See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

Talk:Wikipedia

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Bias section

The article contains the claim, "particular groups, such as atheists, anti-Christians, and overt Satanists, are able to present their views as authoritative". I added a {{fact?}} tag to this statement, which Several_ingredients subsequently removed with the comment "This is a fact because they can. But when they do present views as authoritative, it will violate NPOV. I won't add that to this article, because it will appear as if I'm "siding with them".

This make little sense. Is "they can" supposed to mean that they are allowed to under the rules, or thaty their lobby is strong enough to get away with it, or that they actually do it? The confusion is augmented by the future tense in "it will violate NPOV". The word "authoritative" is in any case a poor choice because it has a prescriptive and a descriptive meaning. You won't find any statement in Wikipedia that people should be satanists. You will also not find any statement that the satanist view of the world is in fact correct. If you were talking about the scientific concensus, you might be able to make a case that Wikipedia describes the world according to their POV, but not for atheists and anti-Christians, and most certainly not for Satanists.

This line was first inserted by Simon Cursitor, a not-very-prolific editor with an admitted anti-Wikipedia POV. The original form was "This means that atheists, anti-Christains and overt satanists are alloweed to present their views as authoritative, whilst also using the mechanics of Wikipedia to delete their opponents' views, harrass and persecutre them, and eventually have them banned from Wikipedia editing, all within Wkipedia's own godless rules." Philip pruned the "godless rules" shortly thereafter.

Unless the statement can be backed up by a reliable, secondary source, or at least some specific examples, and unless it can be explained why these three groups should be singled out from the thousands of groups that could be mentioned, I will delete the whole thing.

