Talk:List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design

Order[edit]

I put the list in alpha order for now. May want to reorder by international organizations and by nation later. FloNight ^talk 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only American organisations[edit]

I think this list should be renamed "List of American scientific societies rejecting intelligent design", or that we should make it an effort to include international scientific societies with official statements. -ramz- 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design is so far mainly an American phenomenon, although this is changing with its introduction in Turkey and other places. A much longer set of lists can be found in the references and links of Level of support for evolution.--Filll 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still a lot of other scientific institutions has spoken out on the matter. In my own country for example our main scientific body, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences made a statement although the matter has never really surfaced here. -ramz- 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, was probably just added, so there. Pseudoanonymous 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about relevance of some entries[edit]

The Council of Europe is not a scientific society, but a political group. The American Association of University Professors includes faculty from all disciplines. Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureats Initiative is, I think, an ad hoc group, not a scientific society. On the other hand, aren't there quite a few more scientific societies would could be included in this list? TomS TDotO 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is inaccurate. DeepSkyFrontier (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more[edit]

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/the-association.html#new-comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Academic Freedom bills[edit]

Is opposition to Academic Freedom bills (which don't explicitly mention ID, but are part of the DI's ID-Lite&Liter campaigns) sufficient for inclusion on this list? If so, the following should be added:

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [1]
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology [2] ('president's message' p3)

(hat tip to the NCSE for this) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality[edit]

I hate to mention this, but in the name of fairness:

"All or nearly all national and international science academies and professional societies have issued statements supporting evolution and opposing intelligent design."

A citation is needed (re how many there are in total), or at least a link to a list of these so the statement "all or nearly all" can be verified by the reader. That is, a list of all national and international science academies and professional societies.

I suggest the wording is changed to "Over x", eg over 30, over 50, over 100... whatever is relevant. Taking out "professional societies" might make the task a little easier.

Really, I don't think the statement is needed at all. Wikipedia is just an information site.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and deleted that sentence now. It's unsourced.

Note: Being leading doesn't help the credibility of Wikipedia, so.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific societies NOT rejecting intelligent design[edit]

If there are any scientific societies that are not rejecting intelligent design, I believe they should be mentioned. If there are not any scientific societies that do not reject intelligent design, then it should be stated somewhere in the article that no such societies exist. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.101.248 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think:

That new threads go at the bottom
That no scientific societies explicitly disavow rejection of ID (though I dare say a number haven't gotten around to explicitly rejecting it either yet)
That stating that none do in the article would be WP:OR however

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it is like trying to disproof the FSM. --LexCorp (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "explicitly" in the title really necessary?[edit]

It seems more than a little superfluous to me -- and makes a long title even longer. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many scientific societies do you think accept intelligent design? This list only includes those that explicitly repudiate what amounts to a religious belief dressed up to look like a scientific theory. --TS 13:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I'm not allowed (within the confines of WP) to have WP:OR thoughts for myself on the matter, "explicitly rejecting intelligent design" = "rejecting intelligent design" (as assuming the implicit rejection of all the others would be OR) and the extra word is superfluous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State and university subsection[edit]

I feel that this section should be removed. Nearly every academic institution in the United States rejects intelligent design, and there is no need to go through state by state to identify each one. The fact that there are only three listed means that either a) they don't make their positions clear, which would be surprising or b) the list is terribly incompletely. I believe that the two major sections on the US and on the rest of the world are good enough, I think. NW (Talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional societies[edit]

ESA: http://www.esa.org/pao/newsroom/pressReleases2005/kansasEduDecision.php Askantik (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange title[edit]

Wouldn't a better title be "scientific opinion on intelligent design" or some similar wording?

A subsection header could be the current title. Another subsection would be "Scientific Societies accepting intelligent design". Seems to me that it'd be ok if that section were empty (assuming there is no reliably sourced passage stating "there are no scientific societies that accept intelligent design as a scientific theory".

This would be in the manner of Scientific opinion on climate change, which has a more neutral title. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are no comments soon, I'll go ahead and make the change as noted above. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article even need to exist?[edit]

Surely it must go without saying that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not true. An article such as this gives false legitimacy to the concept of intelligent design, and, in my opinion, should be deleted. Anyone who believes that the truth of intelligent design is being suppressed by some imaginary global conspiracy surely will not believe Wikipedia.

Now, if you were to create an article about religious institutions supporting evolution, that may have some real value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.179.56 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most reference links are broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.99.115 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]