Talk:Of Pandas and People/Archive 1

Archive 1

50 or 60 copies donated?

This page says 50, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District says 60! Somebody please fix. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iforget2020 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Significance of title

Why is the book called this? (unsigned comment by User:Starwed 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Look in the external links at "The Panda's Thumb," an article which explains the significance of panda evolution in the debate. Jokestress 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning with, "The title Of Pandas and People is a reference to a scientific controversy about the giant panda" does not go on to sufficiently explain the controversy mentioned. Something about a thumb without even an immediate link to more info. Also, the sentence that follows makes use of the words "in fact" preceding a reference to evolutionary theories, again without explanation. Perhaps a neutral voice and ample explanation would be more inviting to those without developed opinions on the topics at hand. And more informative to boot! --bobby

Steven Jay Gould wrote a series of essays and several books popularizing the study of the history and philosophy of science emphasizing especially the facts and theory of evolution. He was a strong advocate of theory of evolution, and wrote much to clarify, popularize, and advocate the study of evolution. His book "The Panda's Thumb" was published in 1980. The title "Of Pandas and People" was probably in part a reaction to Gould's work. Also, Gould's well known humnanism and politacal liberalism probabaly rankled conservatives who wanted to conteract his influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Have had a search, and found a reference saying something on those lines, so added it. . dave souza, talk 12:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the intent of the authors wrt to the title, the current version says, The title Of Pandas and People apparently refers to biologist Stephen Jay Gould’s book The Panda’s Thumb, possibly in hope that people would be confused by the similar titles, or as retaliation for arguments made in the earlier book.[6]

While in my personal opinion I agree that it "apparently" refers to his book, and that the intent of the authors "possibly" was their hope of confusion between the two titles, I don't have ESP so cannot determine what was actually inside their head when they chose the title. The Eve/Belhadi 2008 reference is irrelevant and supplies no insight on this. I have removed this sentence. If we can come up with a reliable source indicating (not speculating) that this was the reason the title was chosen, then the sentence could/should be reinstated, along with the new reference.Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I removed a dispute tag that had no substantiation on this talk page. If someone has a real dispute, they should feel free to reinstate the tag and open discussion here. JHCC (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Watered down"

I have edited the use of the phrase "watered down" in reference to the Kansas incident. I replaced it with something like "modified curriculum with regard to evolutionary theory".

Links Section

It seems like the External Links section is a bit biased towards one side. Perhaps somebody could add more pro-ID links and/or remove some anti-ID links for the sake of balance? Fightindaman 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can find any relevant creationist links, add them (and by relevant I mean about the book itself, we have a separate Kitzmiller v. Dover page). Do not remove any relevant links just to make something "balanced", that is under the false assumption that all POVs have equal validity, and which is not in line with WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The external links section is really biased. For one thing, it does not label the opposing group as Pro-Evolution/Darwinism, but "Pro Science". They have already labeled one 'Science' on the spot. There are quite a few ID sites conspicuously absent from the pro-Intelligent design links.165.123.133.216 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Rebekah

That's because it IS science. There's no such thing as "Darwinism". 203.211.127.70 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Overview

I'm kind of disappointed. I expected more from the Overview section. I'm writing a paper contrasting 19th century objections to Darwinism with modern-day objections, but I can't even figure out what the main objections in Pandas are. Perhaps someone here would sacrifice (and I do mean sacrifice) their time and read the book? Report back on what it says? Thanks! --aciel 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of material available on the internet. You'd probably be better off looking at Darwin's Black Box, Meyer's review "paper" in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington as examples of primary antievolutionist literature. There is a lot of material at the talk.origins Archive. — Dunc|☺ 08:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Still, the suggestion stands. =) --aciel 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read the book? Then you can report on what it says. Probably not a bad idea, considering you are writing a paper on it (or do you mean a high-school paper?). Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why were there only negative reviews about the book? There were any positive ones? Was the writer of this article bias? Celsopdacunha (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Creationists liked it. People actually qualified to comment on the subject (i.e., biologists) dismissed it as worthless pseudoscience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Someone wrote,

Pseudoscience or non-science? I know it's something that isn't science dressed up as science, but doesn't pseudoscience already have a definition that is inconsistent with what Intelligent Design is? From what I remember, pseudoscience is somewhat scientific, but inappropriately done; Pandas and People is NOT scientific.

Read the pseudoscience article to better understand it. Mr Christopher 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1.Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method. The above is the Wiktionary definition. Intelligent Design is renamed Creation Science q.v. with some subtrefuge. I submit that Intelligent Design = Creation Science = pseudoscience —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 17:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
'Of pandas and people' may not place it's emphasis on employing the scientific method, but this does not imply that it is illogical. Perhaps 'pandas' does not address evolution on the basis of the scientific method, but on the basis of logic and what is rational. To a rational observer, a theory can be disproved equally well by good reasoning as by employment of the scientific method. Thus the terms 'pseudo-science' or 'non science' are not justifiable to use on this book, simply because they do not apply. It is also questionable to label 'pandas' as pseudoscience/nonscientific - both words having strongly negative connotations - without addressing any of it's specific arguments - Misternopps Misternopps (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately the case for articles on wikipedia that deal with this topic in any way is that they are biased and inaccurate. Censorship and lies have served false ideals and ideas well in the past, so they are used now. --Tembew (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PSCI. . . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dave Souza, was that supposed to be a good explanation of "pseudoscience"? I am not getting the point of that link at all. A fringe theory would be a more accurate label if you must apply one but even the definition of a fringe theory in that link doesn't do the concept justice. Maybe it's time wikipedia was compatible with objective science. There is no reason that all theories not supported by consensus must be treated like pseudoscience (though I know this usually only applies to those with political/social impact - ID for example). A more objective approach should be taken for science topics at least. Consensus can and has been wrong.--Tembew (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg

Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the cover picture.Misternopps (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in Overview section

The Overview begins with:

The book argues that "the origin of new organisms [can be located] in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent." The text is non-committal on the age of the Earth, commenting that "Some [ID proponents] take the view that the earth's history can be compressed into a framework of thousands of years, while others adhere to the standard old earth chronology."

First- can somebody give a specific citation (page and edition number) for these quotations.

Real question- why are there bracketed words here? I've never read the book (don't know much about it) but I assume that the "[can be located]" stands for something like "is" in the original, while the "[ID proponents]" has been inserted and has no equivalent in the original. If I'm right about those (and if I'm not then I have no issue with the sentences as written), then it seems that these brackets been inserted to make the text sound less POV. It seems to me that we should leave the maximum possible POV in the text quotations, since that's the only reason anybody cares about this book. I'd like to see the original text there, unless there's a real reason not to. Staecker 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

cdesign proponentsists

Did you catch this on NOVA last night? Too funny. It should go in the article of have it's own. Someone is already selling t-shirts that say "I heart cdesign proponentsists" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed. A link to the NOVA episode's web page has been added to the Media links section. TechBear 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been in the article for some time - if I remember right, I'm the one who added it. -- ChrisO 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

banned book section

The section: 2006 attempt to declare Pandas the "Banned Book of the Year" is only sourced by a website and a blog. If nobody else mentioned the "attempt" is it really notable? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that they're still repeating (and expanding upon) this lie over a year later,[1] I would say "yes". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Section title

I can support the previous "2004 - 2005: Dover, Pennsylvania" or "2004 - 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover", but the current "2004 - 2005: Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pennsylvania" is messy. We should use "Dover" to mean the geographic location, or the defendant (Dover School Board) -- not both. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree- good edit. ... dave souza, talk 08:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceBlogs NOT RS/V

Footnote 5 from WP:V (emphasis mine):

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control

Seed Magazine (which can be put in the place of "newspapers" above) may have set up ScienceBlogs, but they exert NO editorial control on them (a fact that is stated in the ScienceBlogs article). Because of this, any and all ScienceBlogs cannot be used as RS. 67.135.49.177 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because I assumed it was another douchebag creationist with an axe to grind, or a Raspor sock. Re-examining the link, as it stands I actually don't see a good justification of the blog entry as a reliable source. Though anon's comment in his edit summary about the 'usual suspects' makes me wonder if s/he's a sock puppet. Anyway, there's a discussion elsewhere for anyone reading. WLU 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Science Blogs has long been considered a reliable source at Wikipedia, for nearly two years now, and is widely used at many articles. The vast majority of the bloggers at Science Blogs are professional scientists or professors, and Science Blogs is a branch of Seed Magazine: Science Blogs clearly fits the exemption in the policy you're quoting and that's why it's been accepted as a reliable source at Wikipedia for so long. Now please do not disrupt this article any further. 64.237.4.140 20:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation-only website...that counts as a degree of oversight for me. The actual comment the blog entry on P&P justifies is somewhat mundane and it'd be nice to have something more official. Somewhat irrelevant until after Dec. 1st at this point, so let's discuss and look for sources. WLU 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, if it counts for YOU, then I guess the discussion is over. Yep. Pack it up, kids. WLU's personal opinions trump Wiki policies. Jinxmchue 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously SB is a reliable source. The Questionable Authority is a reliable source for Mike Dunford's opinion. In this case, Dunford is reporting on a conversation with Deborah Caldwell-Stone. Thus, for our purposes, we need to ask whether he is likely to have misrepresented what Caldwell-Stone had to say. Technorati shows no responses to the blog posting, while Larry Fafarman, a banned user, is the only one who shows up on Google blogsearch. Come to think of it - crap. The anon is Larry. D'uh. Guettarda 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is not an RS since it doesn't meet the second part of the sentence I quoted above. For SB to be considered a reliable source, then Seed Magazine needs to exert editorial control over the posts. They don't, so SB does not qualify as an RS. Jinxmchue 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, people were wrong to assume SB is a reliable source. Seed Magazine does not exert any editorial control over the blog posts, so as I said, SB does not meet footnote 5 of WP:V. Jinxmchue 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am curious how the relationship between Seed (magazine) and Scienceblogs differs from the relationship envisaged under WP:V footnote 5, specifically the section "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")." I would also point out that Scienceblogs tend to be more knowledgeable (and thus more reliable) sources for science news (and analysis thereof) than the mainstream press, who often allow reporters without a strong science background to cover this beat. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn is correct. The proper thing to do is attribute it explcitly to Dunford in the text. JoshuaZ 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that the statements were made by Deborah Caldwell-Stone (to whom they are already explicitly attributed), Dunford merely reported them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So unverifiable phone conversations as reported on blogs are now considered reliable sources? Jinxmchue 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly a reliable source and is on par with talk.origins. Why does this seem to get discussed on every single page even remotely related to creationism or ID? There has to be something better to do so anytime this is brought up it can smashed by a quick link. Baegis 04:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap! Are you seriously asserting talk.origins - an open discussion forum - is a reliable source? Jinxmchue 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap! Yes (Talk Origins Archive)! Guess I should have been clear for you. Baegis 05:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. The archive of an open discussion forum is a reliable source. Thanks for clarifying that. *rolls eyes* Jinxmchue 05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Perhaps this whole concept of RS is too difficult for you to understand. Best to stop now and save...well nothing. Do you have something better to do than disrupt WP? Baegis 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Web site at talkorigins.org is not merely an archive of the talk.origins newsgroup. It is an edited repository of texts related to evolution. It is erroneous, and suggests ignorance or deliberate falsehood, to describe it as "the archive of an open discussion forum". --FOo 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As per FOo. Also note that the TOA has a large variety of awards as discussed at Talk Origins Archive. For many purposes the TOA is reliable source. As for many sources, some aspects of TOA are more reliable than others. However, this is not a case that falls into a gray area. JoshuaZ 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So unverifiable phone conversations as reported on blogs are now considered reliable sources? Contributors to SB are vetted by Seed. Mike Dunford is a reliable source. SB is a reliable source for what Dunford has to say. No one has challenged what Dunford said here - except Larry Fafarman, of course. It isn't the best source, but it's certainly a reliable source. Guettarda 05:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone being vetted when chosen to post on the blog does not equate to editorial oversight of their blog posts by Seed. And your response does not answer my question. Jinxmchue 05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. Hrafn already stated exactly what we should do. This isn't a terribly complicated situation. JoshuaZ 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ID = Pseudoscience, but macro evolution does not?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In saying that intelligent design is a pseudoscience, the statement is made (in the opening paragraph) that it cannot be "verified through repeatable experiments," which is a classic definition of what a science is. I fail to see how many things that are deemed "scientific" can be justified as such then. Macro-evolution is one such thing that resists being "verified through repeatable experiments," is it not? Yet does this not fall into the realm of a scientific theory? It seems that using verification by repeatable experiments as the acid test, would throw out many other areas we loosely categorize as scientific (e.g. anthropology, paleontology, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.171.218 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC) You may want to read up a bit, to gain a better understanding of what macroevolution is, and whether or not it is falsifiable. This talk page is not the place to have this debate, which in mainstream science is not considered a point of contention.--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Thank you for that ignorant rant spouting tired and fallacious creationist dogma. Macroevolution, in the form of speciation, has been "verified through repeatable experiments". As to wider verification of theory of evolution, it (like geology and astrophysics) is a historic science, therefore it is often tested by matching its predictions against new observations, rather than by lab experiment (as it's rather difficult to get the Big bang or tectonic plates into a lab), hence the mention of predictions in that paragraph. HrafnTalkStalk 02:58, 17 December Macro-evolution is one such thing that resists being "verified through repeatable experiments," is it not? Nope. Macroevolution was duplicated in the lab over 100 years ago. See triticale. Guettarda (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)2007 (UTC) "Thank you for that ignorant rant spouting tired and fallacious creationist dogma." This is an interesting way to provide a civilized response, and I think it presents a strawman. Is intelligent design synonymous with creationism? I think not. Creationism is centered around a specific God, who personally created everything. It is closely associated with young earth beliefs (though not always). ID simply looks to provide a theory as to how things in nature, from an observable standpoint, appear to have a design. (Evolution has never adequately explained how life comes to be. Even many proponents of neo-Darwinism concede that there appears to be design, before they then try to explain it away.) So I think equalizing ID with creationism is a big strawman. Why shouldn't ID be considered as a bonafide theory as to how life emerges? People can then decide for themselves who the designer might be. It seems that many in the neo-Darwinian arena have the notion so set in their minds, that they instantly attack any thought to explain otherwise. This is while struggling to make so many things fit into places they don't appear to go. I know that the Panda & People book is supposed to have had all the many references to creationism changed to intelligent design. While this may be true, does it mean this theory can’t evolve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.171.218 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC) It was an irritated response at questions based upon a number of blatantly false premises. ID is synonymous with Neo-creationism, and its creationist roots and aims have been exhaustively documented and found to compellingly meet legal standards of evidence. It is centred on exactly the same God as Creationism, as ID advocates are continually letting slip. Many ID advocates are in fact YECs. ID provides no theory (as even ID advocates have admitted on occasion), but merely retreads a bunch of tired old creationist arguments to make them look superficially more 'sciencey'. Please learn the difference between "equalizing" and "equating" before huffing at me calling you "ignorant". ID should not "be considered as a bonafide theory" because it meets none of the standards of a scientific theory. As for people "decid[ing] for themselves": However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world.[KvD] HrafnTalkStalk 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I agree with you on the "ignorant rant" comment. I do have a question: are there any supporters of ID on record who do not self-identify as fundamentalist Christians? Are there any ID supporters that had not in fact previously self-identified as creationists? The problem people have with the notorious "cdesign proponentsists" sequence is that there was no change in theory; there was only a change in nomenclature, with a very obvious intent of making the already-written book more easy to slide into place, hand-in-hand with the Discovery Institute "wedge" strategy. The theory, such as it is, still remains a defense of creationist belief in scientific trappings that have been roundly rejected by the mainstream scientific community. Evolutionary theory has never adequately explained how life comes to be as that is not its focus. This is like dinging existing gravitational theory because it does not explain how mass came to be. (please remember to sign your comments, and consider following the indentation convention outlined at WP:Talk page)--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All parties above should consider that this page is for discussions aimed at improving the wikipedia article Of Pandas and People. Other discussions can be taken elsewhere. Staecker (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

updating that nifty graph on page 1

Should the version graph in the article be updated to include the publishing of The Design of Life? According to the publisher 1/3 of The Design Of Life is straight from Pandas and People and 2/3rds is "new" material. Angry Christian (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the first paragraph is biased

I find it unimportant for the book's first paragraph to debunk ID as a scientific theory. The first paragraph still contained a reference to Intelligent Design article which already has discussion about its legality as a scientific theory. The article about the book should focus on the books content, merits and criticism on content. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FTE involvement in KvD

The article says:

The FTE became involved in the Dover controversy when it became clear that Of Pandas and People would be a major focus of litigation.

However, defense expert William Dembski made prominent mention of his role as Academic Editor of FTE in his expert report, and was involved in the case as of the time that the roster of defense experts was released, January or February of 2005 IIRC. This was a point noted by Judge Jones in the FTE motion to intervene, that Buell claimed not to have known what has going on, yet Dembski was officially an officer in his organization. FTE was already involved in the case in the person of its academic editor, Dembski. FTE sought to become a defendant later once Dembski's incautious use of his experience in writing "The Design of Life" opened FTE up to production of the manuscript for review. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Pandas and ppl.jpg

An editor is dispute-templating this file (again). Editors may wish to weigh in. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the image is now at IfD. Interested parties can comment here. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Face on Mars and Nancy Pearcey

Thanks to IP 24.7.107.240 for the correction from Thaxton to Kenyon for the afadavit. However, the claim that Thaxton got the phrase "intelligent design" from "1980s discussions of the face on Mars" is not supported from the cited reference, so I've removed it. It's plausible, as the 1986 publication Planetary mysteries, Issue 38, By Richard Grossinger, quotes Richard C. Hoagland as saying "Because if those things are not natural, if in fact they are the product of intelligent design, this is obviously the most important discovery anyone has ever made."[2] Not that he's a NASA scientist, and of course we need a source making the explicit connection between that and Thaxton's moment of inspiration.

Something else to consider is that Nancy Pearcey is apparently the author of the Overview chapter of Pandas, at least in the 2003 edition, and "more-or-less republished the entire Overview chapter in three 1989 issues of the Bible-Science Newsletter.[3] Probably worth a mention. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Update: seems she wrote the first edition overview, and had some interesting things to say about it when questioned.[4] . dave souza, talk 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Third edition

How can the first and second editions be credited to two authors and the third edition be credited to two different authors under a different title? While it's common for many authors to contribute to a book (or even a paper) and only the first couple to be credited, changing this between editions is something I'm not familiar with. There's even variants for its library entries. Is it a case of the two later authors conducting major revision, or what is usually called a revised edition? MartinSFSA (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

They are the 'editors', not the 'authors'. We know that Michael Behe contributed a chapter related to irreducible complexity, at least in the early editions (may still be in the latest). I recently read somewhere that Nancy Pearcey contributed the 'outline' chapter (for all editions, I think). If the theme/purpose/scope-of-content stays roughly the same, and much of the content is carried over, it does not seem unreasonable to designate it a new edition rather than a whole new book, even if the name and editors have changed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Systematically v. Systemically

The judge, in fact, said both. "...were deliberately and systematically replaced..." and "...the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design”..." so which idea are we trying to convey? That the change was done one-by-one or that the change was done to the entire work? The syntax seems to suggest that we are trying to convey that every occurrence in the entire book was changed, not that it was done deliberately and meticulously one at a time. The judge was talking about two different points - what are we talking about? (sorry, but the confusion and misuse of these two words is a pet peeve of mine) Padillah (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• And the changes were both. They were systematic because they were deliberate, one-way changes and they were systemic because they used global cut & paste commands to change all instances in a file. Monado (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they were both, but you have your definitions backward. Changing something with global cut/paste is a systematic change: Systematic: Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical. (Google "define:word" to get the definition of "word".) Systemic means affecting an entire system; for example, in a health context, something that affects the entire body rather than a single organ or body part, such as high blood pressure. Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lousville, OH - dubious reference about creationism

It is true that Louisville, OH tried to push creationism in 1987 and was threatened by the ACLU, however saying that creationism was openly taught in district schools was dubious at best. I lived in Louisville from birth through 1995, attended Louisville Elementary, Middle and High Schools. I was never taught creationism in any of my classes; I did have some very religious teachers who had no problem sharing opinions, but it was never taught or tested in my experience.

Either the reference was quoting opinion, or was extrapolating a few experiences to an entire district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.219.218 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DoL Reception section

Appears to be unbalanced in that it completely lacks negative/critical reception material. DP76764 (Talk) 18:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is criticism split from reception? Policy discourages separate criticism sections. The content in the criticism section seems as if it belongs in the reception section. There should be a little more content in the reception section anyway. How notable are 10 Amazon reviews? Does the blog or author really convey notability to this? In terms of book reviews and specifically text book reviews the Discovery Institute blog, Dembski's blog and interview on a Focus on the Family are not the type of review or commentary by which textbooks are usually evaluated. Where are the independent reviews? Reviews in journals or literary magazines? Reviews in major publications (like the New York Times)? I am removing the comment by Behe, he is an co-author, he can't exactly be described as part of the reception of a book he co-authored. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:English-language books

I added the English-language books category. Someone removed it. That was not the correct thing for anyone who thinks the category is "useless" to have done. If a category is useless, nominate it for deletion. Do not remove it at random from articles. (NB, I don't agree that the category is "useless" - there's no reason why people shouldn't find it helpful to know what books have been published in the English language). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Espouse v expound

I think use of the word "espouse" in the opening paragraph isn't really appropriate. The word carries connotations that make me wonder if there's a certain point of view or bias in the tone of the article. Perhaps the word "expound" would be a little more appropriate. I see that MrBill3 reverted my edit. I'm curious as to the rationale for the reversion.Mrbates76 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with MrBill3 that "espouse" is a better word in context than "expound", the book was clearly intended from the outset to promote ID creationism. . . dave souza, talk 11:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that I mistakenly attributed the reversion of my edit to MrBill3. I sincerely apologize for that, just an honest mistake.Mrbates76 (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course the book supports the theory of intelligent design. It would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. But then it is also true that biology textbooks (such as the one I teach from at my own high school) promote the theory of evolution. I contend that the word "espouse" carries with it an unnecessary tone and creates bias in an article that already suffers from a pretty heavy-handed and overwhelmingly negative evaluation.Mrbates76 (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

ID isn't a theory, it's a creationist religious argument or dogma. As such it has no place in biology textbooks which properly show science, not religious apologia. Your tone trolling is noted. . dave souza, talk 12:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. But I'm not talking about biology textbooks. I'm talking about a Wikipedia article. I'm talking about tone and bias in an encyclopedia article. These are two different things. Also, note that I have not resorted to name-calling incivility. As for being an apologist, nothing could be further from the truth. I would never claim to be an expert, but I have an undergraduate degree in biology. I teach biology in a public high school. I teach evolution. I have a natural interest in the subject.Mrbates76 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Espouse is a more appropriate term. Read the source it clearly is about the book promoting the idea. Expound implies validity and signifies explanation. The purpose of the authors was not to explain something valid but to support a belief, that is the definition of the word espouse. The book does not present a theory in a systematic way it presents arguments. Again read what the sources cited say and the actual definitions of the two terms.

As a point of WP etiquette it is not generally necessary to name editors when discussing content. It is useful to notify them that it is their edit you are contesting or to reference a point they have made in talk. I appreciate the engagement on talk but think it is important to refer to the definitions of terms and the sources when contesting the use of terms. When starting a new topic of discussion a new section is useful. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific in Lead Paragraph

A few hours ago, I removed the word "pseudoscientific," describing the textbook's contents, from the lead paragraph. It was, within minutes, reverted by ChrisO. I do not believe in intelligent design per se, but I do find this wording quite biased. It is already stated that the book is controversial, and said controversy is presented fairly in the rest of the article, presenting both viewpoints, so why shut down the debate with one word in the lead? If the article was about Phrenology then fine, call it pseudoscience, but intelligent design is still being actively debated, and as I said before, I don't want to shut down said debate with a single word. I understand that I'm not going to get much support for arguing with an admin, and I'm not going to start an edit war, but I do think there needs to be a discussion about this. TorontoLRT (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it's "still being debated" - by whom? Certainly not by scientists. If you read the 2nd para of our intelligent design article, you'll see that it does define ID as pseudoscience, which is the unequivocal view of the scientific community. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You must admit, however, that it is a political issue. It would be completely inappropriate, for example, to put in the lead paragraph of Republican Party that they are the "superior" party, and in my opinion the same issue applies to this article. TorontoLRT (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That analogy is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with a claim of science. It doesn't matter if it's political. It doesn't change the fact that is a sourced statement. Auntie E. (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The book is meant to be a science text book. Court rulings have identified "Creation Science" as religous and non-scientific. The original draft of the book was written specifically in support of "creation science", really creationism. After an unfavoralble court ruling the text was edited to rename creation or "creation science" as "intelligent design". This was made fully clear in the Dover court case q.v. Taken together, this makes the book psuedo-science. The theory of Intelligent Design is not recognized in science as a genuine scientific theory (see the Dover case). It is creationism posing as science, and hence pseudo-science eminating from bogus research organisations under the umbrella of the Disovery Institute and funded by conservative religions sources (well documented in Wikipedia). Of Pandas and People is indeed pseudo-science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe an unstated portion of TorontoLRT's objection is that "pseudo-scientific" is a value judgment, like "moronic theory", or "uneducated claims about..." and that it was biased for that reason. But "pseudo-scientific" is not a value judgment, it is a statement about whether something: 1) claims to be based on science, and 2) is not based on science. Both elements have to be present for something to be pseudoscientific.

It would still be a value judgement in that case. ID is clearly based on evidence, even the same evolution is based on. Those scientists deal with the very same things that their opponents deal with, the difference is in interpretation as is common in science. So how does one become pseudoscience and the other is not? Simple, you find their conclusion unacceptable. If ID is pseudoscience then we are in a pickle as evolution is failing at every turn nowadays. --Tembew (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Working miracles is not pseudoscientific, because of 1--it makes no scentific claim. Lysenkoism (heritability of acquired traits) is pseudo-scientific, because it made a claim to a scientific basis, but had none. ID is squarely in that bag. If ID were to teach that everything is designed by an intelligent designer with supernatural powers--take it or leave it--and simply abandoned the claim for a scientific basis, then it would no longer be pseudoscientific. But of course, if it made that claim, it could no longer be taught in science class. That is precisely the point. Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's possible these guys are paid to keep these articles biased. It's strange how quickly they revert changes to include the biased content. That or they are really emotional about this and have no life --Tembew (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and WP:TALK: this page is for proposals with references for improvements to the article, not for commenting on other editors or expressing your own biases. WP:NOTAFORUM. . dave souza, talk 03:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits reverted

Repeated insertion of content not congruent with consensus or WP:ASSERT have been reverted several times. Redoing such edits without consensus is edit warring and against a number of policies and guidelines. Discussion to consensus is needed for changes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to the term "pseudoscience." It's clear that many scientists consider any explanation for the emergence of life on Earth outside of Darwinian evolution to be pseudoscience. But there are plenty of educated scientists, some who are avowedly secular scientists, who don't believe that evolution is a settled matter, and that the idea of intelligent design is not without merit. I edited the article by including the phrase "what some would consider." I did not remove the word pseudoscience. Is it so terribly contentious to state the obvious fact that there are those people, among whom are serious, educated, PhD-level biologists who think that intelligent design is something more than "pseudoscience?" Mrbates76 (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Mrbates76

I think you will find answers to your questions in the Neutral point of view policy § Due and undue weight and Assert facts, not opinions and Explanation of the neutral point of view as well as the guideline Fringe theories. The idea that intelligent design is anything more than pseudoscience is a fringe view as is doubt of the theory of evolution. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, "the emergence of life on Earth outside of Darwinian evolution" looks rather misinformed: CD himself wrote of " life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one", nowadays "Darwinian evolution" refers specifically to natural selection rather than abiogenesis. . . . dave souza, talk 11:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, the author of the article writes: Its authors espouse the pseudoscientific[1] concept of intelligent design—namely that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent (specifically, the Christian God).[2] I attempted to edit the article by adding the following text: It's authors espouse "what many characterize to be" the pseudoscientific concept..." I honestly don't understand why anyone would object to the edit. I feel like my edit made the tone of the article better. I'm certain that the edit increased the accuracy of the sentence. Can any of the editors who reverted my edit explain their objections? I'm interested and want to understand with an open mind. Mrbates76 (talk) 04:09, November 19, 2014‎ (UTC)

"what many would characterize" is not an accurate representation of the widespread scientific and scholarly consensus. "Many" implies a large number among an even larger community. As an encyclopedia WP presents the mainstream scientific, academic and legal community consensus as due. The consensus acceptance of the theory of evolution and dismissal of intelligent design as pseudoscience is overwhelming to the extent that on WP that should be asserted clearly. Watering such assertion down with "what many would characterize" is giving undue weight to a fringe theory. I hope this clarifies the objection to the proposed edit. I think a reading of the WP:NPOV policy would provide additional clarity. The sections WP:DUE and WP:PSCI are particularly appropriate. The essay WP:FRINGE also applies as does the arbcom ruling on pseudoscientific topics. Thank you for engaging on talk. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

With regard to Dave Souza's comment: I don't personally conflate the concepts of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution. I'm a high school biology teacher so, at least in an undergraduate sense I have some formal training in the subject.

I am intensely interested in the theory of panspermia and also the concept that terrestrial life may possibly have evolved from purposefully designed nucleic molecules or even precursors to such molecules.

The concept of design is not wholly owned by religious adherents. There are serious and highly trained scientists within the larger community who are open to the idea that terrestrial life as we see and quantify it today might have been designed by a life form unrelated to ourselves.

My point is, it seems reasonable to admit space for a broader discussion whilst agreeing that the prevailing view is one held by the majority within the greater community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbates76 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 November 2014‎

This is Wikipedia, your interests and views appear to be original research which isn't usable: info can only appear in articles when verifiable from published reliable sources. Generic assertions about panspermia don't belong in this article, which is specifically about the creationist textbook. . 11:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs)

Concur with Dave souza directly above. Not appropriate for this article. If there are reliable sources I suggest proposing content at Panspermia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)