Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raspor (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 8 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Creationism Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 216.163.84.151 (talk · contribs) / Discovery Institute Discovery Institute

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Truthologist (talk · contribs) / Discovery Institute Discovery Institute

Inaccurate Information, POV Status

I recommend that the DI page be tagged POV until substantative corrections are made. Users like User talk:Feloniousmonk are apparently committed to keeping the page POV, reverting edits on a whim. Staking out a page for any changes, and then reverting them with for no reason is entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, much of the entry contains information that is biased, untrue, and simply out-dated. I propose allowing factual corrections directly on the page, with discussion here only when someone has a sustainable objection. Reverting edits because you fear allowing the Institute to speak for itself is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Truthologist 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest putting up an RfC if you have a specific complaint regarding a specific edit if the talk sections seem to be going nowhere. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think encouraging known Discovery Institute shills to disrupt the project further is a wise move, Wade. You should consider chilling on this front. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've often noticed that you seem to consider someone pointing out violations of Misplaced Pages "disruption." In that sense, I am quite happy to be "disruptive." --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Any RFC arising out of a POV-pushing campaign is by definition an abuse of WP:DR. There is no policy provision that condones disrupting the project, Wade, and experience has shown that your notions of what constitutes policy violations and the reality of actual violations of the project's rules seldom coincide. Were you as apt as you claim at rectifying policy violations you wouldn't be fanning the flames of an established violator of our policies to further abuse them. Please don't add any fuel to this nearly extinguished fire. FeloniousMonk 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"experience has shown that your notions of what constitutes policy violations and the reality of actual violations of the project's rules seldom coincide" of course, experience has taught me you probably cannot point to even one specific example where they did not coincide (you have a habit of accusing me and not backing up the groundless attack with a shred of evidence). I'm not (yet) convinced that an RfC of his would be merely a "POV-pushing campaign" especially given your track record of removing valid RfC's because they bump up against your POV-pushing (e.g. regarding a violation of WP:CITE, click here to see that specific example). You suggest that Truthologist is an "an established violator of our policies" (I would like to see a specific example of that to adduce your accusation). You yourself have willfully ignored and violated Misplaced Pages policy to suit your own POV; so methinks you've made another tu qouque objection.

I advise Truthologist that, if there is untrue information on the article, this should be rectified. But I advise this individual to use the discussion sections first before moving on to an RfC. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade, there's enough examples on this page alone (not to mention all the others in your history here) of you engaging in ludicrous twists and turns to avoid having to face evidence that I'm perfectly comfortable not responding to your demands for "proof." After 9 months of believing while you were away that you'd find a constructive way to contribute quietly to the project I'm forced once again to conclude that you're a chronic malcontent and that yet again any time I spend on you moving forward will be limited to minimizing your disruptions and cleaning up your messes. My past experience with you and your history proves anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoid facing what evidence for what conclusion? Again, I would like to see a specific example for your accusation. Why is it that accusing an editor is not a waste of time but backing up that allegation is?

Calling me "disruptive" is a tu qouque considering you have a documented history of being very disruptive yourself (consider the specific examples above). --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wade, do you realise that this sentence makes no sense? "I would like to see a specific example of that to adduce your accusation". I'm not sure what you think adduce means, but given that there is only one subject in the sentence (Wade) the verb must refer to you as the subject (direct or indirect object can't take the verb here), thus meaning you'd like to "allege, bring forth, cite" the accusation. Huh? Maybe you should uise that handy dandy little pocket dictionary more carefully. (And you wonder why no one gives your screeds, gripes, complaints, whiney bitchfests any credibility). •Jim62sch• 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum "tu quoque" tantum in mente tua est. •Jim62sch• 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a possible explanation why: some people just don't seem to pay attention to what's going on (e.g. FeloniousMonk seems ignorant that his citation does not actually contain the claim in question here). In full context, here's the quote you are referring to:

You suggest that Truthologist is an "an established violator of our policies" (I would like to see a specific example of that to adduce your accusation).

The word "that" is referring to Truthologist being a violator of Misplaced Pages policies. The word "adduce" means "to offer as example, reason, or proof in discussion or analysis" so when I asked Felonious Monk to provide a specific example to adduce his accusation, the word "adduce" was an excellent choice. You might want to look at your pocket dictionary again if you did not understand this, but methinks you just did not take into full account the context of the quote.

(P.S. it's not as if I'm always a minority of one when I bring up objections, e.g. in here all three of the non-anti-ID-regulars who stopped by agreed with me that the citation did not sufficiently support the claim).--Wade A. Tisthammer 01:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, Wade. The sentence is still grammatically wrong. You missed the point re subject, object, verb etc. The correct form of the sentence would be, "I would like to see a specific example of what you used to adduce your accusation". Get it? Complex sentence. Two subjects. Pretty cool.

BTW, linguists don't use pocket dikshunerries, we use the OED. Yes, that may sound snobbish...well, it is. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 01:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Political Affiliation

What is the back up for the claims about political affiliation, and supporting George Bush?

1. It's founder, Bruce Chapman was a Republican Party politician.
2. There was something prominent on their website endorsing GWB when I wrote it. Try searching their website for Bush; you come across etc etc. Search for Kerry and they're not very nice about him.

Now if they claim to be non-partisan, then that should be mentioned too, but they're fibbing in order to appear "fair and balanced" (see Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) Dunc|☺ 11:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. That's weak. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. Leading with that kind of commentary makes for a very POV article.
2. I don't think that they can "endorse" Bush without losing their tax exempt status. Taking positions that correlate with Bush's is different is very different from endorsing him. The book you cite is quintessential POV argumentation.
3. My impression of the Discovery Institute is that they are pretty hard to pigeon hole into one political position. -VorpalBlade

I disagree, Vorpal. From what I know of them, the group seems to me pretty plainly on the "red" end of the political spectrum. Mr. Billion 04:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As evidence against Mr Billion's assessment see the article on the major funder of the Discovery Institute Howard Ahmanson, Jr and the many articles on the Discovery Institute's site in favor of conservatism, e.g. Gilder writes "at the Discovery Institute, with my friend of 40 or more years, Bruce Chapman, we are again carrying this essential concept of ordered liberty, this reconciliation of cultural conservatism and economic conservatism forward with the focus on my part on science and technology... A lot of conservatives sort of adopt an intuitive resistance to the discoveries of science without a full grasp of how deeply they affirm conservative insights and how leftist scientism—this sort of materialist reductionism—has been completely overthrown by the twentieth century scientific discoveries". --Ian Pitchford 08:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, no. I mean "red" in terms of the "red state/blue state divide." That is, the group is fairly obviously rather conservative. Mr. Billion 17:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sincere apologies! --Ian Pitchford 17:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major edit

I have attempted to Wikify this article by importing material from Discovery Institute directly and by removing built-in external links which belong at the bottom of the page. After reading the Discovery Institue's web pages (several) it was obvious that the original article certainly did not present a true account of the organization. A lot more needs to be added but what it does not need is a fusion of topics related to religion and evolution that are not even found on the Institute web site under its main name. An overview should be presented here and if necessary, each of the several branches of the Institute could have their own articles if there is enough material to support them. I knew nothing about this organisation before and I only know a little more now after reading their material and trying to rewrite this article. While it is now clearer than it was, it is by no means perfect. However, I would caution against trying to use it as a means to "preach" or push a POV either for or against its stated aims. The big problem I see with the organisation is that it is trying to be a sort of Christian government in exile which if it had its way, would be the only way. Since I am not a Christian (was) I am certainly not a supporter, but this does not mean that I do not believe in fair reporting and writing. This is sort of "I may not agree with your point of view but I will defend your right to have one". I have thus created a prototype article to link to this one in order to avoid the mess previously created by another "controversial" article. MPLX/MH 06:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a jumbled jungle!

I thought that I could clear up the mess on "Teaching the Controversy" by simply linking to a new article for Center for Science and Culture ... only to discover that it already exists! Clearly this is a tangled web and not just one article that became bogged down. I suggest that the editors who created all of this rethink what it is that they are trying to present and do some major revisions of all of the related sites. They don't do the Discovery Institute justice and they have caused at least one site to turn into a blog that has become blocked. I don't think that anyone other than the original editors know that this is an interrelated tangled web of many sites. Not that there is anything wrong with having more than one article, but at least one of them should be well written and right now none of them are (including the one I worked on!) MPLX/MH 06:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the previous version was a jumbled mess, but I am not sure this is so much better. The headings do not seem to be very logically arranged. Their position on ID was under the "history" heading. Also, shouldn't edits try to keep as much of the previous work as possible?

Why not cite to outside sources in the body? This gives the reader the chance to check the original sources easily. Hence, I added back the cite to the web page where they state their policy clearly.

--VorpalBlade 22:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read something about sticking external sources at the end of an article, it also means that the article has to stand on its own within Misplaced Pages. By opting out to an external link within the opening of the article the reader is taken away from Misplaced Pages and it means that the article itself has no value because it lacks understanding. All of the related articles are a hodge-podge mess and that is why I threw up my hands after spending hours trying to figure out what to do. It seems that instead of dealing with a sub-page (like Teach the Controversy) it would be better to fix the main articles first and the sub-pages should take care of themselves. MPLX/MH 00:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curious to know where you read it. Personally, because of the nature of Misplaced Pages, I am skeptical of everything I read here. Some is good, some is weird, some is biased, some is just plain false. What is often helpful is that it points you to links to find what you couldn't through Google. And it lets you verify what you are reading and evaluate it for yourself, to judge its reliability.

External links are like footnotes in my mind. Readers don't have to read them, but if what is said is interesting, provocative, doubtful, they can pursue that for themselves. Until Wikip. becomes more consistent and reliable and serious about neutrality, they are essential.

As you discovered, these topics instill passion on all sides. All the more reason to include links. --VorpalBlade 01:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with VorpalBlade completely here. Ian Pitchford 07:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Billions Behind the Discovery Institute

Talking about money, there is interesting controversy surrounding the funding of the Discovery Institute - see below. Ian Pitchford 13:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Genesis To Dominion Fat-Cat Theocrat Funds Creationism Crusade by Steve Benen Americans United for Separation of Church and State from: Church & State, July/August 2000

Anti-evolution crusader Phillip Johnson, dedicated his 1997 book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, to "Roberta and Howard, who understood 'the wedge' because they love the Truth."

The mysterious reference is apparently a note of thanks to Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and his wife Roberta, a wealthy and secretive Orange County, Calif., couple who have generously funded the anti-evolution movement and other right-wing causes that advance their fundamentalist Christian outlook.

Howard Ahmanson, however, is no ordinary fat-cat. The savings and loan heir has maintained a long-time relationship with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace American democracy with a harsh fundamentalist theocracy.

Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take "dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders, including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and those who spread "false" religions. They regard the teaching of evolution as part of a "war against Genesis."

Ahmanson served for over two decades on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation, Rousas J. Rushdoony's Reconstructionist think tank that serves as the intellectual center of the movement. Ahmanson has also generously supported the Foundation's work.

As for Ahmanson's interests in opposing evolution, his relationship with leaders such as Johnson raises a series of questions about how the movement to "defeat" evolution is paid for and what the larger agenda might be.

There is little doubt that the Ahmansons have the resources to help finance anti-evolution efforts. The family's wealth grew exponentially during the 1950s and '60s when Howard Ahmanson Sr, made billions in the savings and loan industry. After his death, his estate was divided between his son Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation, which had $663 million in assets at the end of 1996. (H.F. Ahmanson & Co., the parent company of Home Savings of America, had over $47 billion in assets in 1997.)

With a vast fortune in hand, the Ahmansons are playing an active role in ensuring the anti-evolution movement's success.

According to Reason magazine, promotional materials from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute acknowledge that the Ahmanson family donated $1.5 million to the Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy." In fact, the August 1999 issue of the Discovery Institute's Journal recognizes an Ahmanson outfit for providing the Center's start-up funds.

With such high-powered assistance, the Center has quickly become a leading anti-evolution organization. The center's senior fellows include some of the highest profile advocates of "Intelligent Design" creationism, including David Berlinski, William Dembski and Michael Behe. Johnson himself is listed among the center's two official advisors.

Additionally, Roberta Green Ahmanson provided the funding for Dembski to appear at her alma mater, Calvin College, a conservative Christian school in Michigan, to promote his approach to attacking evolution. Although he claims to be interested only in the scientific "evidence" against evolution, Dembski's appearance was listed as part of the college's "Seminars in Christian Scholarship."

Funding from the Ahmansons is not always obvious. For example, the Fieldstead Institute is an extension of the Ahmanson empire, which frequently provides financial support for creationist causes. Dembski's appearance at Calvin was sponsored by a group called Fieldstead and Company. (Both appear to derive their name from Howard's middle name, Fieldstead.)

Ahmanson has also taken an interest in providing money for other political causes, including support for voucher subsidies for religious schools and opposition to gay rights and pornography. In the January/February 1997 issue of Religion & Liberty, published by the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, he argued that the Bible opposes minimum wage laws.

Ahmanson's opposition to evolution remains part of his larger agenda of establishing a fundamentalist "Christian nation." In the coming years, as different groups and personalities step into the anti-evolution fray, Ahmanson's role bears watching.

critics, proponents- enough already

apprently- in that beastly sentence which I changed once, reverted then changed back, what is being said is that

critics are unwilling to recognize that an organization (in this case, discovery institute) can have certain goals but adopt an educational policy that does not require said goals be required of schools. can you require a goal of a school?? I'm gonna leave it how it is, now with my one small change intact. I think "include" works better than that "including" that was there, which baffled me. I am uncertain about a few sentences in the neighborhood of that paragraph. The original writer should be found, I think. Is the writer saying that evolutionists challenges to the disc.inst. are ad hominem, straw man arguments?? If so, it should be stated more clearly. I'll be checking back.

someone who wants to clarify what proponents assert PLEASE jump in and make that sentence into 2 or three tolerable sentences. For the love of the potential for God-like quality in us all...

thanks, Kzzl

Biased towards ID in content

When I wrote this article some months ago I was careful to include the other projects of the DI, I think one was to do with bioethics (don't murder the embryos!) and the importance of the views of the, er, great amateur theologian C.S. Lewis to public life in a country with strict separation of church and state. Right now it's just turned into a messy summary of ID, for which the Center for Science and Culture article was supposed to be. And those elements stating the other interests have mysteriously vanished! Another hint: Howard Abrahamason Jr (spelling?) Dunc|☺ 16:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The missing content may be my fault ;-) Sorry. Keeping an appropriate level of ID (while keeping in mind the Institute claims 90% of their resources are dedicated to promoting ID) in the article, lets then move any excess to the CSC article. Do you have any suggestions what I should move over, or do you prefer to tackle it yourself? The missing non-ID content will have to be pulled from previous versions. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cascadia

The article reads:

It recently created its own Web site to ensure an individual identity and distance itself from the institute's controversial role in promoting intelligent design.

I don't doubt this is true but without some sort of supporting data/evidence this reads very POV/biased. It sounds like Wiki is either speculating on the DI's motives or simply asserting what those motives are. How do we know Cascadia is trying to "distance" itself from the institute's IDC efforts? How do we know this isn't simply their attempt to better define what Cascadia is about and better focue their Cascadia efforts? Again, I think this entry either neeeds some supporting evidence or it should be rewritten without what appears to be a biased slant/speculation. Mr Christopher 17:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory

--Mr. Billion 16:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this user has been spamming numerous talk pages, including Talk:Evolution#Where_is_the_Pro.2FCon_section.3F and Talk:Charles Darwin#Where is the Pro/Con section?, in a clear attempt to push a POV. -Silence 15:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's spam, it doesn't belong here. I've removed it. --Mr. Billion 16:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-neutral statement

It's true that they haven't proven Intelligent Design through science, and it's true that they'll never do so because it's just another form of creationism. But the statement "The central item of this agenda - proving intelligent design by conducting actual scientific research - has clearly not been achieved" isn't NPOV. An ID proponent would object that ID hasn't yet been proven. At a minimum, the phrasing needs to be tweaked. --Mr. Billion 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How about adding the word 'yet' after the sentence? But would that make clear that there is no scientific research actually going on at the moment? --Kristjan Wager 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How to make this article more neutral: POV tag

I was reading this article today and was struck at how biased it seems against the DI. First of all, the biggest section is the Criticisms section. Second, of the three footnotes, only the last can arguably be considered "unbiased." Finally, the last footnote is used to support the statement, The central item of this agenda - establishing intelligent design as legitmate science through conducting actual scientific research - has not been achieved. Except, that the last foot note is a link to the Dover school district court case decision. So now our concept of whether or not something is considered legitimate science is based on how the courts rule on cases relating to it? That is, to be kind, absurd. I am thinking that this article probably needs to be tagged as POV until it balances out. El Cubano 02:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your arguments are flawed.

• There is no need for requirement to be "unbiased". There is no requirement for an article to be sympathetic to the subject.
• The lack of a scientific programme has been pointed out many times, and it's there for anyone to see. There have been no publications, even in in-house DI pubs, which produce the results of any scientific research into ID. The Kitzmiller ruling is up to date, and is based on testimony by experts. There's nothing wrong with it as a source. It reports testimony, under oath, by both sides. Even the pro-ID people had nothing to contradict that. So it's an excellent source.

Anyway, you should not tag articles until after the discussion has failed. What changes do you propose making? Guettarda 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Misplaced Pages principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. That sort of tells me that an article that is biased is in violation of the NPOV policy. Besides, the article is about the Discovery Institute, not intelligent design or creationism. While I understand that including some valid criticism is appropriate, there are plenty of other articles where anti-creationists and anti-IDers can trot out all the facts, figures, opinions and whatever about how the proponents of ID and/or creationism have failed to establish a scientific case that is acceptable to their critics. I think that the quality of the article is quite lacking and that the bias is clearly evident when the largest section of the article is the criticism section. I'll have more suggestions/comments later. El Cubano 15:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• The criticism is necessary to "express all sides fairly and without bias". Links and sources are not expected to be unbiased.
• DI is very controvertial and it has attracted a lot of criticism. Excluding the list of officers and fellows, the criticism takes up about 1/5 of the article. Why is that excessive?
• Not sure what you mean by "Besides, the article is about the Discovery Institute, not intelligent design or creationism." Obviously. So why do you bring it up? ID needs to be mentioned, since it is one of the primary thrusts of DI.
• Criticism:
  • Para. 1 - charges of intellectual dishonesty, criticism from the scientific community. Widely made, relevant.
  • Para. 2 - also made by former donors. Relevant - scope of criticms.
  • Para. 3 - Templeton Foundation - independent commentary on the failure to follow through on the offer of funding. Very telling, since it undercuts one of the major claims of DI regarding their flagship programme.
  • Para. 4 - One line para, crit. by former fellow. Distinct from the other crits, relevant.
  • Para. 5 - Wedge document - huge issue, huge deal. Could, quite fairly, have more coverage here (but is appropriately spun off into its own article). Deals with the underlying philosophy of DI, and how it differs from their public statements
  • Para. 6 - Quote which ties it all together. Relevant, helpful to the reader.

Guettarda 16:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda is right here. The criticism as presented is accurate, supported. I think El Cubano's concern here is misplaced and caused by being not taking into account the realm in which the Discovery Institute has tried to insert itself and how that relates to our NPOV policy.

The Discovery Institute's method and goal for its CSC it at nature a challenge to the scientific community, its philosophical foundation and its method. This being the case, the scientific community's viewpoint clearly is the majority viewpoint while the DI's the minority. The amount of criticism present is in proportion to the significance of the viewpoints, which is exactly what WP:NPOV calls for:

• NPOV: Undue weight: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity": "Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

The POV template is unjustified; the amount of criticism is not undue, the is DI a distinct minority viewpoint challenging the majority's; presenting the majority's viewpoint here (which is thoroughly critical of the DI) is supported by policy. The criticism is also accurate and well-supported by cites. Time for the template to come off. FeloniousMonk 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me state a few things. First, I don't want to cause trouble. Second, I don't think that equal validity or undue weight are issues here. The article is not one of comparing views, it is about the institute itself. If you think the POV tag is unjustified, then please remove it. I will try and rewrite the article/fix itup this weekend into something I think is a bit more neutral. Though, if anyone else out there can take a crack at please do (I say that becuase I seriously dislike their approach toward promoting ID and I have not yet mastered the art of writing neutrally about things I don't like). El Cubano 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reasonableness is appreciated here, thanks. To avoid conflict, since you are alone in your opinion that the article needs fixing (long-term contributors here saying it's accurate, well-cited, and appropriate) I suggest proposing any changes you have in mind here on the talk page first and working toward consensus. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll propose changes, probably section-at-a-time here on the talk page. El Cubano 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, given the dishonest and misleading nature of the DI and their (previously hidden) agenda (down with science and up with jesus) it is difficult to write anything honest or accurate about them without the DI coming out looking odd to say the least. The DI is like poop. You can sprinkle perfume on it all day long to make it smell better, but in the end it's still poop. And there are tons of references out there criticizing the DI, but not many people other than DI members themselves say much of anything nice about them. Even their "allies" like the TMLC think they are scummish. Mr Christopher 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor spelling fix

Hi, I am doing research on the Discovery Institute and ran across a few spelling errors in the current Wiki article. I hope nobody has a problem, but just in case you are wondering, here is what I fixed; (1) History section, “institute’s” had an extra “s”; (2) Criticism section, “offices” did not have an “i” and “legitimate” was also missing an “i"; (3) Funding section, “totaling” had an extra “l”, “institute’s” had an extra “s”, and “News asked” was missing a space.Veritasjohn 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

History dates off

I’ve noticed what appears to be a mistake in the History section. The third paragraph starts out with this sentence:

“In 1993, having formed a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism with Stephen C. Meyer and George Gilder (Chapman's former Harvard roommate and his writing partner), Chapman secured seed money in the form of a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and $450,000 from the MacLellan Foundation.”:

This leaves the impression that Champan founded “a think tank opposed to materialism” with Stephen Meyer in 1993. However, as the Wiki article, and all linked sources agree, the Discovery Institute was founded in 1990, not 1993. That’s my first problem.

Second, the sentence claims that Champan “formed a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism.” I’ve searched far and wide on the internet, and find no evidence anywhere that Chapman formed the Discovery Institute to oppose materialism. There is no verification for this claim.

Third, the paragraph leaves the reader very confused about when Discovery started doing intelligent design work, and when Stephen Meyer entered the picture. It was not 1993. The Judy Wilgoren NYT article explains that Chapman first learned about Meyer in 1993, and then met him a year later.

“In late 1993, Mr. Chapman clipped an essay in The Wall Street Journal by Dr. Meyer, . . . . About a year later, over dinner at the Sorrento Hotel. . .”:

Finally, as best I can tell, the CSC was not founded until 1996, with no money being promised until 1995 (same NYT article). Thus, the Wiki history is just in error, there was no founding with Meyer in 1993. I will propose a revision soon, once I do a bit more research. Veritasjohn 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The DI was founded 1990, but Meyer brought ID to it in 1993. Also, ID is a stalking horse for ID proponents rejection of "scientific materialism," as supported by the DI's Wedge Document and it's former website content from the 1990's . The timeline is accurate. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

FeliniousMonk - you claim that "Meyer brought ID to it in 1993." What is your evidence? The timeline is not accurate. Unless you have a verifiable source for this, I think it violates the verifiability policy WP:V. Meyer was not part of DI in 1993. I quoted the NYT article, you quoted no source.:

2. The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Culture was founded in 1996. You claim that “website content from the 1990’s” deals with intelligent design. However, the website archive you linked was from 1997. 1997 is not “the 1990’s” when we are trying to create a verifiable, accurate timeline. The same NYT article says that Meyer and Chapmen met to procure money for the CSC only in 1995.:

3. Your opinion that Discovery is a stalking horse is not relevant to writing a WP:NPOV Wiki article about Discovery. Where is the verifiable source that says the Discovery Institute was founded to combat materialism? That’s a bold claim, and I see no source or evidence. The CSC, and the Wedge Document, come well after the Discovery Institute was founded. According to the only verifiable source relevant in this discussion, DI was founded to deal with economic issues. Chapman did not even know who Meyer was until he read the 1993 WSJ op-ed piece.:

This timeline is not accurate in the current article. 1997 is not 1990.Veritasjohn 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Former DI fellow Edward Larson said Meyer was "the person who brought ID to DI" prior to it becoming the center of the intelligent design movement.

Last time I checked, 1997 was in the 1990's. The statement is accurate. Work at the DI putting together the ID movement preceeded that creating the CSC, or CRSC as it was known then, read .

"This timeline is not accurate in the current article." Do you have a source for this? FeloniousMonk 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems with the history section. First, nobody disputes that Stephen Meyer brought ID to DI. As I understand Veritasjohn's comment, the problem is that the current Wiki page says in two places that Stephen Meyer was a founder of DI. He was not--he came in only in late 1994, and was not involved until 1995 when he began founding the CRSC (later CSC). The first sentence of the History section is totally wrong. It lists Stephen Meyer as a founder of DI in 1990:

" The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman, George Gilder, and Stephen C. Meyer as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis."

The other part without verification is the third paragraph, where the Wiki claims that in 1993 Chapman formed a plan for a think tank "opposed to materialism." I still don't see the evidence. It stands to reason that if DI was not FOUNDED to promote intelligent design (and the Wedge Document), then the Wiki page needs to be fixed.

The name change from CSC to CRSC has nothing to do with the problem. Also, the two links you give say nothing about the CSC or CRSC. They speak of Philip Johnson, and some individuals now associated with Discovery (including Meyer), but nowhere do they say that 'Meyer formed a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism' (and that was the Discovery Institute). These links do not support the claim that Bruce Chapman had a plan for a think tank "opposed to materialism." This is precisely the claim of the Wiki page in question. Nobody disputes that Philip Johnson opposes materialism.

You also missed the point about the 1990's. Your first claim that "website content in the 1990's" proved that the current Wiki is documented. The section of the Wiki page now in question claims that things happened in 1993, with no documentation. A citation to a 1997 CRSC website does not verify anything. Saint-George 21:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the intro to the section is unclear, implying that Meyer and Guilder founded the DI, not the CRSC. that will be changed. Regarding the "Bruce Chapman had a plan for a think tank "opposed to materialism", um, read the Wedge Document and the New York Times article:

"So in 1996, with the promise of $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons and a smaller grant from the MacLellan Foundation, which supports organizations "committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ," according to its Web site, the institute's Center for Science and Culture was born. "Bruce is a contrarian, and this was a contrarian idea," said Edward J. Larson, the historian and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the Scopes Monkey Trial, who was an early fellow at the institute, but left in part because of its drift to the right. "The institute was living hand-to-mouth. Here was an academic, credible activity that involved funders. It interested conservatives. It brought in money."

I'll add that cite to the article. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the DI's basic timeline, with the meetings that lead up to the formation of the CRSC:

• 1990: Discovery Institute is founded by Bruce Chapman as a offshoot of the Hudson Institute.
• 1991: Johnson publishes Darwin on Trial
• 1992: A group influenced by Darwin on Trial meets at Southern Methodist University, bringing together Johnson, Dembski, Behe, and Meyer. They formed the core of the ID movement for the next 15 years.
• 1993: Johnson invited several of the ID community to a conference in California, a "smalltime Manhattan Project for the ID movement," at Pajaro Dunes. Present were Behe, Dembski, and Wells. "Pajaro Dunes thus became a model for what has come to be known as the “intelligent design movement." -- Paul A. Nelson
• 1994: Ahmanson makes small grant to DI.
• 1994: Discovery starts to pay Meyer to head the ID cause, and signs Johnson as an adviser
• 1996: Center for Renewal of Science and Culture is founded, with Meyer as head, with a promise of $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons.
• 1996: Language in Wedge Document is drafted, available on CRSC website
• 1999: Wedge Document is leaked on the Web
• 2002: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture renamed Center for Science and Culture
• 2005: Discovery Institute finally admits Wedge Document is theirs.

FeloniousMonk 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I’ve re-written the unclear third paragraph in the history section, to better reflect the verifiable chronology for the founding of the CSC (first CRSC). My rewrite expanded the first sentence by making it three sentences. It has these advantages: 1) makes clear how Bruce Chapman came in contact with Meyer – the WSJ op-ed 2) Makes clear the date of their first meeting was 1995, not 1993. The NYT source makes this clear. 3) Adds information about the financing, which came in the summer of 1995 NYT source again makes this clear. 4) The new third/fourth paragraph of the History section make more logical sense now. Gives the chronology of the founding, then has the description of the CSC’s role in the intelligent design movement. 5) Cuts unclear and unnecessary information from the first version. The old version had two paragraphs about the founding of the CSC, but it was very unclear how everything developed. Veritasjohn 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Chapman and Meyer worked together prior to 1995, re-read the cites provided. Ahmanson provided seed money first, in 1994, then in 1996 he made the promise of $750,000 that started the CRSC. Your version conflated the two. Here's the entire passage from the NYT article:

"Founded in 1990 as a branch of the Hudson Institute, based in Indianapolis, the institute was named for the H.M.S. Discovery, which explored Puget Sound in 1792. Mr. Chapman, a co-author of a 1966 critique of Barry M. Goldwater's anti-civil-rights campaign, "The Party That Lost Its Head," had been a liberal Republican on the Seattle City Council and candidate for governor, but moved to the right in the Reagan administration, where he served as director of the Census Bureau and worked for Edwin Meese III.

In late 1993, Mr. Chapman clipped an essay in The Wall Street Journal by Dr. Meyer, who was teaching at a Christian college in Spokane, Wash., concerning a biologist yanked from a lecture hall for discussing intelligent design. About a year later, over dinner at the Sorrento Hotel here, Dr. Meyer and George Gilder, Mr. Chapman's long-ago Harvard roommate and his writing partner, discovered parallel theories of mind over materialism in their separate studies of biology and economics. "Bruce kind of perked up and said, 'This is what makes a think tank,' " Dr. Meyer recalled. "There was kind of an 'Aha!' moment in the conversation, there was a common metaphysic in these two ideas." That summer of 1995, Mr. Chapman and Dr. Meyer had dinner with a representative of the Ahmansons, the banking billionaires from Orange County, Calif., who had previously given a small grant to the institute and underwritten an early conclave of intelligent design scholars. Dr. Meyer, who had grown friendly enough with the Ahmansons to tutor their young son in science, recalled being asked, "What could you do if you had some financial backing?" So in 1996, with the promise of $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons and a smaller grant from the MacLellan Foundation, which supports organizations "committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ," according to its Web site, the institute's Center for Science and Culture was born.

"Bruce is a contrarian, and this was a contrarian idea," said Edward J. Larson, the historian and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the Scopes Monkey Trial, who was an early fellow at the institute, but left in part because of its drift to the right. "The institute was living hand-to-mouth. Here was an academic, credible activity that involved funders. It interested conservatives. It brought in money."

FeloniousMonk 23:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't read it that way Felonious. I think the Times article says that they didn't work together until "about a year" after "late 1993" -- in other words, when the rewrite said they did. I think you should undo your reversion. The new prose is cleaner and clearer.Saint-George 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's inaccurate and implies several unsupported points:

• "Chapman first became interested in evolution after reading a 1993 op-ed by Stephen C. Meyer in the Wall Street Journal about a university biology teacher who had been ordered to stop teaching intelligent design." The NYT article also says Chapman brought the ID movement under the DI auspices for money, : "Here was an academic, credible activity that involved funders. It interested conservatives. It brought in money." Should we include that viewpoint as well?
• "In 1995, Chapman, Gilder, and Meyer found similar goals between Gilder’s views on conservative economics and Meyer’s conservative philosophical views about evolution." Implies that Chapman and Meyer came together 1995, yet the Wired article shows that the DI were paying Meyer in 1994.
• "The new Center underwrote the earliest nucleus of intelligent design authors who titled themselves "The Wedge". " The cite provided says nothing of the sort and passage completely skips over the earlier small grant from Ahmanson to the DI prior to the $750,000 commitment in 1996 that funded the CRSC and confuses the source of seed money for the fledgling movement, Ahmanson, with the Center, highlighted in the NYT article passage given above.

That's no improvement. FeloniousMonk 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk - Perhaps my first re-write can be modified. The problem is, the current Wiki still has serious problems:

"In 1993, having formed a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism with Stephen C. Meyer and George Gilder (Chapman's former Harvard roommate and his writing partner), Chapman secured seed money in the form of a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and $450,000 from the MacLellan Foundation. These underwrote the earliest nucleus of intelligent design authors who titled themselves "The Wedge" . Meyer had previously tutored Ahmanson's son in science and Meyer recalls being asked by Ahmanson "What could you do if you had some financial backing?"

• The 1993 date in the first sentence is wrong. The source cited in the Wiki - NYT says that Chapman read a Meyers op-ed in late 1993, an met with him about a year later (could have been in 1994).
• The first sentence wrongly states that "In 1993...Chapman secured seed money in the form of a grant from " That cannot be right. No matter how we interprit the very vague "small grant" language in the NYT article, it does not support at all the idea that in 1993 MacLellan had given 450,000. I think my version that you reverted is much more verifiable. You can give no quotation showing MacLellan money in 1993, and no plan in 1993.
• I'm going to change the beginning of the second sentence, "These underwrote" to "Ahmanson and the MacLellan Foundation underwrote. . ." for clarity. Right now, it is unclear, and for some readers implies that the Discovery Institute, or the CRSC were the underwriters. As you point out above, the Cornerstone article does not speak of DI or CRSC. Also, I do not think the source cited says anything about the funding. It does talk about "the Wedge" - Philip Johnson writing, but nowhere does it provide verification that the two foundations supported it. I won't yet edit that part, but want to challenge the verification.

Veritasjohn 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, I also disagree with your reversion to the existing sentence. There is no documentation that a plan existed in 1993, the best sources say they did not meet until late 1994 at the earliest. Also, the current sentene wrongly claims that MaClellan Foundation gave money in 1993.Saint-George 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Saint-George concerning the revision. The only clear evidence that we have been provided so far is the late 1994 date. To try and set the timeline any earlier is only conjecture. While dates may be "small" things, accuracy helps keep the tenor of this discussion tight and focused. Cabanaman 18:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What specifically are you refering to? The dates in the article were changed yesterday to reflect the New York Times article. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Like Cabanaman, I did not see the dates updated. They are much better, though I think they can be improved even more. The current version tries to address the Ahmanson and MacLellan Foundation money as coming in the same year. The NYT article, I believe, makes clear that the MacLellan money was only secured in 1995, not in 1994, or earlier. It is ambigous on the Ahmanson money, which I am currently researching. Perhaps a split into two sentences could clarify when there is better information out there. Veritasjohn 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cascadia expansion

I expanded the Cascadia section of the page with more background and explanation of what the center does. The new version should provide more encyclopedia type information about Cascadia.

I did not remove existing material on Cascadia, but merely added the new information.Veritasjohn 22:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've pared it down somewhat, it read like a Discovery Institute Marketing Dept press release. FeloniousMonk 02:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You deleted legitimate information that contributed to the Discovery Wiki about Cascadia. Please justify this deletion. Your claim that "it read like a Discovery Institute Marketing Dept press release" is without basis.

• You deleted valuable information about John Miller, a Washington State politician who was involved with Cascadia's founding. I even added a Wiki link to John Miller's wiki page. This is not POV.
• You deleted information about the current managing director, Thomas Till, who used to work for the Amtrack Reform Council.
• I'll compromise and not re-ad my third sentence about the other current senior fellows. Though, I think this should be included at some later time.

Perhaps you only have an interest in the ID aspects of Discovery (a fair inference from the current version of the article. However, to be a good Wiki, this page should include other aspects of Discovery, such as Cascadia.

Again, I'm willing to discuss, but I fail to see what aspect of these changes read like a press release? This is standard background facts about Cascadia. The CSC section includes quite a bit more about funding, and the people involved. Why should the article not even mention the people involved at the founding? Veritasjohn 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"In 2003, Thomas Till joined Agnew to serve as Managing Director, after leaving his post as Executive Director of the Amtrak Reform Council." - that is typical of press release language, but rarely appears in any other form of writing (except when journalists copy from press releases). Guettarda 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DI PR Firm

The DI recently hired the same PR firm that promoted the former Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Contract With America, Creative Response Concepts. Also, given CRC's history of using blogs and other online sources, we will to guard against their using this article as another channel to promote their employer's views. FeloniousMonk 02:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't be surprised if that's already happened. JoshuaZ 03:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that FeloniousMonk's rule does not apply if it would censor legitimate information about Discovery Institute which objectively deserves to be known. I certainly hope that FeloniousMonk would not want legitimate information to be censored under any circumstances. EndScientificCensorship 19 September 2006

Why am I already thinking about the principal that "WP:AGF is not suicide pact"?JoshuaZ 04:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this a borderline personal attack on my editing of this page. This is not justified in the least. Do you have any evidence or reason to try and smear my editing? I plan on reporting this if it gets worse. I am not a notable wikipedian, and have been making edits to improve the article.

You do not have ownership of the current WIki. Your language of "guarding against thier uing this article" is revealing. Misplaced Pages is open to anybody to come and improve a page. Nobody has claimed that you must be employed by some anti-ID outfit, which "uses blogs and other online resournces" so why are you making such a personal attack.

Finally, while I am flattered to be compared to a professional PR firm employee - I am nothing of the sort.Veritasjohn 05:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is the ink blot? JoshuaZ 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on my above comment, I don't see anyone saying you were so the fact that you bring up now seems a bit odd. And in any event, we have had to deal with the DI and similar groups attempt to modify their articles before so concern in this regard is understandable.JoshuaZ 12:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Veritasjohn, chill out a little bit. These fine folks are just trying to make sure that nothing sketchy goes on here. I don't see anything so far to evidence their accusations, but they have a right to be vigilant.Saint-George 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That being said, I think Veritasjohn is right to interpret FeloniousMonk's posts as accusing him of working for a PR firm. As this is a pretty serious allegation, I would like it to be substantiated or withdrawn. Merely asserting that Veritasjohn's stuff looked like a press release (when the Cascadia section had previously lacked the level of detail present in the other sections) is not enough. FeloniousMonk looks like he's overreacting.Saint-George 17:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd kind of like to see where FeloniousMonk accused Veritasjohn of working for a PR firm, Saint-George. And I've read the communication here a few times and I'll admit I may have overlooked it, but for my benefit please quote where FeloniousMonk accused Veritasjohn of working for a PR firm. And saying someone's edits sounds like a PR release is ordinary editorial criticism (and not an accusation of what one does for a living nor does it suggest bad faith). If I got my panties in a bunch everytime an editor criticized my own writing my butt would sting for months. And on the topic at hand...The DI has already gone on record publicly asking their supporters to let Wiki know how they feel, they have admitted to having DI staffers try and manipulate Wiki articles, so I think the Monk's head's up about the DI's newly hired propaganda tool is quite appropriate (and noteworthy in the article). Thank you. Mr Christopher 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my concerns, which perhaps were over reacting. I edited the Cascadia section, significantly expanding it. FelinousMonk cut out two sentences of my edit, and in the edit summary said:

• “pare down the DI marketing dept boosterism in this section,”

Next, he started a new discussion about DI PR firm:

• ” The DI recently hired the same PR firm that promoted the former Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Contract With America, Creative Response Concepts. Also, given CRC's history of using blogs and other online sources, we will to guard against their using this article as another channel to promote their employer's views.”

I took these comments together to be cutting my edit, as “DI marketing dept boosterism” and then warning about DI hiring a PR firm, as calling my work that of a DI hired “dept” or “PR firm.” In my defense, I asked for clarification, and Felinous never substantiated my inference, but rather a different Wiki contributor explained that my sentence sounded like a Press Release. So, Felinous did not directly say I worked for a PR firm, but take his edit summary with his next discussion, it seems to be strongly implying foul play. I’m glad that there is no accusation, and I plant to continue and contribute to this article.Veritasjohn 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you know in in creationism portal.

In case anyone cares, this article is now mentioned in Portal:Creationism's did you know section. JoshuaZ 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

technology & democracy

I added a subsection for the Technology and Democracy cause at DI. It was not previously mentioned in the Wiki, despite being a cause from the founding to the present (involving George Gilder). Veritasjohn 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Viewpoints in the External Links section

I took out the "media complaints division" viewpoint. Even if it were cited, it would not be appropriate in the links section. No other link is editorialized in a similar fashion. Links should just have a fair description, not a critical jab.Saint-George 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, FeliniousMonk's edit summary re-adding the criticism called a "point of view." This is a link section, all other comments are purely descriptive. The Discovery Institute main link doesn't include a "point of view" attack it behind the link.Veritasjohn 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please. It's descriptive; Evolution News is commonly called the "Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division" by institute observers and critics. Most of Panda's Thumb and Talk Design know it as simply the Complaints Division. It's a verfiable fact, not an editorialization. Since you have no objection to the likes of the institute's "The Wedge - So What?" attempt at spinning The Wedge document , I don't see why what others call Evolution News. Unless your demands for fairness only extend to pro-DI descriptions... FeloniousMonk 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is "descriptive" in the same way that CNN could be described as the "Clinton News Network" during the 1990s by --Platonic Realm 14:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)right-wingers. That kind of stuff does not belong in the links section. The question of liking to "The Wedge - So What?" is a discrete issue of no relevance to this particular question.Saint-George 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But speaking of the links changes made by FeloniousMonk, I reverted them because the changes do not improve the page. The "TW-SW" link removed points to a very topical article. The links added are to Panda's Thumb pages on a couple of trivial objections to specific issues rather than anything that cuts to the core of what DI is about. I don't think I'm being pro-DI, I'm just pro better content.Saint-George 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the media complains division note is unnecessarily POV in that context. I am less convinced of the need to include the rebuttal to the wedge document leak since the Wedge is only somewhat relevant here. It would make more sense as a link in the article about the Wedge itself. JoshuaZ 22:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where it is already provided and given its due. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the removal of the DI's "The Wedge - So What" article has been adequately discussed, let alone justified. I remember the link being there before Felinious removed it a few days ago. I did some checking. Felinious removed the link on 19 Sept 2006.

Now, I did some digging. The DI Wedge PDF was linked in May 2006 , October 2005 , and even back in May 2005 – more than a year and a half ago. This was before most of the article development. In short, it had been there for a very long time. I do not have the time to locate when exactly it was entered. I know that something being in an article for a long time does not justify it staying it, but it at least means that deleting that material should be explained.

This deletion of the external link was not justified or defended by Felinious on the Discussion page. All we have is an edit summary. Why did it need to be deleted all of a sudden? There is no apparent reason. It is clearly relevant, as the article discussed the Wedge in depth, and other links discuss other POV's about the Wedge. It is not right for this link to be deleted, and then re-deleted multiple times with no discussion. It is for those against the link to make their case.Saint-George 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk – why did you delete the link to Discovery's Wedge reply? It is "external information that adds meaning to the subject." I remember this link being on the page for a long time. The Wedge is mentioned throughout the article, so readers may want to read more about what Discovery has to say, even if they don't go to the Wedge strategy Misplaced Pages article page. The Wedge is:

• Mentioned twice in Organization / CSC
• Mentioned as first bulleted point in Discovery Institute Causes
• Whole paragraph in Criticism about The Wedge

Furthermore, there are two external links that you left which add further information and criticism of the Wedge Document:

• "The Wedge at Work" (Barbara Forrest book chapter)
• "Infidels.org article with further discussion and analysis of the Wedge strategy"

Misplaced Pages is to represent sides from a neutral point of view. You are allowing some viewpoints about The Wedge (infidels and Forrest) to be represented, but not the Discovery Institute's own view. This is an article about the Discovery Institute, it seems quite understandable to present their view in external links. Neither would the inclusion of the link be "undue weight" to the minority view, seeing as 10 of the 13 links currently on the page counter the claims of the Discovery Institute and its fellows. --Platonic Realm 14:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So, based on this (which I note has no copyright date, although it must be at least 2004 given one of its reference) how should the DI's view be presented? As near as I can see there's a denial that the document was a secret (a denial that appears to be lacking plausibity), a lot fluff about how DI cherishes science, followed by more fluff as to how a belief in a deity is not required to accept ID (little green men, right?), followed by reasons why God (capital G, only one deity it can refer to) must be brought into science, culture, and politics, backed up by the "Spiritual and Cultural Renewal" of America via ID as promoted by Christianity. Fair assessment? •Jim62sch• 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch - nobody proposed "presenting" the content of the Discovery Institute doc any more than including it as a link under External Links. It had been a link for quite some time. Your opinions about the viewpoint of the document don't disqualify it from being an external link do they? The criticism of The Wedge is readily represented by the other links in the section. Also, I'm confused on what you are saying, what exactly is your point? I understand that you do not believe the viewpoint presented in the DI document. But, the External Link section presents many competing viewpoints - so no wikipedian is going to believe everything in every external link. Hearing what DI has to say about The Wedge document is valuable, as your POV comment even shows. It is valuable to know that DI claims it was not "secret," as just one example.Veritasjohn 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed two lings which do not seem to belong in the External Links section. They were both replaced, several times. In the discussion, I will now defend why at least the first link should be removed. The pandasthumb blog post titled “Correct This!” is badly out of date. It was written September 5th, 2005. I checked the history, an IP address added the link to the DI Wiki on 26 September 2005 It may well have been linkspam added by the pandasthumb author of the blog post (though we cannot know).

This link should now be removed. It is more than a year old. Much of the blog post is simply out of date. Here are just a few of the badly outdated parts:

• 1)“an ad for Sermonti’s book, displaying Behe’s endorsement of it, continues to appear on their main page.” No longer current, add has long been removed.
• 2)“In Kansas, thanks to the political maneuvering of the Discovery Institute and other Creationits, a biology teacher too lazy to check the sources may actually teach that to his students as “evidence against darwinian evolutionary theory”. Kansas Standards have changed since 2005, no longer critical teaching allowed
• 3)“Ohio may even add this “controversy” to their evolution “lesson plans”, already riddled with gross biology errors gleaned from previous Intelligent Design literature (unless you people write enough letters to the Ohio media to reverse the course set by Ohio’s ID-friendly felon governor).” Ohio policy has been reversed.

Furthermore, this blog post is just that – a blog post. There are hundreds of blog posts back and forth between Discovery’s ENV and Pandasthumb. There is no reason to include this blog post as opposed to hundreds of other blog posts. The actual content of the blog post criticizes Michael Behe’s blurb supporting a book, which was plugged briefly on ENV. This is merely an outdated blog-war criticism of Michael Behe, not interesting information about the Discovery Institute (this Wiki page’s topic).Veritasjohn 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Veritasjohn, I agree that those links do seem to be out of date. I also agree that the link to the DI's Wedge Document: So what? should be kept. That is, if the wedge document continues to be referenced in the article. If the references to the wedge document are removed then so should the link. Bagginator 02:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I reverted Truthologist (talk · contribs)'s undiscussed changes to the article a second time now. His edits white washed ID's status within the DI by downplaying them and deleting a sourced passage of DI co-founder Gilder on the prominence of ID at the institute. Truthologist's changes also downplayed the conservative sources of funding of the DI while boosting the prominence of that of the Gates Foundation, which only funds work on transportation issues. Since sort of spinning and downplaying of the facts is not going to work when there are so many sources available. Considering the subject of this article has declared war on Misplaced Pages, if there are specific things in the article that are inaccurate and need to be changed, they need to be discussed here first. FeloniousMonk 19:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Demanding that all changes be discussed in advance on the Wiki's talk page is contrary to established WP and therefore unnecessary.Truthologist 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, it's policy: Misplaced Pages:Editing_policy#Major_changes. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Feloniousmonk's whimsical reversion of edits

It is quickly becoming apparent why "Felon" is in the handle "Feloniousmonk". This user will not allow any changes to this article, regardless of sourced information, or the inaccurate nature of some content (See e.g. .) Furthermore, there is no "Whitewashing" taking place--and no information about "Gilder" was removed in that edit. If this rampant and biased behavior continues, I recommend this matter be referred to Misplaced Pages for appropriate arbitration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.139.168 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya gotta do whatcha gotta do. Just make sure all yer ducks are in a row. •Jim62sch• 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, Chapman, not Gilder: FeloniousMonk 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference--which you recently added. Like I said, my interest is in improving the current entry, not removing well-sourced information. As the quote was previously unattributed, according to wiki-policy, it was within my editing purvey to remove it. Similar edits will follow, though I think the overall structure of the entry also needs some revision to provide the current information more effectively. See e.g. my edit (reverted by JoshuaZ) here.Truthologist 02:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Add link re: ten years scientific and academic research

Seeking discussion on adding a link to article: "Institute Has Put Over $4 Million Towards Scientific and Academic Research into Evolution and Intelligent Design in the Past Decade ."

Is there any objection to placing the article in external links?

Actually maybe more about this belongs in the article itself but I'm not sure how best to address it. They claim they have invested 4 million into research and academia, yet their mum on exactly what that 4 million got them or where exactly it went. I wonder why they keep that information so secret. Mr Christopher 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One should think the reason to be one of disingenuity. Lord Henry Wotton 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I did some digging and contrast that article with this one: The State of Scientific Research on Intelligent Design - Bruce Chapman On one hand they are celebrating all the research they claim has been done over the last 10 years, on the other hand they are exlaining why they are not divulging any details about this research (the Darwinists will "strangle the infant in the crib" if they make those details known, I just hate it when that happens). Chapman also suggests ID researchers risk their jobs by publicly talking about their work. Odd that not a single ID researcher in the entire world works for a ID friendly school. You'd think Dembski would be free to do ID research where he works and I thought Behe had tenure, so what does he have to hide or fear? And how about Wells, is his livelyhood at risk if he publicly discusses his ID research? Anyhow...

I think Chapman's article is very noteworthy, especially in view of no one really believes any actual ID related research or testing is going on yet Chapman indicates quite a bit of it is, they're just keeping it a secret. Chapman sounds as if the ID community is on the verge of some significant break throughs that we'll soon hear about. Does anyone else think this is noteworthy? Mr Christopher 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they actually saw the alien bodies at Area 51 and deciphered their book, How to Build Man. Or maybe they found the time-travelling biologist's time machine. Perhaps Gabriel agreed to appear on film explaining it all. In any case, they've been going on about this for some time, so the only notability it really has is that "that's their story and they're sticking to it". •Jim62sch• 01:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

they've been going on about this for some time, Jim, that's my point and now they are saying they've invested 4 million dollars in ID research and "science"...Yet they're keeping it a secret from the world because the Darwinists are out to get them. That is what makes it noteable to me. Anyhow, I don't want to sound like I'm trying to sell others on the idea, I might get some time and try and come up with something to present here for opinions. Cheers! Mr Christopher 02:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew that was your point, I was just being sarcastic. I suppose the money they say they've invested without released results is notable, although how to present it without making them seem like abject paranoiacs will be difficult if not impossible. •Jim62sch• 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing unsourced, POV material

I am removing strongly POV material from entry here, specifically this sentence:

It seeks to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis" and leave the scientific community looking closed-minded, opening the public school science curriculum to creation-based alternatives to evolution such as intelligent design, and thereby undermining "scientific materialism."

What is the source for this? Sounds like pure editorializing (or perhaps paraphrasing unsourced material) to me. Thoughts? Truthologist 03:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it with supporting cites. All the content of the article is accurate and easily supported. If you're genuinely that unaware of the motives and goals for ID of the Wedge members at the DI, perhaps you shouldn't be editing that content. FeloniousMonk 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be looking into the citations, and challenging any that fail to meet WP:NPOV, and general WAP muster. Furthermore, it is a simple fact that the bold claim being made was unsourced. That in and of itself justified removing the information from the posting. I'm a bit skeptical of your motive-mongering here, but as indicated above, I will look at the citations you provided and confer with you here if I think further changes are in order on this. Thanks! Truthologist 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Just be sure that objections to article content or sources are justified and not baseless. These cites were readily available to anyone bothering to look and cover what most with just a cursory reading on the topic consider to be common knowledge. Long-term contributors here are very knowledgeable on the subject at hand; we don't mind providing sources when necessary, but there isn't a lot of patience in the community for pov-deletionism or endless calls for cites. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I see a trend in many of the new citations added to this page (and also many of the older ones in this wiki-page), namely an over-reliance on citation to opinion articles, agenda-driven books, and other materials that either display a strong bias, or are otherwise expressing opinions and not facts. For instance, in this edit one editor apparently took umbrage when I included an explanatory note that the article was an opinion piece (i.e. POV rather than a more reliable, and NPOV news story). I would encourage editors to review current citations, consider their relevance and accuracy, and whether the claims being made conform to WP:Verifiability. Furthermore, I think that a major push to make the article NPOV requires moving existing criticisms located sporadically throughout the entry to the "criticisms of the Institute section" and suggest posting future criticism exclusively in that section, as well. Comments? Truthologist 05:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"a major push to make the article NPOV" Um, the article already fully complies with WP:NPOV; I don't think you understand the policy.

"Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other. In summary, controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism." -- Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure. I don't think you'll find much support for that here. FeloniousMonk 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is a disagreement over the meaning WP:NPOV. From the Simplified Ruleset: "Write from a neutral point of view. This is a fundamental principle, which allows us to make a fair representation of the world around us. Even if material is verifiable, it is still important to put it into a balanced and representative form so that it conveys a fair impression of the views of the many significant viewpoints on a subject."WP:SR See also Simple Forumulation, and Fairness of Tone. The page as it currently sits does not accurately represent the Institute--instead it acts as one big gushing criticism, and a sounding board for critics. In fact, it appears some users prefer it this way, and have gone to great pains to monopolize the content of the page, keeping mainly negative views in place. This needs to change. I welcome any comments you all may have. Truthologist 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

The DI's viewpoint on ID being valid science is clearly not accepted by the scientific community, which is who determines what is and isn't valid science. All viewpoints in this article are cited, attributed and verifiable. The article presents the competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and points out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and the minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views. Yes, interested editors guard against the bowdlerizing of articles under the pretense of NPOV. You may choose to characterize them as "monopolizing the content," but before you go down that path realize that your own single-topic, single-viewpoint history at Misplaced Pages belies your motives in so doing. POV campaigning and promotion inevitably never succeeds at Misplaced Pages. FeloniousMonk 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Media

• TVW - Event with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez The Discovery Institute hosts a program with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez in Seattle. (Also available IN SPANISH)
• TVW - Authors Hour with Jonathan Witt and Benjamin Wiker - The Discovery Institute hosts a release party for "A Meaningful World" with authors Dr. Benjamin Wiker and Dr. Jonathan Witt in Seattle.
• TVW - Former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton event Mr. Gorton talks about the nature and ideals of public service during a summer lecture series named in his honor.
• TVW - Cascadia Center holds a conference co-sponsored by Microsoft Future Trends in Energy, Technology, & Transportation Conference: Welcoming remarks, discussion on "Maritime Security and Real World Implications," panel discussion on "Existing and Future Technology"
• Seattle Channel - Dr. Steven Hayward, F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Reviews the current state of the climate change debate and provides a critique of former Vice President Gore's recent documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
• Seattle Channel - From Congressman to Ambassador: The Skills One Needs for Each 6/16/2006 John R. Miller, whose work combating slavery and sex-trafficking was recently profiled by The New York Times, speaks at the Discovery Institute.

The above were removed in this edit by Jim62sch citing this reason: "Misplaced Pages's purpose is not to be an outlet for DI sponsored events -- that what DI has its own web site for." I disagree, and believe the more information about the Institute and its program and events in this entry, the better. Please provide other justification for such a major deletion, and cite appropriate established WP if applicable. Truthologist 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim was right to remove them. Misplaced Pages is not a link farm or alternate channel for promotion of their viewpoint for the Discovery Institute, please read WP:NOT. FeloniousMonk 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Link spamming & involved parties

Misplaced Pages is not: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages."

Truthologist added an excessive number of links to DI material: He then restored it when Jimsch62 rejected it as link spam: 216.163.84.151 (talk · contribs) restored the links in the form of links to archives/search results: User:216.163.84.151's IP just happens to be that of the Discovery Institute. Having the DI restore Truthologist's questionable edits calls into question whether there are editors here working on the Discovery Institute's behalf or that its PR firm, Creative Response Concepts. WP:AUTO provides for preventing editors from editing articles in which they are directly involved, particularly when done in a biased manner, as have been seen here. To avoid future conflict and disputes, anyone editing here who is an involved party with the DI should limit themselves to participating on this article's talk page and refrain from editing the article directly. FeloniousMonk 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to light, FeloniousMonk. Simply fascinating. Mr Christopher 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That is horribly depressing, but thanks as always for your perceptiveness. --Davril2020 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well now we know that Truthologist has been less than truthful. Editing all the Discovery Institute related articles, while moaning how POV they are, violating every policy, and hiding the fact you are associated with the Discovery Institute is not a good example of Christian truthology. Mr Christopher 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I havn't been at this page for a while. I'm glad to see that the DI IP was caught and properly reverted. However, I don't see why Truthologist has been also declared to be from the Discovery Institute. He made a lot of changes, and then the DI IP reverted some of his link changes - once. I don't think it is right to just declare that editor to be from the Discovery Institute. It doesn't even appear that he was asked on the discussion - someone just added the tag at the top of this page.Veritasjohn 21:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious where you get the info that his IP is the same as the Discovery Institute's? A simple WHOIS turns up that DI's IP is 64.246.188.3, and the 216.163.84.151 is owned by a webservices company so who knows what it's used for. Granted DI is probably using other IPs for their user machines, and you could be right, but I'd like to know how got that info. Headlouse 22:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering DI's efforts here, the number of WP:SPAs participating and the nature of their participation, there's consensus that WP:BEANS prevents us from going into too much detail. But I can say for certain that 216.163.84.151 is the Discovery Institute, you're simply not using the right sort of lookup. Everything you need is on 216.163.84.151's talk page, try a little harder, you'll figure it out. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Headlouse, an NSLOOKUP command from my desktop turns up 216.163.84.151 = firewall.discovery.org which is of course the Discovery Institute's network (www.discovery.org). Mr Christopher 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, I should hope Headlouse and Veritasjohn are not considering engaging in computer security as a vocation. Virtually every event on the internet is tracable, you see, given the proper tools of course. Lord Henry Wotton 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually their response is to be expected. One day you return to the article to see the tag(s) above without any explanation as to why. Their questions make perfect sense to me. Mr Christopher 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The same methods for fighting sockpuppetry work just well ferreting out those with a conflict of interest. Inevitably it's their own actions that ultimately give them away: no matter how carefully they try to cloak the motive for their actions, the act of incessantly deleting only criticisms itself demonstrates their intent. FeloniousMonk 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What about if this truthologist person just works for the discovry institute as a clerk or something? I work at Wal-Mart, does that mean I can't edit the Wal-Mart artical? It don't make sense. Alethos Logos 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alethos Logos, I believe bubba speak would be more like "It don't make no sense" Try that. Also you'll do well to read these policies prior to editing the Walmart article - WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Mr Christopher 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Felinious - thanks for the explanation, but I'm still unclear on how we know that Truthologist is from DI. I just assued (it turns out correctly) that the 216.... IP was the DI's. Also, I see in the discussion that Truthologist clearly posted, under the heading "Feloniousmonk's whimsical reversion of edits" that the unsigned comment was from the 24.113.139.168. That's not the 216 IP. I read the WP:BEANS thing, and it didn't make any sense to me.Veritasjohn 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

His editing from the DI has been confirmed by a neutral 3rd party. Editors generally have more than one IP associated with their account, for example, one each for home, work and/or school. WP:BEANS is being invoked because we don't want to give scofflaws any ideas on how to further circumvent policy. FeloniousMonk 03:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just didn't understand how it was known that the user was from DI when there wasn't anything explaining such in the page. I'll take your word for it.Veritasjohn 01:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Christian Think Tank?

Although a source has been provided to the claim that it is a conservative Christian think tank, there are a few problems. One, there are no cited sources to the Discovery Institute itself that say it is a conservative Christian think tank. It has been my experience in controversial matters that hearsay is not always reliable. Second, if we go straight to the horse's mouth and see what the Discovery Institute says, we see,

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic.

For specific examples, note that David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and is an Orthodox Jew--not a conservative Christian. Another example, David Berlinksi is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (in the CSC branch) and is an agnostic. --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your purposeful campaign promoting dissembling continues apace. There is no shortage of sources that the DI promotes a conservative Christian agenda (which is readily apparent in their actions and manifest in the Wedge Document); it's a simple matter of just adding them to the article, which we'll now do. Please don't start disrupting this article as well with more partisan, baseless objections. FeloniousMonk 15:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Felinous - I don't think you responded to the point about the Board not being Christian. If an organization promotes some causes which Christians promote, that does not make it a Christian organization. Furthermore, where is the "purposeful campaign promoting dissembling continues apace." I don't see what you are referring to. The user provided useful citations of Discovery Institute board members who are clearly not "conservative Christian." I will look forward to seeing your sources. According to your logic, the Wedge and intelligent design issue are "Christian" and therefore DI is a "Christian organization." That seems flawed. presume Pro-life is a "Christian" issue, that would make the atheists for life a "Christian organization" Veritasjohn 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to use bad logic I have a few examples I'd like to offer, and they're true and not made up. I have a liberal friend who more often than not votes Republican. This proves the Republican party is not conservative. And a prominant black civil rights activist once supported David Duke's run for governor. That proves David Duke is not a racist. See where this line of thinking goes?

The Discovery Institute also is chummy with at least one known Moonie. That does not make them a Moonie Think Tank nor does it negate the fact they are a Christian think tank. Perhaps the Discovery Instiutute's denial of their blatant Christian agenda might be noteworthy though. Thoughts? Mr Christopher 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the following,

Some have claimed that the Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank. The Discovery Institute contradicts this claim, pointing out that "until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish." It also points out the existence of current Board members who are not conservative Christians. Two examples of this are David Klinghoffer--a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute who is an Orthodox Jew. Another example us David Berlinksi, also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (in the CSC branch) and is an agnostic.

Here we have both sides represented and sources cited, in compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:CITE.

Regarding your statement Mr Christopher on "bad logic," unless your liberal friend is a Board member of the Republican party I don't think that particular analogy quite applies. Unless David Duke is a Board member of a major civil rights organization I don't think that analogy quite applies either (I suggest you visit the false analogy Misplaced Pages entry). If it the Institute were really a conservative Christian think tank, why is an Orthodox Jew a Board member? Why is an agnostic a Board member? Why was a Jewish man the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors? It just doesn’t make sense. I think the fact that a number of Board members are not conservative Christians does constitute at least some legitimate evidence against the claim that it is a conservative Christian think tank. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure people confuse an organizations agenda with the make up of one or two of their fellows. And the Discovery Institute has political and strategic reasons who support fellows who are not christians. They go out of their way to advertise their token Jew and token "atheist" (whatever). This does not change the reality that their agenda is religiously motivated, specifically conservative, right wing christian agenda. So if they offered a fellowship to the president of Iran (a muslim with a funny accent) that would not change the reality of their overall christian agenda. Mr Christopher 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christopher, your examples and contentions do nothing to establish that the DI is a "Christian think tank."

The burden of proof when authoring is not on the one showing that what another wrote is wrong. The burden of proof is on the one asserting the label. Saying that "they are a Christian think tank" does not make them Christian. I could be wrong, but "it looks that way to me" shouldn't suffice to apply a label.

Your comment about a Moonie (Jonathan Wells) makes no sense. Why does that not make Discovery a Moonie Think Thank? Because Discovery does not possess the necessary properties of being Moonie. What is baffling is why you think this does not undermine DI's alledged "Christian" identity. How many Christian churches do you know who have Moonies on their leadership? None. Look at the logic of what you are saying. DI has a Moonie Fellow. This does not make the DI a Moonie think tank. Replace "Christian" for "Moonie." The DI has a Christian fellow. This does not make the DI a Christian think tank. The DI has an agnostic fellow. This does not make the DI an agnstic think tank.

So it seems the questions are:

• How, on Misplaced Pages, should we properly apply a label to a diverse group? Is a label based on:

• What they do
• Who their membership/leadership consists of
• How a group identifies themselves
• How they are identified in media sources

• What happens if there is conflict between possible sources of establishing a label?
• Does the DI possess the necessary properties of being "Christian"? If yes, what are they?
• Does the DI possess properties that makes them secular? (As they claim they are secular.) If yes, what are they?

--Platonic Realm 19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Deciding this issue is, I think, beyond the scope of the entry. I think the best thing to do is just to present both points of view (one side says their Christian, the other does not) like my proposal above. Though perhaps the proposal might be more appropriate in the body of the article rather than the introduction (similar to what you said below). --Wade A. Tisthammer 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm usure about the proposal by Wade. My opinion is that such indecisiveness might be more appropriate in the body of the article. The introduction should be plain and simple facts, not a contentious clump of argumentation. If the label "Christian" does not fit and is not substantiated, just go with what is well-established on the facts. --Platonic Realm 19:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The DI in promoting ID is promoting an explicitely Christian goal: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." This fact was recognized in the Dover ruling which said "ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science" ... "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." And as the article details and is supported by multiple sources the vast majority of the DI's funding comes wealthy conservative Christians and explicitely Christian organizations. DI members are overwhelmingly Christian, the few exceptions are touted by the DI as part of their "Big Tent" strategy. The DI's "natural constituency" (their own term) are Christians. So you've got a think tank that's 98%+ conservative Christian (the other <2% being conservative theists of other flavors which share the same goals) with a documented explicitely Christian agenda, funded largely by conservative Christians, catering to a Christian constituency. It's safe to say they're Christian. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of editing, the name of the person quoted in the first footnote, Patricia O’Connell Killen, does not even appear in the hyperlinked-reference. Why does this baseless footnote even exist? I would look it up myself right now, but I'm on my way to a meeting. If it's not taken care of by tonight, I'll be glad to find a suitable recommendation and post it here for approval. --Platonic Realm 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's there, you just have to read beyond the first page in the source article: "Although it purports to be a secular organization, its religious moorings are clearly recognizable. Patricia O'Connell Killen, a religion professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma whose work centers around the regional religious identity of the Pacific Northwest, recently wrote that "religiously inspired think tanks such as the conservative evangelical Discovery Institute" are part of the "religious landscape" of that area." BTW, this fully supports the passage in the article and is by defintion is verifiable and a reliable source per our guidelines. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, there is a difference between an organization that espouses a major viewpoint consonant with conservative Christianity and an conservative Christian organization. A quick example (as someone pointed out) is this organization which is ardently pro-life (clearly a major part of conservative Christianity) and yet is atheistic. By your own admission there are "conservative theists of other flavors which share the same goals." These goals may very well be consonant with conservative Christian dogma, but they are clearly not the same thing as Christianity itself. Otherwise, why would an agnostic and an orthodox Jew be Board members? The best answer seems to be that the Discovery Institute has goals that--while very conistent with Christiantiy--aren't unique to it. To the very least, it seems we should point out certain facts like the DI's statement contradicting the claim of being a conservative Christian think tank, and especially the part of a Jewish man having been the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors. --Wade A. Tisthammer 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I am well aware of the WP:NOR policy. That being said, I think your “proof” needs to be discussed. Your arguments seem to break down to these:

• Discovery promotes ID, and ID is “explicitly Christian” (citing Wedge Doc, and Kitzmiller). Later you refer to a “documented explicitly Christian agenda”
• “vast majority of DI’s funding comes from wealthy conservative Christians and explicitly Christian organizations You sum this up by claiming (wrongly) that the group is “98%+ conservative Christian” with the other “<2% being conservative theists who share the same goals.”
• DI members are overwhelmingly Christian
• Discovery’s “natural constituency” is Christians

I know you are going to object to this, but I think it is important to consider - the Discovery Institute itself publicly describes itself as a “secular think tank.” Even more, the Institute expressly denies being a “Christina think tank.” ] I suspect many will object to the Discovery Institute being biased in this claim. However, I think it is standard for simple, factual claims, to cite and defer to a public organizations claims. We take Discovery’s word at who their Board members are, for example. (I will address later how the sources currently cited are not neutral third parties).

I find it simply astounding that Discovery’s reasonable, public, explanation of this fact will be entirely ignored by the wiki article. Here are some additional, verifiable facts about the Discovery Institute.

• Congressman John Miller was the long time chair of the Discovery Board of Directors. John Miller is Jewish (not Christian) (1999-2003)
• David Klinghoffer is a fellow of Discovery Institute and a widely syndicated Jewish author and writer, who even wrote a book entitled '“Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”' (patently non-Christian book).
• Senior Fellow David Berlinski is an agnostic, or Jewish, but clearly not a “conservative Christian”
• There is no religions test to be a Board Member, Fellow, or staff at the Discovery Institute
• There is no “statement of faith” or any expression of religious doctrine by the Discovery Institute
• The Discovery Institute never describes itself as “Christian” (and in fact expressly explains that it is not).
• Jonathan Wells is publicly known to not be “conservative Christian.”

Is it reasonable to label an institution “Conservative Christian” in the first sentence when they employ, at a high level, the author of “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”? I think not. Furthermore, Felon, you make up your numbers, which I’ll be charitable and presume were estimates (98% and 2%). Be honest, you have no idea how many % of the Discovery fellows or staff are “conservative Christians.” Furthermore, there is no evidence that the publicly identified non-Christian members are “token” members. There are in fact several publicly verifiable Christians at Discovery (Dembski, etc.). However, there is no verifiable document saying what precise percentage of Fellows, staff, or board members are any particular religion.

Your claim would categorize John Miller, chairman of the Board for four years, as “token.” What sort of “Christian organization” employs a “token Jew” as the chairman of its board? You make a claim that the non-conservative Christian members of Discovery are “conservative theists who share the same goals.” This is a fascinating admission. Conservative theists is not the same thing as Conservative Christians. Theist is a much broader category than Christian. Indeed, many who fit “theists” would vehemently object to being labeled “Christian” (which you seem to do). Jews and Moslems, to name just two, should not be wrongly labeled Christian just because they are theists.

Misplaced Pages is not obliged to follow POV name-calling as verifiable fact. I suspect an interested reader would be shocked to find out that what the Wiki article calls a “conservative Christian” organization engaged in many non-Christian causes (Cascadia, for example), was lead by a Jewish Chairman of the Board, and has a Senior Fellow who has written a book that is exceedingly non-Christian. Not to mention that the organization will readily employ any agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, or person of whatever religious affiliation.Veritasjohn 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Veritas, you might want to take these arguements and see if you can get the press and other sources to believe you. Or at least contact all the sources that are cited in the article that recognize the Discovery Institute as a Christian think tank/organization/agenda that are used in the article. Tell them the DI is not a Christian think tank and point out that since they have a few Jews, atheists and Moonies they are cannot be a Christian organization with a Christian agenda. Perhaps they'll believe you and then take back every word they've ever said on the subject. That would be more effective than trying to argue here with editors who are actually well read on the subject and are already fully aware of the Christian agenda promoted by the Discovery Institute. Best of luck to you. Mr Christopher 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The DI's flacks have been doing just that for some time now: The problem is, no one other than ID fellow travelers is buying it. FeloniousMonk 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument made by User:FeloniousMonk relies largely on Intelligent Design being "explicitly Christian" and thus, the Discovery Institute which advances ID must also be "explicitly Christian." This argument proves too much. Even if Intelligent Design is religious (a contentious POV claim made by Kitzmiller, and disagreed with by many), this does not make the Discovery Institute "explicitly Christian"

Mustafa Aykol at The White Path is a devout Moslem supporting Intelligent Design. According to User:FeloniousMonks logical fallacy, anybody who supports intelligent design becomes "explicitly Christian." That would make Mr. Aykol a "Christian" – which he is clearly not. Even if you assume ID has the property of being "Christian" that property does not transfer to those who support intelligent design.

User:FeloniousMonks argument hangs the hat entirely on the intelligent design peg. By that logic anybody and everybody who supports intelligent design should be described as "explicitly Christian." That makes no sense. Jkaplan 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And as far as statistics go, the DI has said 85% of their overall budget is ID related, no? And the second goal in the wedge stategy is:

• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Hmmmm...Theism...Created...God...That doesn't sound like a secular agenda to me, does it to you, Veritasjon? And if 85% of their budget is ID related, and we all know ID is recycled creationism, I guess that makes them an 85% Christian think tank with 15% left over for transportation. Also, a Christian agenda can include Jews, if you read your bible you'll note Christians read the same book that Jews do. No kidding, read it and you'll see for yourself. In fact Jews and Christians share the same bibical creation myth. I'm not making this stuff up, please refer to your Christian bible for proof of this. Mr Christopher 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christopher, is your claim that 85% of DI's budget is ID related speculation? Is that a claim made by DI, based on IRS records, or? Can you please point me to where you found that statistic? Thanks! Jkaplan 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  : * God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights.
   * Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family. 
   * Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
   * The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
   * American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations. 

I have been re-reading the "study" section and have a few problems with the current version. First, the final sentence about the counter-study seems to be confusing, and not adaquately sourced.

• Unassessed Creationism articles
• Unknown-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• Articles with connected contributors