--Awc 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your quibble about "authoritative", but I was quite happy for the {{fact?}} tag to go on there in relation to the "Satanist" bit (which is what you edit comment referred to), and for that bit to be removed if no evidence was forthcoming. However, it is pretty obvious that atheists can get away with presenting their views, such as on evolution, as authoritative (or correct, if you prefer), and I wouldn't readily agree to removal of the whole sentence (but am open to rewording or etc.). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly "satanist" is what jarred the most. We probably don't (and never will) agree on whether Wikipedia has an anti-Christian bias, but, considering the official POV of this site, I think we can find a phrasing that both of us can live with. I'll make a suggestion as soon as I have time to think it through. --Awc 15:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Add. "If you were talking about the scientific concensus, you might be able to make a case that Wikipedia describes the world according to their POV, but not for atheists and anti-Christians, and most certainly not for Satanists." Well, I just have been blocked @ WP for opposing stripping the article on German pastor Wilhelm Busch by editor who refers to self in terms: "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" although he/she did not make plain whether he/she considers for religion Christianity, his/her behavior might suggest so. Administrator who previously denied my unblock request refers to Bible in terms "No one gives a [deleted by Umpire] about bible verses, Convervapedia is that way". Clear, "Wikipedia describes the world according to their POV". --Julian 00:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't follow you. What is your user name on Wikipedia? What was the reason for the block? Surely not the simple fact of "opposing stripping" (deleting?) an article. The fact that some of the editors involved have an anti-Christian POV is not by itself evidence that they are improperly pushing that POV at Wikipedia. (Answer in German if it's easier.) —Awc 10:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah. You must be Stephfo. I'll look into the history of the case when I have time. —Awc 10:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look like "stripping" refers to deletion, as the only proposal to delete that article was quickly withdrawn. You're technically correct that an anti-Christian POV is not by itself evidence of acting improperly, but it's pretty suggestive in practice. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that the anti-Christians (not all of them of course, but the more rabid ones) enforce the letter of the (Wikipedia) law when it suits them, but tend to ignore it if that suits them. For example, his mentor on WP wrote on his talk page that "a source needs to be completely independent of the subject and have a strong reputation for fact checking in order to be considered a reliable source.", yet the wp:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article is filled with comments from sources that are party to the topic of the film, because, of course, they toe the "scientific" line and are opposed to the documentary which dares to expose the censorship by evolutionists. Actually, that comment by his mentor followed almost immediately after this one: "Your edit a few days ago to Intelligent design was fairly non-neutral. Your response on the talk page suggests that you have a strong opinion on the subject." This is bias of a high order, given that the ID article itself is non-neutral and has mostly been written by people with a strong opinion on (against) the subject.
On a more general note, one of Busch's quotes was removed with the comment remove overlong quote which adds little to thr article. I would not consider the quote to be overly long, and I believe that it did add to the article. But then I'm a Christian, and the esteemed editor was an atheist, so I guess his opinion is more appropriate. The point being that Wikipedia's policies in practice do not stop one's worldviews affecting the articles; rather, it's those with the most clout who dominate.
No doubt a close inspection of Julian's/Stephfo's edits will show that he left himself open to justifiable criticism. But "justice" is not always fairly applied there (it may have improved, but I know of one case where a Christian having a dispute with an admin saw both reprimanded—the less-experience Christian more severely by being restricted in what he could edit—and the atheist admin enforcing the decision against the Christian editor), and the bias, bigotry, and abuse of some anti-Christian editors can lead all but the most patient Christian editor to step over the line with abuse in return, often leading to a block.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
After skimming over the record, I'd say that Julian/Stephfo doesn't make a very good poster child for the case that Wikipedia has an anti-Christian bias. (BTW, how do you know that Theroadislong is an atheist?) —Awc 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right: a Christian who is not perfect himself is not a "very good poster child". But that doesn't mean that the bias is not evident. As for Theroadislong, this early version of his user page had a user box with the wording "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion.", so I felt that him being an atheist was a reasonable conclusion to draw. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The current wording is a bit strange:
Creationists feel that atheists and anti-Christians, in violation of Wikipedia's formal rules, are able to present their view of the issues as fact, while the creationist view is inaccurately represented or is indicated as being objectively wrong.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say, "Creationists feel that anti-creationists ..."? Or else, "Christians feel that anti-Christians, ..., while the Christian view is inaccurately represented"? Is the beef with an anti-religion bias, or an anti-Christian bias, or more narrowly with an anti-creationist bias? —Awc 17:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
As near as I can make out, the claim is not really that "atheists and anti-Christians ... are able to present their view of the issues as fact" but rather more subtle forms of bias. Some examples would help. It may be necessary to tweak this claim to reflect more precisely the nature of the examples. —Awc 09:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I've improved the wording and added examples. Much of it is more subtle, but the evolution one is not; it's blatant. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The Mission Aviation Fellowship example is a little far-fetched. I agree that "front" is not a very neutral expression, but that version hasn't been online for almost 3 years, the article was only lightly edited during the 8 months it was online (That is, the topic was so obscure that no one was really paying attention. The only substantial edits were the addition of a section on accidents and its subsequent removal.), and it appears to be the declared intention of the organization to combine medical help with evangalism. —Awc 20:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there any examples of Wikpedia articles - outside the realm of evolution and creationism - where "atheists and anti-Christians, in violation of Wikipedia's formal rules, are able to present their view of the issues as fact, while the Christian and creationist views are inaccurately represented or are indicated as being objectively wrong"? I am not asking about situations where a non-neutral edit was corrected in due time by the mechanisms of Wikipedia. —Awc 20:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "front" is not a very neutral expression... "not very neutral"? It's positively derogatory.
...the topic was so obscure that no one was really paying attention... I agree about the lack of edits, but "obscure topic"? Yes, to atheists, because it's a Christian mission, and to the mainstream media, because MAF mainly operates in remote areas (and because it's Christian...). But MAF is a well-known mission organisation; calling the topic "obscure" is to downplay it.
...it appears to be the declared intention of the organization to combine medical help with evangalism. Deciding to do two things does not mean that one is a "front" for the the other. It has always been the hallmark of Christians that they help others both spiritually and physically. To suggest that one is simply a means of doing the other is despicable and ignorant anti-Christian nonsense, and to attempt to justify that is to justify bigotry.
Are there any examples of Wikpedia articles - outside the realm of evolution and creationism... As I agreed above, in most cases it is much more subtle, and therefore such cases do not lend themselves to simple quotes.
I am not asking about situations where a non-neutral edit was corrected in due time by the mechanisms of Wikipedia. What is "due time", and what "mechanisms"? Hoping someone will notice?
To clarify, I agree that an open encyclopædia will always have problems of people either pushing their own views or being malicious, and I can't fault Wikipedia for that. But it is clear to any Christian who has spent reasonable time at Wikipedia that there is an anti-Christian bias there. It is far more obvious in topics that disagree with evolution, but it is not confined to that area. For example, compare the introductions to wp:Evolution and wp:God (or wp:God in Christianity). The evolution article refers to this highly-controversial idea as an undisputed fact, but the articles about God are are qualified as concepts within particular contexts.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that you think wp:Evolution and wp:God are not written from a NPOV? I guess there is no need to change the article anyway, since it is not claiming that Wikipedia is biased in any particular way, only that some people, especially creationists, think that it is. —Awc 09:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want to argue that it's appropriate to write about God as though His existence is not certain because there is a (relatively) small group of atheists who reject that, then fine, if that's the approach that they wish to take. But to then write about evolution as though there is no doubt when there is in fact a lot of doubt, shows that what is going on here is an ideological acceptance of atheistic views as fact and Christian views as non-fact. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
apart from all non-christian religions who doubt the existance of the Christian God you have Christian denominations who question the literal interpretation of the Bible so your Christian/atheist split is just wrong. Among working scientists in the fields of biology there is virtually no question that evolution has been shown as fact. Science is not atheistic as you are using the term. Wikipedia tries to go with the consensus on scientific matters and NPOV on other stuff. Hamster 16:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
apart from all non-christian religions who doubt the existance of the Christian God you have Christian denominations who question the literal interpretation of the Bible so your Christian/atheist split is just wrong. That's a non-sequitur. My reference to atheistic views and Christian views is not dependent on all religions recognising the Christian view of God nor on all Christians reading the Bible literally.
its relevant that not all christians have the same POV unless you want to invoke True Christians, and you seem to be trying for a Christian/atheist dichotomy which doesnt exist that clearly. Hamster 16:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Among working scientists in the fields of biology there is virtually no question that evolution has been shown as fact. Can you back that up with hard evidence? Support for creation and evolution suggests otherwise.
Science is not atheistic as you are using the term. I never said that it was, and have often pointed out that modern science was creationist in origin, so if you are going to disagree, please make sure that you know what you are disagreeing with.
Wikipedia tries to go with the consensus on scientific matters and NPOV on other stuff. So you agree that it favours scientists' POV over neutrality, despite their supposed NPOV rule? And can you please define more precisely what is meant by "consensus"?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
If there is someplace Wikipedia is not living up to its NPOV policy, it is in the articles on evolution, not those on religion and Christianity. But Wikipedia policy specifically states (wp:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Making_necessary_assumptions):
When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the evolution-vs-creationism debate on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.
That leaves you to argue, if you wish, that Wikipedia's policies are inconsistent (or wrong), but not that the article on evolution violates those policies by treating evolution as fact (with links to other articles going into other POVs). The most logical position may be that that policy itself shows that Wikipedia is biased, but then you would have to show that the principle behind the policy is biased or at least applied in a biased way. —Awc 08:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"... in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the evolution-vs-creationism debate on every page": what does this mean? That it's not helpful to hash out the debate "when writing about evolution", or "on every page" that evolution is mentioned? I would have no problem with the former, if it was consistently applied. But it isn't. If the article on evolution can treat evolution as fact, why can't the article on ID treat ID as fact? Or the article on creation treat creation as fact?
That leaves you to argue, if you wish, ... not that the article on evolution violates those policies by treating evolution as fact... That depends on which of the alternatives is intended. However, my argument is more that the policy is ... applied in a biased way.
If the interpretation refers to "every page" that evolution is mentioned, it assumes a false dichotomy. Nobody would expect that every place it was mentioned would include hashing out the debate, but that doesn't mean that all those references have to assume that evolution is true either.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
whoa , deja vu ;-) Hamster 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As I've put in my edit comment, I'm posting a reply that I tried posting yesterday, which included removing Awc's duplicated post. So I'm removing it in this post. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to strain the parallels, but this policy is also seen in action in religious articles like wp:Noah's Ark, i.e. the description of the Flood in the lead is declarative, as if accepting its truth, e.g.
However, God chose a man named Noah and "counted it righteous to him" to live and also to preserve his creation mankind through Noah's family.
I couldn't find any place in the article that says the Flood didn't really happen. Another point is that there is no significant scientific controversy over the statement in wp:Evolution that,
Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago.
The wp:Creationism article can't be written that way because there is practically no point on which all creationists agree. —Awc 16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
its relevant that not all christians have the same POV So you assert, but you don't show how its relevant. So I maintain that it's not relevant.
...you seem to be trying for a Christian/atheist dichotomy which doesnt exist that clearly. I am not suggesting that there are only the two views; I'm simply referring to the main two that would be in play in these circumstances.
And Hamster, you haven't answered my question about "consensus".
...this policy is also seen in action in religious articles like wp:Noah's Ark, ... that is in the context of couching the whole introduction with qualifiers such as "in the narrative", and there is no such equivalent in their evolution article. If they did it that way consistently, I wouldn't really have a problem with it.
I couldn't find any place in the article that says the Flood didn't really happen. No, it doesn't appear to say so explicitly. However, it does go to some length to relate reasons that it considers the idea became unpopular, thereby implicitly including arguments against it. And it does this in a biased way in at least one respect. Several times it mentions the problem (perceived or otherwise) of there being too many species for there to have been representatives of every species on board, but nowhere in the article does it even mention that modern creationists have pointed out that the Bible does not refer to the modern, secular, concept of species, but talks about the broader kinds, thereby considerably reducing the numbers required. So a perceived problem with the story is mentioned a number of times, and an answer to that problem is not mentioned at all.
Also, when talking about Noah's Ark, the topic as a whole is qualified (as mentioned above), yet when talking about a point that undermines the story, the alleged origins of the story, there are no such qualifications (with one exception): My emphasis and square brackets:

The story of Noah's Ark in Genesis is considered by modern scholars [the one qualification] to be directly dependent upon the Babylonian version, which it parallels point by point [this is patently false], in the correct order [? I don't know about this point], from beginning to end. It is a composite text, with some parts belonging to the Jahwist source and some to the Priestly source. The Jahwist version has modified the Babylonian text to make it conform to a monotheistic theology.

This is indeed the view of liberal scholars; it is not the view of more conservative scholars, for whom the entire Documentary Hypothesis (the multiple sources) is considered to have been debunked. But there are no qualifications to most of that (and the one qualification cannot be said to carry through to the other claims). Creationists have also pointed out that it makes more sense to conclude that the Babylonian version is a corrupted version of the Genesis account, as the latter is more specific (copies tend to lose details, not add them), but this doesn't get a mention either.
For that matter, have a look at the Notes and References sections. The former appears to have only one creationist represented in the 43 notes. The latter appears to have none. But both have several references from opposing points of view. Why? Because, by definition, creationist sources are not considered "reliable sources", but opposing ones are, such as the thoroughly scurrilous and error-ridden[1] Telling Lies for God by anti-creationist Ian Plimer, which is included in the references (and notes).
Another point is that there is no significant scientific controversy over the statement in wp:Evolution... Utter nonsense, unless you are using a very self-serving definition of "significant" or "scientific". And that's the point: the bias at Wikipedia (of course they are not alone) is such that even points such as this are misrepresented.
The wp:Creationism article can't be written that way because there is practically no point on which all creationists agree. They all agree that it happened. And I doubt that there is much beyond that on which all evolutionists agree either, so again, double standards. For example, there is not agreement on whether it happened slowly and gradually or in spurts. There is not agreement on whether birds evolved from dinosaurs, let alone other more-specific details. In any case, to the extent that you are correct, it just means that the Creationism article is too broad in lumping in together too many different views. I don't see, for example, ID being lumped in with evolution, despite ID being compatible with a version of it (ID says that there is evidence of a designer; it doesn't say that life didn't evolve, and many ID proponents would otherwise accept evolution). So yet more double standards!
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
consensus has been discussed ad nauseum in the past couple of years, I dont intend to start again. Its a common english word anyway. It means a general agreement by a majority. Hamster 04:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
the Catholic Church disagrees with YEC so thats a big chunk of Christians who accept evolution.
there is no controvosy in biology about evolution. There are a few noisy fellas who really have no impact in the scientific community of biology. Behe for one, repudiated by the entire department and shown to be untruthful in a significant court case by his own testimony.
ID is not compatible with the biology theory of evolution. You could try to add Von Danikens idea of alien interferance but its lacking some real evidence, but oh wait.. CMI has an alien invader site dont they - or is it supernatural demons (and therefore not science)  ?
puctuated equilibrium is only slightly an issue because of arguments about how prevelent it is. There is no dispute that selective pressures affect the rate of change and when no pressures exist an organism may continue virtually unchanged for very long periods.
Hamster 04:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Utter nonsense, unless you are using a very self-serving definition of "significant" or "scientific". It's not that hard, really. For example, a good start would be to assume "significant" means "greater than 1%" and "scientific" means "published in the peer-reviewed professional literature".
They all agree that it happened. And I doubt that there is much beyond that on which all evolutionists agree either, so again, double standards. Take the chronology. Even YECs discuss ages of creation between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. The disagreement among YECs over the Boundaries of the Flood in the geological column is breathtaking. In stark contrast, the disagreement among scientists on the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, the age of the extinction event at the beginning of the Cambrian, the age of the K-T boundary, and the age of many more major events, is under 1%.
—Awc 10:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
consensus has been discussed ad nauseum in the past couple of years... On this site, I don't believe that what is meant by that has been discussed.
It means a general agreement by a majority. So how much qualifies as "general agreement"? A "majority" sounds like you are saying that 51% constitutes a consensus, but I doubt that's what you believe nor what others would think. The point is, how much disagreement would constitute a lack of consensus? Nobody seems prepared to say, which makes the claim rather meaningless. Well, Awc above is an exception, which I will get to.
the Catholic Church disagrees with YEC so thats a big chunk of Christians who accept evolution. And the relevance is...? Not all Catholics see it that way, incidentally, even if the church hierarchy does.
there is no controvosy in biology about evolution. There are a few noisy fellas who really have no impact in the scientific community of biology. Clearly, from the ongoing controversy, there is a controversy, and yes, it involves biologists also, and I challenge you to support that it's just "a few noisy fellas".
Behe for one, ... shown to be untruthful in a significant court case by his own testimony. Back that up with hard evidence or retract and apologise.
ID is not compatible with the biology theory of evolution. Argument by assertion.
show me where in the Theory of Evolution (biology) it mentions an intelligent agent making changes. Hint: it doesnt. Rather it fairly specifically claims natural causes that do not include an intelligent agent. Hamster 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
puctuated equilibrium is only slightly an issue because of arguments about how prevelent it is. In other words, a lack of agreement, but swept under the carpet as insignificant.
thats not what that says. Punctuated equilibrium is now I believe an accepted part of evolution as a specific case of selective pressures in short time scales. Hamster 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not that hard, really. For example, a good start would be to assume "significant" means "greater than 1%" Ah, finally, someone who is prepared to get into specifics. Good, I can work with that. A Gallup Poll showed that the percentage that disagree is 5%. (And that's just the creationists. The 40% who believe that God was involved would include ID proponents.) So, by your own definition, the controversy is significant. And therefore your argument that Wikipedia is being reasonable fails.
a gallup poll ? of biologists ? working in evolutionery biology ? Hamster 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
...and "scientific" means "published in the peer-reviewed professional literature". First, creationists publish in peer-reviewed professional literature. Second, evolutionists, with the occasional exception, refuse to do so as it would give creationism legitimacy, but that doesn't mean that there is no controversy among scientists, so, as I said, saying that there is no scientific controversy is self-serving.
creation journal specifically forbids evolutionery papers in their journal. Its in the author guide. I myself had a rebuttal paper rejected as not supporting the creationist view. Hamster 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
p.s what scientific journal says use little words and define common terminology ? a reader is supposed to understand the terminology of his field. Hamster 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I've read or heavily skimmed four volumes of Answers Research Journal now. Rarely do they even propose an experiment, let alone do one, and usually there's nothing original or novel, which is often required for a scientific paper. Almost never do they even try to link any observations to a 6-day creation event or a global flood. Few even deal with biology, and when they do, it's trivial or a rehash of others' work. The baraminology pieces, if read properly, even admit they don't know what belongs to which kind. Oftentimes, there's theological works, which aren't science. Sterile 04:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Take the chronology. Even YECs discuss ages of creation between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Ages ascribed by evolutionists have grown from millions to billions over the last couple of hundred years. It's not that long ago that the age of stars was claimed to be older than the claimed age of the universe. 10,000 years is an upper limit proposed by biblical creationists in the 1960s, which is still frequently quoted by out-of-date critics. Most biblical creationists today argue for around 6,000 years.
The disagreement among YECs over the Boundaries of the Flood in the geological column is breathtaking. Not as breathtaking as one of the disagreements I mentioned, over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs, with, for example, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian writing an open letter saying

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.

National Geographic is a scientific journal since when ? Hamster 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In stark contrast, the disagreement among scientists on the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, the age of the extinction event at the beginning of the Cambrian, the age of the K-T boundary, and the age of many more major events, is under 1%. False, as documented above.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I said there is no significant scientific controversy over the statement in wp:Evolution and then expanded that effectively to there is less than 1% disagreement with the statement in wp:Evolution published in the peer-reviewed professional literature. I'll stick to that. Unfortunately we have no direct published measure of this. 5% of "all types of scientists, including those of fields unrelated to biology and life sciences such as engineering and business administration" (if I am allowed to call on the authority of aSK) are reported to believe that humans (at least) did not evolve. Another source reports that "0.14% of earth and life scientists [give] credence to creation science". Of course my statement didn't refer to a headcount of any particular group, but to the professional literature. There are good reasons not to include creationist publications in that category, but even if you do, there is no problem at all staying below the 1% level.
Storrs L. Olson's tirade against the description of Archaeoraptor by journalists in National Geographic (not by scientists in a peer reviewed journal) was legitimate. Since then a great number of fossils have been discovered that clarify the origin of birds, so that today the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs is now nearly unanimous among experts. Those that disagree (I don't know, but the remaining dissenters might still pass my 1% hurdle) believe that birds descended from earlier (non-theropod) archosaurs, a group that includes dinosaurs and other creatures that you and I are likely to think of as dinosaurs.
—Awc 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit break

Because I have several points to make to each of a number of comments above, this time I'm going to bold the quote of the bit I'm replying to as a sort of heading.

show me where in the Theory of Evolution (biology) it mentions an intelligent agent making changes. Hint: it doesnt. Rather it fairly specifically claims natural causes that do not include an intelligent agent

  • I don't need to show where it does. In order to claim that ToE and ID are incompatible, you need to show that an intelligent agent can't have been involved. In doing so, you will contradict all those evolutionists who claim that evolution does not deny the existence of God, as well as those theistic evolutionists—such as the Roman Catholics you cited—who claim that God used evolution. You also contradict Dawkins who admitted that if intelligence was involved, it should be possible to detect it.

thats not what that says. Punctuated equilibrium is now I believe an accepted part of evolution as a specific case of selective pressures in short time scales.

  • That's the view of those who take a middle road.

a gallup poll ? of biologists ? working in evolutionery biology

  • Funny (and hypocritical) that evolutionists often claim that (essentially) all scientists accept evolution, but when this is shown to be false, they switch to just biologists, or just geologists and biologists. The point is, the anti-creationist claim is shown to be false. Now, are you going to properly answer the question about "consensus", or this a case of switching definitions when you are shown to be wrong too?

creation journal specifically forbids evolutionery papers in their journal.

  • Wow! Really?? So does that mean that there is something wrong with biology journals specifically forbidding geological papers in their journals too?
  • And given that evolutionary journals forbid creationary papers in their journals, but usually don't admit it, doesn't this just mean that the creationary journals are more honest?

I myself had a rebuttal paper rejected as not supporting the creationist view.

  • Poor thing. Perhaps you should have tried submitting it to a pro-evolution journal.

p.s what scientific journal says use little words...a reader is supposed to understand the terminology of his field. ? a reader is supposed to understand the terminology of his field.

  • Perhaps one that covers more than one field?

...and define common terminology ?

  • Perhaps one that is aware of how evolutionists switch definitions[2] when it suits them, without explaining it, such as Dawkins does?[3]

I've read or heavily skimmed four volumes of Answers Research Journal now. Rarely do they even propose an experiment, let alone do one,...

  • Perhaps if they were able to get funding, they would get more done.

...usually there's nothing original or novel, which is often required for a scientific paper

  • Given that most journals won't publish creationist material, I find it hard to believe that what they publish is not original.

Almost never do they even try to link any observations to a 6-day creation event or a global flood.

  • I also find that hard to believe, at least the flood bit. As for the 6-day creation event, I don't know of too many creationists who claim that scientific evidence can show that.

Few even deal with biology, and when they do, it's trivial or a rehash of others' work.

  • I'm more familiar with the JoC than the ARJ (and I was, of course, referring to creationist journals in general, not just the ARJ), but the former certainly covers biology, and I would not describe a different take on the evidence as trivial or a rehash.

The baraminology pieces, if read properly, even admit they don't know what belongs to which kind.

  • Unlike the evolutionists who don't admit that they can't consistently determine where a species starts and ends? So again the creationists get criticised for greater honesty!

Oftentimes, there's theological works, which aren't science.

  • Ignoring that theology was once accepted as the Queen of the sciences (so perhaps some people still see it that way??), that a peer-reviewed (that's the point, after all) journal also has non-scientific papers doesn't refute that it's a peer-reviewed journal covering scientific topics. So that's a red herring.

National Geographic is a scientific journal since when ? and Storrs L. Olson's tirade against the description of Archaeoraptor by journalists in National Geographic (not by scientists in a peer reviewed journal) was legitimate.

  • Who claimed that National Geographic was peer reviewed? Nobody. Stop trying to demolish straw men.
  • Did you not notice that Olson also criticised Nature, which is a peer-reviewed journal, and one of the leading ones?
  • So what if neither was a peer-reviewed journal? I quoted it to support my claim about the size of the disagreement over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.
    • I said nothing about that disagreement being within the scientific journals.
    • Given that Olson was criticising one of the leading and most influential peer-reviewed journals for its bias, expecting that disagreement would only be in the peer-review literature is a bit much.

I said there is no significant scientific controversy over the statement in wp:Evolution and then expanded that effectively to there is less than 1% disagreement with the statement in wp:Evolution published in the peer-reviewed professional literature. I'll stick to that. Unfortunately we have no direct published measure of this.

  • The lack of direct published measure is not the main problem. The main problem is what would be measured, and its relevance. If there was a major debate raging about some issue in, say geology, is it really going to occupy more than 1% of the scientific literature? The journals devoted to chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. probably wouldn't even mention it. Even in geological journals, papers on other, unrelated, research will continue to be published. So to suggest that a significant issue would occupy more than 1% of the scientific literature seems to be absurd, making your claim a straw man.
  • A far better measure would seem to be the number of people on each side of a dispute. And as I've already indicated, 5% seems to me to be significant, and I would question that the remaining 95% (which is actually smaller if non-YECs who question evolution are taking into account) amounts to a "consensus".

5% of "all types of scientists, including those of fields unrelated to biology and life sciences such as engineering and business administration" (if I am allowed to call on the authority of aSK) are reported to believe that humans (at least) did not evolve.

  • As I said above, most claims of support for evolution are of scientists generally, so objecting to that group when the figures don't go your way is hardly reasonable.
  • Was, for example, Project Steve only of biologists? No, of course not. That sort of requirement only gets put on creationists.
Project steve , 54% biologists rising to 61% if related fields are included. NCSE has the list. Hamster 04:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Another source reports that "0.14% of earth and life scientists [give] credence to creation science".

  • As you read the aSK article, you would have seen that the basis for that figure is completely unknown. Further, the article provides a contrary figure which, whilst not a proper survey like the Gallup Poll, at least has a known basis and could, for all you know, have far more merit that the 0.14% figure.

There are good reasons not to include creationist publications in that category,...

  • Given the context of you making that comment, it would seem that a reason for excluding creationist publications would have been appropriate. Given that there were none, I'll take that comment with a grain of salt.

Since then a great number of fossils have been discovered that clarify the origin of birds, so that today the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs is now nearly unanimous among experts.

  • Are you saying that Olson has since changed his mind? Or another critic, Feduccia?
  • Actually, Olson wrote that letter in response to National Geographic publishing details about a fossil find, which fossil subsequently turned out to be a hoax. Is that an example of your "fossils [that since then] have been discovered that clarify the origin of birds"?

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're getting long-winded and tedious. Wake me up when you are ready to confront the hard evidence that I have brought to this site. —Awc 13:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Is that a euphemism for the fact that I'm destroying your claims? I have brought hard evidence that there is significant disagreement on this issue, but instead of conceding that hard evidence, you try and sweep it under the rug with an insult. Given that I have shown that there is significant disagreement, my point is made that Wikipedia is biased on this issue, as is everyone else that claims that there is no controversy. And those same people are the ones who largely control or at least influence the flow of information upon which you rely for your belief in evolution. You have been prepared to fairly consider the evidence more than most here, but are still nevertheless doing it from a very one-sided supply of information. Wikipedia is just one of those one-sided sources. It's different in that its openness means that its bias is more obvious, but apart from that it's just the same as so many other sources, such as secular science journals (not to mention science magazines, the mass media, the education system, etc.) that resort to all sorts of underhanded and intellectually dishonest tactics to suppress and even censor the view that they (sincerely) disagree with. Meanwhile, the creationists are gaining ground—at least judging by some of the comments made by anti-creationists—because, in my opinion, they stick to making good arguments. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been here 18 months, and I'm still waiting to hear those "good arguments". The current state of this wiki does a fair job of presenting the facts, and the facts make the case against creationism. —Awc 15:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Awc here, both about evidence and the arugments. I'd explain more, but I think it's been done lots of times before, and really isn't a productive use of my time. Sterile 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You've heard plenty of good arguments, but don't recognise how good they are. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You do me an injustice. I have listened closely to your arguments and evaluated them seriously and critically. I spent untold hours researching your arguments and documenting what I learned in articles here. This process began winding up a year ago when I started the thread Taking stock on your talk page, now archived. The thread finished when I made the following summary, which you never disputed:
After Philip's last reply I'd say we're through here. At this point, I would affirm this summary:
On the basis of the evidence from physics, astronomy, and geology as it is currently presented in aSK, it would be logical to conclude that the Earth is much more than 6,000 years old.
These caveats apply:
  • I am the only one who has actually tried to sum up the evidence. Philip admits he "hasn't tried", but gives the impression that he wouldn't be surprised to come to the same conclusion.
  • Philip's key objection is the qualifier, "as it is currently presented in aSK". He has called the topics covered a "reasonable selection", but he makes it clear that, in his opinion, if they were fairly presented "the evidence fits better with a global flood than the secular view".
  • I have removed the reference to "billions of years" because several lines of evidence only give a lower limit to the age. The stronger form is still true, but there is a bit more evidence to say simply "much older than 6,000 years". Quantitatively, "much" is something like "at least a factor of two".
  • I am hoping for a dialog. In this sense, I await edits by Philip that will, in his opinion, correct the presentation of the evidence. These can then be illuminated and adjusted according to the rules of the game. As each piece of evidence and its presentation changes, we can revisit the validity of my summary. It would be even more interesting if the exchange were not limited to me and Philip.
--Awc 08:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
—Awc 17:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You do me an injustice. Sorry about that. I thought that one throw-away line (I'm still waiting to hear those "good arguments") deserved another. In any case, you are invoking what you believe to be the balance of arguments from certain fields. Your throw-away line seemed to be saying that there were no good arguments on my side of the ledger, not that you believed that you simply had more and/or better ones on your side. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't a throw-away line. It is the expression of my sincere wish that you would confront the central issues, rather than consuming everybody's time with side issues like the exact nature of Wikipedia's bias. I couched my summary in terms of the balance of arguments because I thought that would be the least common denominator. In fact, I have come to the conclusion, which I thought I had made clear, that I have not found even a single good argument on your side. For every argument you have brought up, I have explained why I found it wanting. —Awc 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Further, I made my comment in the context of the discussion on this page, that I had shown—that is, provided hard evidence—that your claim that there is no significant scientific controversy over the statement in wp:Evolution was wrong, and in return you simply changed the subject to the "hard evidence" that you have contributed in other areas, and subsequently said that you are still waiting to hear those "good arguments". The latter wasn't a direct reference to my hard evidence on opposition to evolution, but it was to arguments that creationists make generally, of which my previous comments can be considered an example. So I think I would be justified in claiming that you did me an injustice. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of ways my initial statement could be understood, and you seemed to understand it differently than I intended, so I made my claim more precise: there is less than 1% disagreement with the statement in wp:Evolution published in the peer-reviewed professional literature You have made arguments why you think this claim is not particularly telling, but you have most definitively not "provided hard evidence ... that [my] claim ... was wrong". —Awc 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't a throw-away line. It is the expression of my sincere wish that you would confront the central issues, rather than consuming everybody's time with side issues like the exact nature of Wikipedia's bias. The primary issue is not the evidence, but how one treats the evidence. If we are both treating it differently, then that should be sorted out first. Creationists point out that facts are interpreted through our worldview glasses, and if we are wearing different glasses, then we interpret the facts differently (not disagreeing on the facts per se, but on their relevance, meaning, etc.). One aspect of that is the biases we all bring to the evidence, and one part of that is the biases that Wikipedia brings to its presentation, which biases often reflects the biases of the wider evolutionary community. So this is actually an important part of the debate.
In fact, I have come to the conclusion, which I thought I had made clear, that I have not found even a single good argument on your side. I don't recall that, and in fact I seem to recall that you acknowledged that my side did have some good arguments.
For every argument you have brought up, I have explained why I found it wanting. Not every argument. You've not addressed my latest comments in this discussion, for example. And even some others I have brought up have been "found wanting" only by proposing fanciful counter-arguments (I have in mind the claim of river erosion reducing a landscape evenly rather than unevenly). This actually gets back my point above about biases: you made that counter-argument because you found it in the literature, where it is considered a reasonable possibility. But I would contend that it is considered a reasonable possibility only because of those biases.
Your responses tend to splinter in a thousand directions, rather than narrow in on the central issues. In that sense, I have not addressed every thing you have said, but I have considered and responded to all of your arguments directly and substantially addressing questions of origins. —Awc 18:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
...you seemed to understand it differently than I intended, so I made my claim more precise... Yes, I did understand it differently, but I also found your "more precise" explanation to be silly in that it didn't do what it purported to do. To recap:
  • You claimed that Another point is that there is no significant scientific controversy over the statement in wp:Evolution...
  • I replied that this was Utter nonsense, unless you are using a very self-serving definition of "significant" or "scientific".
  • You clarified: "significant" means "greater than 1%" and "scientific" means "published in the peer-reviewed professional literature".
  • I showed that disagreement is much greater than 1% (over 5%), and that much of the disagreement is published in the peer-reviewed literature.
  • You disputed the 5% figure with reasoning I subsequently demonstrated to be fallacious. You also rejected that the creationist peer-review literature counted, but failed to substantiate that. You fell back on claiming that dispute within the literature still wouldn't amount to 1% of all the literature, which I pointed out was a silly argument to make, because even if true (it probably is), it fails to support your original claim of there being no significant controversy. So although I don't think I said this, as it turns out, your definition was self-serving, as I predicted.
  • You made no further argument. So my point stands: your claim that there is no significant controversy is shown to be wrong, by using hard evidence of the size of the opposition to evolution.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
You think if there is more than 1% controversy outside the peer-reviewed literature and there is some controversy in it, then that proves there is more than 1% controversy in the peer-reviewed literature. Uh huh. —Awc 18:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Your responses tend to splinter in a thousand directions,... Usually because the people I am replying to make so many ideological/worldview assumptions to support their point that I feel that I should address each of them too.
...I have considered and responded to all of your arguments directly and substantially addressing questions of origins. Yes, you generally do. But not this one on the biases involved in the questions of origins.
You think if there is more than 1% controversy outside the peer-reviewed literature and there is some controversy in it, then that proves there is more than 1% controversy in the peer-reviewed literature. Uh huh. That's not what I said. You said that ...there is no significant scientific controversy over the statement in wp:Evolution.... I replied that this was Utter nonsense, unless you are using a very self-serving definition of "significant" or "scientific".. It turns out from you subsequent "clarifications" that you were using a very self-serving definition, because most of the controversy is carried out outside the scientific literature (therefore just counting what is inside is meaningless), and the 1% figure insofar as it being a percentage of all the scientific literature is concerned is ludicrous as a standard. Using 1% of scientists who disagree as a measure of it being not "significant" may be reasonable, so even after your clarification I co-opted that figure as that measure—i.e. percentage who disagree constituting a measure of "significant" to show that, contrary to your initial assertion, the disagreement is significant. You seem to want to avoid addressing this fact.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
the point Philip on the creationist peer-reviewed journal is that even you accept that the articles must support creationism, are reviewed only by creationists and any critisism of the paper must be by another creationist and stated in creationist terms. Thats clearly NOT a mainstream scientific journal. The inedible Hamster of Gnarly Knoll
I have a guess as to the reason while Philip's responses tend to splinter, and it's green-making text template. Sterile 06:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
If you stick to the argument that my statement was "self-serving", "nonsense", or "ludicrous", you might have a case, and I might (or might not) choose to respond to it. To claim that you have shown my assertion, once I clarified exactly what I meant, to be wrong, is itself simply wrong. —Awc 08:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Project steve , 54% biologists rising to 61% if related fields are included. NCSE has the list. Thanks for the confirmation that I was correct (as I knew I was): it was not just biologists, and for that matter, not just biologists and related fields. So my point stands, that anti-creationists quote scientists generally, but when creationists quote scientists generally, this is somehow not good enough and the rules change to just biologists, or similar. In other words, those double standards I've mentioned so often.
the point Philip on the creationist peer-reviewed journal is that even you accept that the articles must support creationism, are reviewed only by creationists and any critisism of the paper must be by another creationist and stated in creationist terms. No, I don't accept any of those points, except perhaps the last one which I wouldn't put that way anyway. And my point is that mainstream peer-reviewed journals must support evolution, are reviewed only by evolutionists (at least if the subject is evolution-related), and any criticism of the paper must be by other evolutionists and must assume that evolution is true. So again, why the double standards? Why is it wrong for creationists (as you claim), but not for evolutionists?
Thats clearly NOT a mainstream scientific journal. Of course not! It's creationist, so by (self-serving) definition, it can't be mainstream! Only evolution-friendly journals can be considered mainstream, even though they display the characteristics you criticise creationist journals for!
I have a guess as to the reason while Philip's responses tend to splinter, and it's green-making text template. Maybe it's unhelpful non-sequitur comments like that that do it.
To claim that you have shown my assertion, once I clarified exactly what I meant, to be wrong, is itself simply wrong. I understand what you are saying, and see your point. However, I consider that a cop-out. Your statement was:
Another point is that there is no significant scientific controversy over the statement in wp:Evolution that, Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. The wp:Creationism article can't be written that way because there is practically no point on which all creationists agree.
This comment of yours was made in the context of my comment
For example, compare the introductions to wp:Evolution and wp:God (or wp:God in Christianity). The evolution article refers to this highly-controversial idea as an undisputed fact, but the articles about God are are qualified as concepts within particular contexts.
So we were talking about the bias of Wikipedia, with its evolution article as an example. You were disputing that. Sure, you can argue that I should have said that your particular claim about the lack of significant controversy was self-serving, nonsense, etc. But the point was that your attempted rebuttal to my claim of bias was shown to be wrong, because there is significant controversy. Okay, I agree that your clarified assertion in itself was not wrong, but as a rebuttal to my claim, it was wrong.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Behe - since you ask

As an expert witness on biology in the case Kitzmiller v Dover the plaintiffs lawyer asked Behe about the possible evolution for specific biological systems. When Behe claimed not to know of any , the lawyer started piling books in fron of him, each containing a section on the system in question. Behe replied that he had not read any of them , and they would not be sufficient in any case. The Judge in his comments made some interesting things about the credibility of witnesses in general and seemed puzzled that a biologist making claims about biology would not be familiar with work in his field. Its all in the trial transcripts available in a few places on the web. If he is being truthful then he is an abject failure as a biology researcher in that he is not considering evidence on those systems he has declared "irreducibly complex" and therefore is not doing science.

Statement from Faculty at Le High

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.Hamster 16:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From Judge Jones Opinion on Kitzmiller V Dover 2005

Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

Behe makes a ton of money from books that would not sell as well if he actually did the experiments he himself has proposed since it is likely to disprove his ideas.
This is also massively irrelevant to the topic of bias on Wikipedia to which I say "who really cares" thats wikipedias problem really and they have clearly demonstrated that the current scientific theories and major religious beliefs are also supported . Hamster 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll give you a point for at least attempting a justification, and another for coming up with something superficially resembling a justification, but two points is not a pass.
The Judge in his comments made some interesting things about the credibility of witnesses in general... He also called other witness liars (or something amounting to that), but did not include Behe.
...and seemed puzzled that a biologist making claims about biology would not be familiar with work in his field. Which doesn't amount to him being untruthful.
If he is being truthful then he is an abject failure as a biology researcher... That's a tacit admission that you can't actually show that he was untruthful, and rests upon an opinion that may or may not be valid.
Statement from Faculty at Le High I didn't ask for evidence of the statement. I accepted that such a thing probably existed. It doesn't call Behe's truthfulness into question. Rather, it says more about the intolerance of evolutionists that they have to publicly dissociate themselves from, well, almost nothing, except that which questions evolution.
...Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. That Behe might have been mistaken (or wrong, if you prefer), doesn't make him untruthful. Further, that the claim is refuted is itself not shown.
...Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition. First, this does not constitute untruthfulness on Behe's part. At worst, it is again him being honestly mistaken. However, apart from the fact that the judge is basing his conclusion on the evidence offered in the case, he is quite wrong in his conclusion. First, all science depends on belief in God, as without such belief, there is no reason to believe that our senses will correctly convey reality to our minds, that the universe is an orderly place to be studied, etc. See Science#Philosophy. Second, it's questionable that the judge was correct in claiming that there was no evidence of any other science resting on belief in God. Stephen Fuller cited Sir Isaac Newton, saying that "it's quite clear that all of the published work, the Principia Mathematica and all the physics that he did was in service of trying to figure out, right, in the coin of science, right, how the creator's mind worked." Fuller also said "And that is to say, the kind of mind sets, the kind of ways of looking at the world that are, in fact, useful for coming up with scientific ideas and hypotheses. And here I would include the design standpoint, the creator's standpoint, putting yourself in the mind of God, thinking how would God do this. That's, in fact, a very useful way of coming up with theories and hypotheses and so forth." Third, the judge's conclusion is illogical. That is, it does not follow from the evidence he provided. The fact that someone who doesn't believe in God will find ID implausible does not mean that ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition. ID claims that there is evidence of a designer. So you can say that it concludes a designer. That someone who doesn't want to believe in a designer will therefore find this implausible does not mean that it has a religious basis.
Behe makes a ton of money from books... Yeah? Really? What's your evidence? Wikipedia and Amazon lists a total of three books he has published (including one with Dembski, which was actually "Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute", whatever that means, and may not be one he earned anything from), since 1996. It's not a given that he earned "a ton of money" from those two or three books.
This is also massively irrelevant to the topic of bias on Wikipedia... Granted, but then it was you who brought it up.
...to which I say "who really cares" thats wikipedias problem really... What about all the people it deceives? Or don't you care about them?
...they have clearly demonstrated that the current scientific theories ... are also supported On the contrary, they claim that, and support it with a biased selection of material. So they haven't clearly demonstrated it at all. That's the point: they are biased (whilst claiming not to be).
So, you've failed to prove your contention that Behe was untruthful. Please now retract it and apologise.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
look at the publication numbers for Behe book Darwins Black Box. Thats over a million bucks just in that title alone. My search shows 8 other books as author or co-author.
perhaps you need to demand an apology from Judge Jones who clearly stated that Behe was not a credible witness because he claimed a lack of knowledge of the current research in his field, refused to perform an expeiment he proposed to falsify his own hypothesis, and tried to hold that ID was both purely scientific but the designer was obviously the Christian God.
to keep you happy I unqualifiably withdraw my fully supported claim that in my opinion Behe shows a consist trend of dishonesty as observed by a Supreme court judge.
perhaps you will finally present any evidence that shows the current scientific theories are flawed ? since there are over 10,000 biologists alone and anyone who disproves TOE will become famous and rich it should be easy to get that support.
linky for your claimed Gallup poll please ?
your constant pewling about bias is laughable considering your own bias about Christianity and scientists. Why do you use a computer ? its non-biblical and by buying one you are supporting atheism and anti-creationism Hamster 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
let your poor blighted wiki die Philip, put it out of its misery.
oh, and learn to read. Behe stated God not in a phiosophical sense but as an active agent. His statement amounted to a declaration that "and then God molded the atoms of the Earth to make a man" which is vastly different from an underlying belief in some greater power that allows the contemplation of an ordered world. Any religion with a creator God fits that view.
the court also accepted that science as it has been proctised for over 50 years is methodological naturalism and that supernatural causes are not science. Behes own department faculty state that what he proposes is not science.
Id does not conclude a designer. It begins with the premise. Further its main proponents state that the designer is the christian God and had a website to establish Christian groups in schools to promote religion as science.
I find it hilareous that you claim to be able to know the mind of God and his capabilities.
anyway, have a nice day , I am gonna go scrape my foot calluses and buff my toenails - Ghost of Hamster.
look at the publication numbers for Behe book Darwins Black Box. This is typical of you Hamster: You are asked to justify a claim, so tell me to go and find the evidence. Sorry, the onus is on you. You have failed to do so. Your claim is therefore unsupported.
Thats over a million bucks just in that title alone. It is? Is that sales, or royalties to Behe? If it's sales, it doesn't support your claim. If it's royalties, I'd like to know how you calculated that. Do you have a crystal ball?
My search shows 8 other books as author or co-author. If this is true, why didn't you list them, or link to them? Can't be bothered providing evidence for claims?
perhaps you need to demand an apology from Judge Jones who clearly stated that Behe was not a credible witness because he claimed a lack of knowledge of the current research in his field, refused to perform an expeiment he proposed to falsify his own hypothesis... Judge Jones is not making claims on this Wiki, else I might just ask him to do that. But that's beside the point, because even this comment is irrelevant to your claim of Behe being untruthful.
...and tried to hold that ID was both purely scientific but the designer was obviously the Christian God. That's perfectly logical and not at all contradictory. So again, it fails to support your accusation of him being untruthful.
to keep you happy I unqualifiably withdraw my fully supported claim that in my opinion Behe shows a consist trend of dishonesty as observed by a Supreme court judge. You "unqualifiably" withdraw your fully supported claim? That is a massive qualification. Now who's being untruthful?
...that in my opinion Behe shows a consist trend of dishonesty as observed by a Supreme court judge. Yet you have failed to demonstrate that, instead quoting the judge saying things that don't show Behe being untruthful.
perhaps you will finally present any evidence that shows the current scientific theories are flawed ? Plenty has been presented (insofar as origins is concerned).
since there are over 10,000 biologists alone... The relevance of which is ....what?
...anyone who disproves TOE will become famous and rich... You still don't get it. As the ToE is about the past, it cannot be scientifically disproved. Further, there is plenty of evidence that anyone who tries will not become famous and rich, but infamous, out of a job, and ostracised.
linky for your claimed Gallup poll please ? Already given, in the sentence it was mentioned. Unlike some, I provide evidence for my claims.
your constant pewling about bias is laughable considering your own bias about Christianity and scientists My "pewling"(?) is not about bias per se, but about bias claiming to be neutral, as you should well know.
Why do you use a computer ? Why not?
its non-biblical... Huh? Utter nonsense.
.. and by buying one you are supporting atheism and anti-creationism I am also supporting atheism and anti-creationism by being a taxpayer, and that is something I have no choice in. Will you help me protest against that? Or do you agree with coercing support for an ideology?
oh, and learn to read. Said by the person who doesn't read links I provide then asks for support for the claim I made, which was supported in those links, and for not reading me properly when I refer to bias claiming to be neutral, rather than bias per se.
Behe stated God not in a phiosophical sense but as an active agent. So?
His statement amounted to a declaration that "and then God molded the atoms of the Earth to make a man" which is vastly different from an underlying belief in some greater power that allows the contemplation of an ordered world. Any religion with a creator God fits that view. Your point?
the court also accepted that science as it has been proctised for over 50 years is methodological naturalism ... Ah, yes, methodological naturalism. The term that was invented to provide an excuse to keep creationism out of science.
...and that supernatural causes are not science. But, assuming that you are accurately representing Jones, that's a straw-man because nobody is claiming that a supernatural cause is science. The claim, rather, is that supernatural causation of an event does not negate that event being studied scientifically, or of science concluding that a supernatural cause is the best explanation. Further, in the case of ID, it does not claim a supernatural cause anyway.
Behes own department faculty state that what he proposes is not science. Argument from authority now? Isn't that contrary to the principles of science? But of course, anti-IDism is not science; it's ideology, so it can use arguments from authority. But it shouldn't expect those that don't accept its authority to agree.
Id does not conclude a designer. It begins with the premise. Complete and utter nonsense.
Further its main proponents state that the designer is the christian God... Some of its main proponents have a personal belief that the designer is God; they do not claim, contrary to your implication, that the science of ID concludes that. If you make that argument, you might as well say that evolution concludes the non-existence of God because its main proponents say that evolution is naturalistic.
...had a website to establish Christian groups in schools to promote religion as science. I very much doubt that you could back up that claim, without resorting to an unfounded presumption that ID is religion. Besides, what would be wrong with them doing so, given that evolutionists promote their religion of evolution as science?
I find it hilareous that you claim to be able to know the mind of God and his capabilities Unlike some I can read, and have read what God has told us about Himself. Given that, why should I not know? (I am, of course, not claiming to know everything, just something.)
I asked you to retract and apologise, or substantiate your claim. You provided a Clayton's retraction, and no apology. Given that you've failed to demonstrate the truthfulness of your claim, I now demand that you retract and apologise, or you will be blocked. I will accept wording along the lines of "Given that I'm unable at this time to provide good evidence of my claim, I hereby withdraw the claim and apologise for making it". That doesn't require that you believe or admit you were wrong (in your claim); it's just an admission that you made a claim that you can't substantiate, and that you shouldn't have done that.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the good ol' Philip J. Rayment saber-rattlin' 'bout 'pologies, which ignores the fact of how rude and offensive you are to the rest of us. Well, at least nothing much changes around here, except the number of spammers and the decline in productive editing. Sterile 05:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can't seem to see the difference for yourself, I'll have to spell it out: when I require someone to apologise, I am specific about what they need to apologise about. I don't go around, like you have here, making vague accusations of being rude and offensive without providing specifics. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I've pointed it out before; you're just too blind in your arrogance now and then to remember. Sterile 17:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Says the person who is arrogant enough to to think that making vague accusations after it is pointed out to him that he is making vague accusations is somehow a good response. I've also criticised you before for failing to link to the things I've supposedly done wrong, yet here your are again with the apparent attitude that you don't need to provide evidence. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nature study

First, thanks Awc for adding this. I was planning on finding that, but you saved me the effort!

I've read EB’s response (not all the detail) and Nature’s response to that. I think Nature did a good job of defending the methodology of its study, while EB’s response was seriously flawed in that it showed errors in reviewers' assessments of EB articles, but not errors in reviewer's assessments of Wikipedia's articles. As such, Nature’s response that the reviewer's errors should exist in proportion to both EB and Wikipedia is probably valid.

However, I was less impressed with Nature’s response to what EB called a misleading headline. Nature’s 'headline' was that EB and Wikipedia were "close" in terms of accuracy. The BBC article cited says in its leading paragraph that "Wikipedia is about as accurate" as EB. Is 123 errors in EB accurately described as "close" to 162 errors in Wikipedia? Nature’s response was "Given that our reviewers identified an average of four errors in each Wikipedia article, and three in each Britannica article, we feel that the phrase “comes close” is a reasonable description of our results. As all the details were in the story, it was of course open to our readers to disagree." Well, it is open for readers to disagree, but that applies to readers who actually read enough of the article. And even for those that do, impressions can be formed from the headline or the first few paragraphs so that details which might give a different impression don't have as much effect. I'm sure that many journalists reporting on the story would also take the slant that Nature puts up front, as the BBC seemingly did. Although one might legitimately call 123 "close" to 162, I don't accept Nature’s excuse for giving this subjective judgement such prominence rather than use a more sober line.

After I wrote that, I did a bit more searching. A comment on news reports:

Accuracy of Wikipedia matches Britannica, review shows, boasts CBC. Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica on science trumpets CNN's website. Business Week, which wants to be the house journal for Web 2.0 badgers, has no doubts. A Vote of Confidence in Wikipedia it shouts.[4]

  • Wired: "Wikipedia, Britannica: A Toss-Up"[5]
  • cnet News: "Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica"[6]

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Your additions are fine. I think it is difficult, and only partially meaningful to compare the accuracy of WP and EB in much detail. There are topics where I trust WP and topics where I am very cautious. When in doubt I look at the Talk and History pages for additional clues. EB might be more accurate (although I wouldn't automatically assume that), but WP has other huge advantages. --Awc 10:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox