Filll 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's alright I've already made it. You just needed to follow the red link and type in a blurb and give it a parent cat. ornis 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been going through the list of signatories, but it's starting to make my brain hurt. I got to: Rosalind Picard. If anyone goes further through the list could you post were you got to here. ornis 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

some signatories are listed by their first name (e.g. Michael Behe under M), others by their family name (e.g Frank Tipler under T). Reason? Can anybody fix this? Northfox 03:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Behe is listed under B on the Category page (between John Baumgardner & David Berlinski currently). The petition-list itself appears to be in no particular order (may be in order it was signed, may be not). Hrafn42 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Confucius he fix, and say "piped name put ] in order" ..... dave souza, talk 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Quite. Anyhow, up to Gregory A. Snyder Ph.D. Geochemistry Colorado School of Mines. ornis 07:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive. You are going much faster than I would have imagined. I did check the first page or two and added a few, but you guys are beating me hollow. Wow.--Filll 14:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ornis, have you proceeded further? If not, I volunteer to check from Snyder (page 6 near the top) to M. Harold Laughlin (page 7 bottom). Coordinating it in such a way will prevent us from checking the same names over and over. Other volunteers, announce your search interval and we can process the whole list easily. Northfox 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? No I haven't but when I do, I'll start from Laughlin then, unless someone goes further. ornis 05:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

finished checking until Laughlin, found two entries. Northfox 07:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In case anybody hasn't heard, the category is being nominated for deletion. Have your say at ] Hrafn42 02:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I argued against the category and in favor of a list, I think that both would be useful, as I stated at the discussion link above.--Filll 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

if both is possible, that would be best. In an either/or decision, I would tend towards a list. Northfox 05:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As I commented in the deletion-discussion, none of the editors seeking deletion appear to be active in Creationism-related articles. Anybody know why this is happening? Hrafn42 05:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they are interested in deleting inappropriate categories in general. Northfox 05:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that would tend to give them a somewhat generic/doctrinaire approach to the matter. A category is largely appropriate according to how notable & useful it is (per FM in the deletion discussion), and those can only be judged by editors who actually work in the area of articles covered by the category. Hrafn42 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In spite of evenly balanced votes from Creation/Evolution regulars (for keeping) and CFD regulars (for deletion), this debate as been interpreted as having a result for deletion. I have written to the Admin concerned at User talk:Radiant!#Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" requesting a reconsideration. Hrafn42 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The result of Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 was clearly not delete. The comments there are about evenly split so there's obviously no consensus. I'd like to hear exactly how did User:Radiant! come to the conclusion for delete? I've left that question for him at his talk page and am letting other interested parties know about this misapplication of CFD. Odd nature 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". You might want to participate in the deletion review. Hrafn42 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Names, please

Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, his past and most prestigious position will be listed, not his current position. Visitors at prestigious institutions will have that affiliation listed, not their more humble home institution.

If no names are provided, these sentences should be removed as unsubstantiated.Northfox 12:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Sternberg (since corrected, as noted in the article), "Bernard d'Abrera Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)", "Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences", "M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)", "B. K. Nelson Research Toxicologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention", "Christopher Morbey Astronomer (Ret.) Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada", "Joseph Lary Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control", "Wesley M. Taylor Former Chairman of the Division of Primate Medicine & Surgery New England Regional Primate Research Center, Harvard Medical School". These would appear to be the most obvious ones where they have listed something that wasn't present and permanent. Hrafn42 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NB, the above are direct quotes from the 'Dissent' document (hence my insertion of quotation marks) -- no OR was involved, beyond finding them in that document. Hrafn42 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is quite common to list retired academics by their last active post, placing retired or emeritus after their name. Experts in other fields (military, as a notable example) are identified in a similar manner. Also, more than once I have read 'former US president Carter'. Nothing wrong with that, I think.

Bernard d'Abrera: how do you know that his home position (not that this has to be mentioned) is less prestigious? Remember that the DI list gives the choice between alma mater and position at the time of signature.

For the sake of transparency, I would prefer if names are named in the article. Makes it easier to fact-check. Northfox 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not up to us to do this OR. It is verifiable, with reliable references to this effect. And that is all we need to do here.--Filll 14:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is uncertain Wedging Creationism into the Academy is the reference for this claim as

1. it is listed several sentences later; and
2. no longer at that URL.

Hrafn42 15:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Names asked for, names given, so why are you still fussing?

• There is a world of difference between "retired" and "emeritus" -- the latter indicates that they still have an ongoing formal relationship with the institution, the former doesn't. Listing the latter is normal practice, listing the former isn't. All of the ones on the list were "retired" not "emeritus".
  • I would further point out that the 'dissent' document explicitly states "Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position." An emeritus position is a "current position", a position that has been retired from is not! Hrafn42 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Because the British Museum is one of the world's most prestigious institutions. If d'Abrera had a permanent position, at a more prestigious institution, I think the DI would have trumpeted it from the rooftops by now.
  • Additionally, a "visiting scholar" is usually "visiting" from some other instiution and that is the institution that is the correct one to list. Hrafn42 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Naming names in the article would simply make for a messier, less readable article. It took me all of about 10 minutes to find these examples from the list, so I don't see why it should be necessary to present the exhaustive details in the article itself.

Hrafn42 15:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that including names makes the article less readable. But since Bohlin, Rana and Wells are included examples for Forrest's claims of alma mater vs less prestigious present affiliation (and Bohlin and Rana seem not be notable enough to have a wiki entry), why not make it clearer for her other claims of retired vs present position and visiting vs permanent and include examples as well? The Sternberg section is too long, IMHO. My point is that the article should be consistent. Either naming names for all claims or none. Northfox 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but why should we dance this OR dance?--Filll 02:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Filll, the sentence that Northfox is complaining about is not substantiated by the Forrest reference (as I already pointed out in your new section below). And I'm still not sure that I agree that citing signatory entries, directly from the 'Dissent' document counts as OR. Hrafn42 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Filll, and I'll point out that that the source provided supports the thrust of the content, as does the handful of other sources available that address this point. Do we want this article to turn out like the ID article, with ID cranks crying for sources for every uncontroversial fact, then griping in FAR that there's way too many footnotes? Northfox has been chipping away at this section and its source for over a month now, I think it's time for him to drop it and move on. Odd nature 20:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the source supports the general thrust of the paragraph, as well as the specific claims made in the sentences before (Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells) and after (Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, Richard Sternberg) the one under discussion. I am merely pointing out that the specific claims of this sentence (previous and visiting positions) are not supported. This would seem to leave us with the following options:

1. Eliminate the sentence;
2. Replace the specific claims in the sentence with more general ones supportable from the Forrest reference; or
3. Find new support for the specific claims of the existing sentence (which is what I've been attempting to do, from the 'Dissent' document).

Hrafn42 04:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The sentence was not there originally. I am sure we can find out who put it in there and ask them what they meant. I have no doubt that it is true, in Sternberg's case if nothing else. I also am fairly positive that we could find verifiable reliable references that said something similar. Just have to look. Or find examples. Does anyone doubt that we will? Oh well...--Filll 05:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I agree that this is definitely heading in the direction of the intelligent design article itself. If we continue, every single sentence in the article will need 5 citations. We can do it of course, but then it will be a bulky unreadable mess that people will complain about since it is too heavily cited. How many references are necessary for each statement? How many examples? Clearly from reading the references there are examples of:

• people who signed but did not know what it was
• people who signed out of irritation at being asked
• people who signed and now have changed their minds and want off the list, but cannot get off the list even with repeated pleas and even outright threats to the DI
• people who were fooled by the vague wording of the text, which is so carefully worded that any real biologist would probably agree with it, but not the intent of the DI and the purposes of the list itself
• inconsistencies in affiliation, always seemingly biased towards the more prestigious institution. Sometimes the two institutions are the educational institution at which the individual recieved their degree, or some other institution with which they were associated during their career. 'Northfox, I challenge you to find me 5 counterexamples of this seeming pattern, with proper citations and references, or just move on.

This in itself should be enough evidence of trouble with this list. We have to do more? Find more examples? More citations? More digging into the past of all those who signed the list looking for errors and malfeasance? How much is enough? I suspect that Northfox is perfectly willing to force us to dance to his merry tune, and is laughing maniacally as we make complete fools of ourselves. The pattern is evident to anyone who has a fair outlook and can see the obvious.--Filll 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If this continues, I have half a mind to completely rewrite this article and spend a considerable amount of time digging up evidence of malfeasance and dishonesty on the part of the DI in perparation of this list, and wording the article very strongly, in accordance with this. This is just astounding to be forced to jump through these kinds of hoops. Look Northfox, you will not get what you want by this exercise. In fact, your behavior smacks strongly of someone who is trolling, and who needs to be dealt with accordingly. I am sure you do not want that.--Filll 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

undent (because I was writing offline and paste the text). Northfox here. I have been quiet for a while, partly because I am busy, but also partly because there has been a heated debate and I wanted to do my share of de-escalation. When I accessed the article again, it seemed to me that some of my initially rejected edits finally made it, sometimes in modified form. This is nice, because I am genuinely interested in making wikipedia a better place. Some said that the article was changed in order to please me (I paraphrase here). Please do not do that. This article is not here for me, but for the public. I do not own the article. But I have the strong feeling that some of the other editors have an axe to grind.

1. There was the one comment by Filll that put the DI in the same family as pentecostal Christians, worded in a way that shows his aversion against both.
2. There is the Sternberg mention that is not necessary. Why single him out and describe his affiliation history throughout the different versions of the list? How about all the others who updated their affiliations?
3. There are the 'confusing and misleading' adjectives that are not in Forrest's article, but that sentence is linked to her article.

Filll, it may be a bit hard to find 5 counterexamples for the 'most prestigious' issue, since most signatories don't have a wiki entry. Thus it will be quite an effort to look on the web for such kind of information. Also, 'prestigious' is not well defined. The number '5' is also a bit arbitrary. Also, as I have said before, the choice of affiliation most likely lies with the signatory and not the ID. You ask 'how much is enough?' I agree with you. We should stick to the facts and not go into guessing or double guessing, trying to bring our own POV into the article. Sometimes less is more. Definitely in case of unsourced criticism.

Your trolling accusation is without any basis. Please look at my other edits. Look at my not very troll-like efforts in expanding the 'signatory' category and my participation in the discussion when is was up for deletion. Filll, wasn't it you who were all kudos about one editor who looked through the first few pages of the list to find entries for the category? Nothing to boast about, but I did my little share and checked roughly 2 of 17 pages. Interestingly, the baton was not taken up and progress stopped there. Also, I am the one who has started to add affiliations and academic background to the article signatories of the scientific decent from darwinism list. I stopped at three entries, because I was not sure if the article would be AfD'ed. Then all my work would have been wasted. Nobody else has followed up either. If you are so eager to expose how unscientific the signatories are, such an article would be a bonanza. Thus I think there is no grounds that 'I need to be dealt with'. You are again double guessing on what I 'do not want'.

As someone has said during the category deletion discussion, people are putting their academic career and reputation at stake by signing the dissent list. Thinking about it, maybe that's why I have such a strong feeling that the article should be as unbiased as possible. Have to log off. Northfox 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to meet the challenge. And do not give me a big song and dance about how much effort you have put in here. You stand at 372 edits. I stand at 16532. A slight difference, I notice. You went through 2 pages? I went through about 4, but then decided to do something else since others were going to help out. Which is great, since dividing up the labor is quite appropriate. The edits you forced are there to placate you, ok? It is nothing to brag about. Looking at this page, I see not much more than a lot of whining on someone's part. Sorry. So do you work for the Discovery Institute? --Filll 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Exact wording from Forrest article

Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's PhD or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe ministry for Rana, and the CSC for Wells. During controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas, similar lists of local scientists were circulated.

To my eyes, this is a pretty clear case of OR that we do not need to do.--Filll 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this clearly substantiates the sentence before and after the one Northfox is complaining about, but not for the specific claims in that sentence itself. This leaves us with the question of whether we can use the words of the 'Dissent' document itself as substantiation, or whether this is impermissible OR. Hrafn42 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The specifics are readily apparent to anyone with any familiarity with these characters, and other sources make the point which let's forget is accurate, so it needs to stay. Odd nature 21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Today

There are 48 emerti on the list, and 5 retired.--Filll 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ferenc Jeszenszky is a retired physicist in Hungary who handles the Hungarian Creation Research videos. He is listed instead, on the list, as "Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences".

I have found some other examples of this sort of inflation. It is sort of depressing. Robert W. Bass is listed as Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University, but in fact has worked as an engineer for at least 30+ years in industry.--Filll 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many others I could include on the list, but I just put a couple of examples in the text as illustrative. We could spend months doing this, but it is not worth it. The fact that these kinds of errors exist, after the DI has been criticized repeatedly for this kind of hanky panky already is a bad sign.--Filll 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok Bernard d'Abrera is an author and publisher at Hill House Publishers Pty. Ltd. (Melb. & Lond.) permanently. And he visits museums all around the world. i got confused when I wrote that piece because I thought it was a chaired position that Sternberg held. I will have to rewrite it now that I know more information. --Filll 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as an editor here wants to paint Sternberg in the most positive light, the list does not describe his two PhDs. We are not here to give a resume for Sternberg. This is ludicrous. I say we go back to the previous consensus paragraph about Sternberg before I screwed it up. And I add a new paragraph illustrating the point I was trying to make about Bernard d'Abrera.--Filll 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On page 11 of the Feb. 2007 edition of the list, a Richard Sternberg is listed with his two PhDs. Northfox 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that the signatories all have PhDs, although the website associated with this petition canvasses those with PhDs to contact the DI. I strongly suspect that not all signatories have a PhD. However, this will take some effort to demonstrate. --Filll 14:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may disagree with you on specifics, while agreeing with your general thrust Filll, it is clear that not all of signatories have PhDs (d'Abrera serves as a valid counterexample, refuting the claim that they all have PhDs), what is not clear is how many of them lack PhDs (or only have PhDs outside the DI's invitation, i.e. science, maths, engineering). Hrafn42 10:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To track all these down would be a gargantuan task. One or two examples will have to suffice. And a reference to the British Center for Science Education which has done something similar. And to an interview with Eugenie Scott where she has done a bit of fact checking as well. It was a huge pain in the butt for me to dig up information about d'Abrera. Still some things about him I do not know. There are some clues that he mainly lives in the UK, some that he mainly lives in the Australia, and some that he moves back and forth. He might also give singing lessons over the internet to young boys, but I am not sure. He was involved in a college stunt to steal an alligator from the Sydney Zoo. This stuff I did not put in his biography article here. They are among the loose hanging ends that I could not resolve.--Filll 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that going through all of them is infeasible. The obvious thing to do is to pick out some low-hanging fruit from the bunch. Those lacking an explicit PhD/DSc mention or Head/Chair/Prof/Lecturer/Post-Doc title would appear to be the obvious candidates:

Suspect list

• B. K. Nelson Research Toxicologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Christopher Morbey Astronomer (Ret.) Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada
• David Chambers Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
• David W. Rusch Sr. Research Scientist, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Colorado
• Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
• Dennis Dean Rathman Staff Scientist MIT Lincoln Laboratory
• Douglas Nelson Rose Research Physicist United States Army
• Forrest Mims Atmospheric Researcher Geronimo Creek Observatory -- this is one we know doesn't have a PhD: "Mims has no formal academic training in science but has a career as a science author, lecturer and syndicated columnist."
• Gary Maki Director, Ctr. for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research University of Idaho
• Geoff Barnard Senior Research Scientist, Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge (UK)
• Giulio D. Guerra First Researcher of the Italian National Research Council (Chemistry) Istituto Materiali Compositi e Biomedici, CNR (Italy)
• Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
• Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California, Los Angeles -- MD not PhD
• John Brown Research Meteorologist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• John Stamper Research Physicist Naval Research Laboratory
• Joseph Lary Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control
• Khawar Sohail Siddiqui Senior Research Associate (Protein Chemistry) University of New South Wales (Australia)
• M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
• Manuel Garcia Ulloa Gomez Director of Marine Sciences Laboratory Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
• Martin Krause Research Scientist (Astronomy) University of Cambridge (UK)
• Mary A. Brown DVM (Veterinary Medicine) Ohio State University -- DVM in US = medical rather than research doctorate
• Miguel A. Rodriguez Undergraduate Lab. Coordinator for Biochemistry University of Ottawa (Canada)
• Oleh Havrysh Senior Research Assistant, Protein & Peptide Structure & Function Dept. Institute of Bioorganic Chemsitry & Petrochemistry
• Patricia Reiff Director, Rice Space Institute Rice University
• Philip S. Taylor Research Fellow, Computer Science Queen’s University Belfast (UK)
• Ricardo Leon Dean of School of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) -- correct name: Ricardo Leon Borquez, MD, not PhD
• Rodney Ice Principle Research Scientist, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
• Ronald R. Crawford Ed.D. Science Education Ball State University -- this one can go into the non-sci/math/eng doctorate section
• Russel Peak Senior Researcher, Engineering Information Systems Georgia Institute of Technology
• Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
• Tetsuichi Takagi Senior Research Scientist Geological Survey of Japan
• Thomas C. Majerus PharmD; FCCP University of Minnesota -- professional doctorate
• Tianyou Wang Research Scientist Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement & Assessment, University of Iowa -- PhD is in Education
• Weimin Gao Microbiologist Brookhaven National Laboratory
• Woody Weed Mechanical Engineer, Science & Technology Division Sandia National Labs

I'd suggest anybody who is interested in looking them up cross them out after a doctorate has been found for them. Hrafn42 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow these are a lot of people. I wonder what format we should report these in? I guess it depends what we find. Just another 2 or 3 examples of "suspicious" listings would really round out our points and make it quite clear that this list is almost meaningless. However, our criticism section is already pretty long. I guess we can have a detailed discussion and make sure we summarize it in another place so people do not have to slog through a lot of detail.--Filll 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is merely a list of candidates who I think have a lower than average probability of having a PhD. We still need to go through them. I've found one to date, Forrest Mims, who definitely doesn't have a PhD, as well as several that, on further investigation definitely or probably do have one. Hrafn42 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All one has to do is find a couple to cast doubt on the entire list and glorious edifice, to show that it is just probably nonsensical. Even if you find out that their affiliation is wrong, or credentials exagerrated, or they do not subscribe to creationism etc, it is valuable information that can be presented.--Filll 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have given the list a once-through, and got a number of hits (as you can see), which I've put into the article. I think this gives us a fairly good range of anomalies, and probably as many as the article can withstand without a need to spin it out into a separate list or something. Hrafn42 11:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this gives an indication of problems, enough to encourage someone who is at least a bit doubtful to want to question the list more. After all, we have cast doubt on the credentials of at least 10 or so of the 700 signatories of the list, with only a little effort. I suspect that with a little more effort, this could be much greater. That, coupled with the confusion that NCSE and BCSE found when they tried to interview those on the list suggests that the list is just a sleezy sales job to trick the public. From the Australian radio show, I gather that NCSE tried to contact a few people on the list, and the first 10 or so responses they obtained were that the people all were firmly committed to biological evolution, but did not believe evolution was responsible for the creation of life itself, or some other confusion. They were unable to find a single person on the list that agreed with intelligent design when they were interviewing them. This investigation quickly came to an end when the Discovery Institute caught wind of it and told the people on the list to refuse to talk to the NCSE.--Filll 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What I find odd is that a disproportionate number of those with irregularities seem to be people that the DI would have some contact with, or at least knowledge of. These cannot be dismissed as merely mistakes in vetting, they are clear indications of purposeful deception. Hrafn42 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious the DI know they are cutting corners in places, but have decided to do so to make their list as long as possible. This helps to deceive the public, but is also intimidating to anyone who wants to check it (after all, it would clearly be a huge effort to check the entire list extensively). What started out as a simple exercise to get 100 people signed up has turned into an industry, and now a desperate race, even against Project Steve. However, the more they pad the list and the longer it is around, the more difficulties are uncovered and the less value it has, it would seem to me. The people that I read about who were interviewed at the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity rallies quoted the Dissent list as proof that serious scientists doubted Darwin. We can perform a useful function by summarizing all the information that makes this list look doubtful in one place, that is easily found on a simple google search. People can then make up their own minds, once they have all the facts and links to places that they can check the facts for themselves.--Filll 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Then they're either not listening to their PR-hacks or should fire them. The flakiest few that the allow onto the list (d'Abrera, Mims, for instance) cost them far more in credibility than they add in numbers. If you have 700+ you can afford to lose a dozen or so to make it not quite so easy for nay-sayers such as ourselves to shoot holes in them. As they're going, they may as well put Peter Pan onto the list. :/ Hrafn42 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

With the amount of money they have and are spending on this, I think you are correct. Their PR firm(s) should be checking and double checking all the people on this list. Why keep Salthe on the list when he has publicly denied that he agrees with ID? I even remember some years back a couple of people had to threaten legal action to get off the list (it would be great to find some of this information and put it in the article; hopefully my memory is not faulty on this point). d'Abrera, when I checked a bit, turned out to a total flake. He claims (and other creationists have repeated this) to be the "most famous butterfly person in the world" (slightly paraphrased). Nevertheless, I have found almost NO support for this claim, although he has produced many books of photographs which are used by butterfly people and in libraries. In terms of actual science, we had NO mention of him on WP before this. We had a list of renowned lepidopterists and he did not appear on a list of about 15 real butterfly people and 5 fictional butterfly people. And he is the most famous butterfly person in the world? If he is the most famous butterfly person in the world, surely the Natural History Museum would mention it on their website, if he really is in residence there? I think they would be proudly championing this. Instead, NO and I mean NO mention. I might even drop them an email and ask about their connection with him. I did write to his alma mater to try to double check on his degrees, although Australian privacy laws might make this impossible (which I find amazing, but oh well, I have pretty good evidence that it was just a bachelor's degree). I think when the ID people get too wrapped up in their own culture of lies, it is hard for them to look at the situation objectively, and they are just too anxious to pad the length of the list, no matter what. --Filll 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

I wrote to the University of New South Wales to verify d'Abrera's lack of PhD, and this was confirmed:

Confirmation of Qualification - Mr Bernard D'Abrera Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:13:29 +1000

Dear XXX,

I am writing in reply to your email dated 7 August 2007 requesting confirmation of the qualification of Mr Bernard D'Abrera.

I can confirm that we have a student by the name of Bernard D'Abrera. He is a graduate of the University of New South Wales and was admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts on 21 April 1965.

Regards,

Laura Chan

Laura Chan | Client Services Officer | Student Administration and Records | UNSW Student Services | The University of New South Wales SYDNEY NSW 2052 | Phone+ 612 9385 2433 | Fax + 612 9385 1252 | CRICOS Provider Code 00098G

--Filll 13:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard

An editor is attempting to whitewash Picard's signing of the dissent, and is repeatedly attempting to restore unsourced POV 'puff piece' material on her. Any assistance would be appreciated. Hrafn42 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And now this editor, Moulton, is attempting to bring his whitewashing here. His whitewashing claims here can quite easily be disproved by the early 2001 edition of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism already referenced in the article. Hrafn42 04:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence that what Picard actually signed was a "dissent"?

Are you buying into DI's subterfuge? What kind of a scientist are you? Just because DI mislabels a call for skepticism as a "dissent," do you have to be one of their mindless lap dogs and repeat their hogwash?

The actual ad is sourced in the article. So is the description and analysis of the ad by NSCE. Go look at the ad again. It contains a bloody diatribe against PBS. Do you actually believe that a scientist whose work is regularly featured on PBS would sign an ad attacking PBS?

It is abundantly clear that the 103 signatories did not sign the ad against PBS. And it is also clear that the headline on that ad is not part of the two-sentence quote.

I am appalled at your abject failure to be a decent scientist. You are propagating blatantly false personal theories unsupported by evidence or reasoning.

And I am deeply disappointed in Misplaced Pages for allowing such sloppy work. You are not only hurting people who are on your side in the effort to promote good science, you are hurting yourself by demonstrating your inability to function as a decent scientist.

Moulton 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: Your tendentious attempt to disassociate the original title from the original petition is spurious and uncompelling. She is a signatory to a petition that has, since its first publication, been entitled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". She was stupid enough to venture outside her area of expertise to put her name to a petition announcing her "skepticism" of a (strawman version) of a widely accepted scientific theory. The difference between "dissent from darwinism" and "skepticism of ... random mutation and natural selection ... Darwinian theory" is insufficient to claim that the title misrepresented her views. She has further made no attempt to distance herself from or disavow the 'dissent'. So why should we take your unsubstantiated word that it is nothing to do with her? Hrafn42 10:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: I repeat... You don't have a shred of credible evidence to establish that the 103 original signers of the two-sentence quote had the foggiest idea who the DI was, what their agenda was, or that the quote would appear as a diatribe against PBS under a misleading headline. NSCE has analyzed the ad and sharply criticized the DI for grotesquely distorting the original petition. Your own article here goes on at some length about one of NSCE's interviews that strongly supports the theory that the 103 original signers were given no clue how the DI planned to abuse the petition to attack PBS or to falsely label the signers as "dissenters" or anti-evolutionists. Your own article reveals that many of those original 102 were of no such stripe.

You are accepting absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and you are shamefully promoting DI's detestable agenda by assisting them in the unethical practice of abusing other scientists. If you have one shred of decency left in your nigh-invisible soul, you will cease and desist from publishing false propaganda that aids the cause of DI while devastating the cause of science which we both share (albeit with unequal passion and dissimilar methods).

I spent three hours on the phone with Filll and we reached an amicable meeting of the minds. I put him onto the same evidence I laid before you -- namely that DI attached both the headline and the attack on PBS to an otherwise innocuous call for skepticism when examining the evidence.

It's sound advice, Hrafn42, and I urge you to heed it. For his part, Filll says he will use his contacts to find additional evidence to support the theory I laid out for him and you.

To be perfectly frank, I was astonished to return to this site after three hours on the phone and find that a good deal of the evidence was right here, on your own pages. I studied the facsimile of that original ad and I read the corresponding NSCE description and analysis of it. There is no mistaking the truth when it's right in front of your eyes, Hrafn42. The content of that original ad may be deceptive to the naive and gullible public, but any one looking at it with a careful eye can tell that the signers had nothing to do with the ad (including the infamous and misleading headline).

Use your head, Hrafn42. Why would anyone knowingly sign onto an ad attacking a PBS science series when their own professional work is frequently presented on various PBS series?

I suggest you take a day or two to reflect on this whole sordid affair and come to your senses.

It's time for you to learn to be a responsible producer of accurate content. And that includes a healthy dose of skepticism -- especially when the evidence you are relying on to attack other scientists is material supplied by DI.

Think about it, Hrafn42. You have allowed yourself to become a tool of DI, assisting them in discrediting scientists who have spent their lives trying to bring reliable scientific reasoning to a gullible public.

It's time for you to move on to a more sensible method of crafting accurate theories about what's really going on in the sleazy business of right-wing politics.

Moulton 11:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: you can "repeat" your song-and-dance act until you're blue in the face, nobody cares!

• I don't care if Picard "the 103 original signers of the two-sentence quote had the foggiest idea who the DI was" or not -- they knew that they were expressing an opinion in contradiction to the scientific consensus.
• The NCSE's criticism of the DI's tactics surrounding this statement is in no way relevant to the fact that Picard signed her name to this pernicious statement, and has never since disavowed it!
• PBS is long since irrelevant! What is relevant is that Rosalind Picard knowingly put her name to the anti-science, anti-evolution statement "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." It. Is. Not. An. Innocuous. Call. For. Skepticism. It is a completely dishonest call to subvert well-founded science.
• The rest of your drivel is too vague to be worth responding to. You don't like me. I'm insufficiently deferential to your idol. I get that. I don't care about you liking me. I care about the facts.

I will therefore leave you with these questions, Moulton: why did Picard put her name to this statement? And why, if the way it is employed by the DI misrepresents her views, does she not now disavow it? Hrafn42 11:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, I suggest you read WP:NPA and then seriously consider striking through some of your remarks above. I'd also recommend a consideration of the letter and spirit of WP:3RR in light of the article history, and a revision of your strategy. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The present opening paragraph seems to me to be rather vague and uninformative:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a list of people agreeing with an anti-evolution statement produced by the Discovery Institute as an appeal to authority to support its viewpoint. This list is intended to bolster the Discovery Institute's claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support. It is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution.

It seems to me to miss the point that the statement signed is vague to the point of not actually disagreeing with the principle of evolution, and is presented with an interpretative statement which creates a particular impression of how they want readers to understand the statement. Here's a proposal for a more informative intro:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a list of signatories attesting to a statement, produced by the Discovery Institute, expressing skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory". This list is published in a document together with an introductory statement claiming that its signatories dispute assertions that evolution fully explains the complexity of life and that all known scientific evidence supports evolution. It is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support. The Discovery Institute presents the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.

The changes are sourced from the Skip Evans NCSE article. I'd suggest that the Discovery Institute usage section should set out the misleading nature of the introductory statement, as discussed in that article. .. dave souza, talk 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is not a bad idea at all. Other comments?--Filll 19:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I discussed this idea at length with Filll last night. I don't know who all is in the loop on this material, so I don't mind reviewing it here on the discussion page so that we can get people on board in an orderly manner.

Line one, as it now appears reads:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a list of people agreeing with an anti-evolution statement produced by the Discovery Institute as an appeal to authority to support its viewpoint.

That's what DI wants people to think. But I daresay that there is considerable daylight between what DI wants people to think and the objective truth of the matter. That's why I proposed this more NPOV wording:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a list of signatories to a controversial statement circulated by the Discovery Institute as an appeal to authority to support its viewpoint.

This NPOV revision recognizes the demonstrable fact (perhaps to be demonstrated more rigorously) that the names on the list (specifically the first 103 names) cannot be shown to agree with the DI's characterization, including its mischaracterization of the signers as "dissenters." I've made this point before. The 103 original signers did not sign a statement of "dissent." They only called for sensible scientific skepticism. This is an essential step in the examination of any theory, lest one fall into the trap of adopting a delusional belief. This is good advice for examining any scientific theory. It's basic epistemology. Just because DI took the unethical liberty of mischaracterizing and relabeling the two-sentence cautionary urge as "dissent," in their original ad, Misplaced Pages should not mindlessly repackage their toxic kool aid. Those scientists urged a skeptical view and that's exactly what's needed here when it comes to examining how DI spun the quote.

The revised wording makes it possible to go on and demonstrate (per the NSCE analysis by Skip Evans and the NY Times article) that there is scant evidence to support the DI's absurd claim about the meaning of the two sentences in the minds of the signers. Moulton 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Which revised wording? In my opinion the proposed wording in the box I added above fully meets the points you're making, and is more informative. Do you consider it a good way forward? .. dave souza, talk 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

The above revision to the opening sentence then makes it possible to augment the second paragraph along these lines...

The document itself has been the subject of controversy and extensive criticism from a variety of sources. The statement in the document has been branded as poorly worded, misleading and vague. The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized. As originally circulated, the document did not bear the title "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." As originally circulated, it bore no title at all, and made no claim to represent the signatories as "dissenting" from Darwinian theory or its more modern sequels. It was originally published as part of an ad with the headline "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" followed by two paragraphs criticizing the PBS series on Evolution. Below the headline and commentary appeared the two-sentence quotation, in a gray box, surrounded by 105 signatories. It is clear that the signatories applied to the two sentences in quotes and not to the entire ad attacking PBS.

A key observation, which a little research should be able to confirm, is that the original petition, as signed by the first 103, only carried the two-sentence quote. It did not carry any of the other text of the ad, including the headline. I learned this a year ago from Roz Picard, who was one of the original 103 signers. She was miffed that the sentence urging skepticism was spun into "dissent." It may be a subtle point, easily lost on a gullible public, but it's a point that can be verified factually, and then tacked onto Skip Evan's comparable analysis of the spinning of the PBS portion of the ad.

I was frankly astounded to discover that this point had not come to the attention of the editors here, especially since a careful examination of the ad makes it clear that the headline and PBS attack are not part of the material in the gray box. I thought the NY Times article did a fair job of casting doubt on the ad, especially with the quotes revealing the signers had never heard of DI or its agenda.

As it happens, Roz Picard's research projects (and those of her colleagues at the Media Lab) are frequently featured on PBS programs such as Scientific American Frontiers. It is absurd to believe that a faculty member would knowingly endorse an ad attacking a PBS science series. And it's reasonably clear that the signers of the statement in quotes had no inkling that DI was going to abuse and distort the quote in such an unethical and reprehensible manner. This is the kind of bad faith behavior on the part of DI that needs to be exposed.

I was frankly chagrinned to observe that some of the editors on this project bought into DI's mischaracterization and repeated it in Misplaced Pages as if it were demonstrated fact. Now it's time to fix that regrettable mistake. I believe you already have sufficient evidence to proceed. But Filll also may be able to dig up further evidence above and beyond what is already at hand.

OK. I've vented my spleen enough on the unfairness issue. Now let's roll up our sleeves and do some proper science here to shore up the evidence required to establish the facts as I've outlined them.

Moulton 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent paragraph

A bit further down, I proposed this augmentation of one of the paragraphs:

In addition, the exhortation to encourage the careful examination of evidence for Darwinian evolution sounds, on the face of it, to be quite reasonable, and something most would agree to. The difficulty arises from 1) the subsequent insertion of a title that suggests an interpretation at variance from the actual statement, and 2) the unauthorized uses to which this document has been applied.

Here we are just reinforcing the demonstrable fact that the inserted title falsely reinterprets the quote, per DI's political spin, and does so without the knowledge or consent of at least some of the 103 signers. The fact that some of the signers then went to extraordinary lengths to have their names removed is the evidence you need here.

Moulton 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Beating a Dead Horse Even More

A bit further on, we come to this proposed augmentation:

The list was advertised in prominent periodicals such as The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard in October and November 2001, "to rebut bogus claims by Darwinists that no reputable scientists are skeptical of Darwinism" by "producing a list of 100 scientific dissenters." Its initial release was timed to coincide with the airing of the PBS evolution series at the end of 2001, and included both a headline and a two-paragraph criticism of PBS separate from the lower portion bearing the petition itself. There is no evidence that the original 103 signatories had seen either the headline or the paragraphs attacking PBS.

We are driving the same point home, perhaps to the point of overkill.

But DI is a hardy horse. Mebbe it needs a good thrashing.

Moulton 22:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical Responses

One final thwack...

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous appeals to authority produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient. Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be many who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds. One of the complaints of signatories is that the statement, as originally circulated to them, did not bear its current title (or any title at all). The current title of the document has largely superseded the statement itself, and thereby transformed its meaning.

If the point hasn't been made by now, there's no hope at all for reintroducing scientific thinking into America.

Are we done? What's missing?

Moulton 22:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
2. Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, National Institutes of Health, Vol. LVIII, No. 15, July 28, 2006
3. 100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism, Discovery Institute's Critique of PBS's Evolution, Monday, September 24, 2001 (original press release)
4. Original "100 Scientists" Advert
5. See the other lists described at level of support for evolution, for example.

• Start-Class Creationism articles
• Unknown-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles