Talk:Strengths and weaknesses of evolution

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the RFC was support lead/article in its current form. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support lead as it is The subject is clearly a subterfuge used by those opposed to evolution to pretend that there is any scientific doubt about the theory. Alternatively delete the article - Wikipedia articles are not the place for arguments and discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is your opinion. Again, opinion used to make a decision is not allowed here on Wikipedia. Petrafan007 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is my opinion and I am entitled to give it here. This is not the article, it is a talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Petrafan007, what?? All decisions are based upon opinions. Your argument would mean nobody could ever make any decisions. DreamGuy (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support entire article as it is -- at least over the options suggested by the people who want this to promote religion instead of science. DreamGuy (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support article as it is -- The article gives an accurate, well sourced account of the topic. The article debunks the subject, which is entirely appropriate, as the subject is bunk. (The same is true for the article on pyramid schemes; there is nothing POV about calling nonsense nonsense.) — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you can make general statements like that and say it's nonsense, when a lot of people still don't think so. So, have fun with that. Petrafan007 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidently a lot of people still don't think, and some of them keep repeating common creationist claims. . . dave souza, talk 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people believe in the efficacy of pyramid schemes. Should that article be modified to give equal weight to their views? Perhaps we could also balance the article on 9/11 by giving equal weight to the controlled-demolition conspiracy theories? Wikipedia's evolution FAQ is quite clear on where the consensus position lies. If you wish to change this consensus, then please provide respectable sources. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• The lead paragraph has substantially changed since RFC was issued. For a comparison, see DIFF. While a dispute was in progress, Hrafn continued editing. However, since the edits he made dramatically reduced the POV crap that was the subject of the RFC to in the first place, I don't give a rat's ass.24.21.105.252 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• No it hasn't, as your dif demonstrates. The only "dispute" exists in your own head. Your view that this article is "POV crap" is unsupported by the WP:CONSENSUS. Your ludicrous claim that you "don't give a rat's ass" is contradicted by your repeated attempt to reinsert this inaccurate and irrelevant comment. You quite clearly "give a rat's ass" about turning this talkpage into a WP:FORUM for your unsubstantiated pontifications. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that the edit summary inserting the above comment is dishonest -- it was not 'restoring' the original "comment", but an altered version that substituted "lead" for "article" (slightly less inaccurate than the original, but not by much). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support as it stands. It should be deleted however. We have much better articles on this topic, the title is kind of pathetic (there are no weaknesses to evolution for a whole host of reasons), and some other stuff. It seems like we have to keep writing new articles to debunk lame creationist claims everywhere. Sooner or later, they ought to be merged together, with the Evolution FAQ. Anyways, keep it the way it is, since it's NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd certainly support rolling campaigns that are old, abandoned and/or failed to gain traction, into more general articles (Free Speech on Evolution immediately comes to mind) but would consider articles on topics that have garnered both governmental action and considerable press coverage to be worth retaining. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. There are no NPOV issues here. On a related note, the latest issue of Scientific American has a brief article on "The Latest Face of Creationism" which includes a list of antievolution bills of 2008, and a précis delineating the following key concepts:

  *Creationists continue to agitate against the teaching of evolution in public schools, adapting their tactics to match the roadblocks they encounter.
  *Past strategies have included portraying creationism as a credible alternative to evolution and disguising it under the name "intelligent design."
  *Other tactics misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial and pretend that advocates for teaching creationism are defending academic freedom.

  
  In discussing recent creationism-promoting bills which cloak themselves under the guise of fostering critical analysis, the article notes that "because there is no scientifically credible challenge to evolution, only long-ago-debunked creationist claptrap, the supporters of such bills are forced to be evasive when asked about what material would be covered." - Nunh-huh 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support current article as of my post date. I see no NPOV issues. I would also support deleting or merging the article and agree with OM. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the article should be deleted. It documents a well publicised effort to modify the law in multiple jurisdictions, and as such is notable. The article is informative, and is of potential interest to anyone who wishes to research the political creation/evolution controversy.

As for merging the article, the case is slightly stronger. However, what should it be merged into? There are already extensive articles on the various anti-evolution political gambits (e.g. Teach the controversy, Academic Freedom bills, Stand up for science). If they were merged into a parent article (which would presumably be Intelligent design in politics) the result would easily exceed the recommended article length guidelines, and so would require subdivision. I contend that the nature of the gambit (of which "strengths and weaknesses..." is an example) is already an excellent method of subdivision, and so the article should remain independent. (That said, I think the article should be better integrated with the Intelligent design in politics article. At present, there aren't even reciprocal links.)

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not entirely true...

I want to call out a misappropriation of the facts from the table at the bottom that suggests that there are no observations of evolution (as an argument). Both your references state macro evolution is not observed, not just plain evolution. We all know there are several forms of evolution (macro, micro, chemical, cosmo...etc). Creationists, such as Kent Hovind, although he objects to the term, states that he believes in microevolution (variations within the kind). So stating evolution plainly is not entirely accurate. The article you reference in your scientific rebuttal even agrees with this. Please correct your article to state "macroevolution" to be fair. Petrafan007 (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1. These are statements made by supporters in favour of the "strengths and weaknesses" language. The cited sources provide no indication that these supporters were talking about only macroevolution. If you wish to dispute this, please provide WP:RSes on the statements of these supporters to the contrary. Kent Hovind has made no statement on the "strengths and weaknesses" language, so his opinions are irrelevant.
2. Macroevolution is both (i) evolution and (ii) observable (see speciation) -- therefore the statement is still true even if they did say "macroevolution". Further, science (as opposed to creationists) makes little differentiation between micro- and macroevolution -- the former is merely evolution within a species, the latter at above the species level. The mechanisms underlying the Theory of Evolution apply to both, so the difference is purely descriptive, not analytic.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for your denial of scientific facts. Either engage those facts, or take it elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is exactly the problem. The rule fits like a glove to fit an evolutionists POV. They can believe macroevolution is essentially the same as thousands of microevolutions. So why even bother with 2 terms? Or is there a reason 2 terms exist? Petrafan007 (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Can you provide any evidence that the fact of speciation (the most easily directly-observable form of macroevolution) is caused by anything other than a large number of microevolutionary steps? It is not what scientists "believe", it is what they have evidence for. HrafnTalkStalk 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) That's like asking me have I stopped beating my wife...either way the question is geared to only give you an answer you want to hear...formulated from your preconceived ideas. You neglect out of willful ignorance that species always produce after their own kind. You'll never EVER see ANY species give birth to anything other than it's own kind. Go ahead...ask me to "back it up with facts". No, my friend, the burden is on YOU. Where is YOUR proof to the claim otherwise. No one can figure it out, hence scientists come up with stuff like the "Cambrian explosion" and "the missing link". Petrafan007 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Ah yes, that looks a bit like Creationist claims CB901.1, CC300 and CC200. What a coincidence. See WP:NOTAFORUM and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. . dave souza, talk 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Aspects of evolution

Which aspect of evolution do its opponents say violates the laws of thermodynamics? Are they talking about abiogenesis? If so, which writers and/or scientists consider abiogenesis part of the theory of evolution?

The reason I ask is that I was just working on the intro to abiogenesis, and it said that it should not be confused with evolution.

1. Abiogenesis is part of evolution. The dispute would be about whether abiogenesis violates the laws of thermodynamics.
2. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. The rejoinder would be that the Creationists don't know what they're talking about.

Or are some creationists using "Evolution" to include origins-of-life research? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me clear up this confusion about the meaning of terms? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there seems to be a decided lack of detail regarding the alleged weakness, and significantly more detail in the refutation column. Wassup wit dat? Giving due weight to the majority opinion is one thing, but this is just a stubborn refusal to give adequate air to the minority opinion. I started a topic on it below. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

---

[Edit conflict] Ed:

1. Please cut out the WP:POINT redlinking
   • In any case the article doesn't mention "aspects of evolution" -- so I have no clue what WP:POINT you were attempting to make
2. I was not "thinking of" anything, I was merely reporting what supporters of the "Strengths and weaknesses" have said. If their purported "weaknesses of evolution" don't in fact have anything to do with evolution (but rather are purported weaknesses of abiogenesis, the Big Bang or whatever), it simply demonstrates that these arguments are even weaker.
   • Regardless, for me to point out that the "weakness" is unrelated to evolution, without a RS stating this, would be OR. So I just stick to what the RSes do say on the subject.
3. All this you could have worked out simply by reading the cited sources, instead of asking inane questions.

Incidentally, the redirect you created for origins-of-life research (to origins of life) created a double redirect (as origins of life simply redirects to abiogenesis), which I had to correct for you. So, your linking to both abiogenesis and origins-of-life research is therefore more than a little incestuous. I would suggest that you (i) work out what the sources say & (ii) work out what it is that you're asking, before you ask any further questions -- as to date they have had nothing whatsoever to do with improving this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I note with appreciation that you created a redirect for me. Thank you.

I thought that "origins of life" was the topic name. It seems easier for the educated layman to understand than "abiogenesis". I'm still unclear on whether people who say they "oppose evolution" are - or are not - lumping together some theories on the origins of life with their criticism of Evolution, which I understand is exclusively about how living organisms acquire and pass on heritable variations.

I'm willing to do some reading, but I hope the result is that the Wikipedia article(s) in question will make it so clear that the general reader will not have to wade through all that. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I have long since given up expecting clarity of anti-evolutionists, so the article simple reports what they say. You can read what they say in their op-eds, or listen to what they say in the recordings of the SBOE hearings (which I believe are online, though I'm not sure where), if you want more. It does not matter if the purported "weaknesses" are bad-aguments-against-evolution or bad-aguments-against-something-other-than-evolution. Either way, the arguments in question have been debunked by the scientific community, so are not "weaknesses" of anything. The question of what-to-call-the-article-on-abiogenesis is an issue for that article's talkpage, not this one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Entire Article is Argument Opposed to Topic

It appears that the author of this article is less interested in explaining the topic than debunking it.

I challenge the neutrality of this entire article. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The majority scientific opinion, to which the article must give WP:DUE weight, is that the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution is a bunch of ignorant codswallop, all of which has been debunked decades ago. I challenge your understanding of WP:NPOV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You give "due weight" to an argument in opposition in the BODY of the article, not as the entirety of the lead. The lead is to DEFINE THE TOPIC, not DEBUNK it. This entire article is a fraud - it is not about the topic, it is entirely argument in OPPOSITION to the topic. And before you label me a creationist vandal, back up..... I am interested in NEUTRALITY whether or not I agree with the subject. MY view and YOUR view of the subject is not a legitimate basis for engaging in POV argumentation from the very first word in the lead. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUE applies to the lead as well as the body. "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution" is the fraud -- a point that the scientific community makes abundantly clear. The article merely gives WP:DUE weight to this view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

YOUR OPINION is that it is a fraud. Someone plainly disagrees with your opinion, or there would be no topic to discuss. I have no dog in the race. I simply view POV argumentation as a neutrality issue. Whether I agree or disagree with the topic, I will defend the integrity of the article by striving for a NEUTRAL POV.24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is becoming tedious. As I stated above, it is the "majority scientific opinion" not merely 'my opinion'. The only people who disagree are people like the Creationist wing of the Texas SBOE, the San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association, and the like. The scientific ignorance of their claims is generating hoots of derision from the scientific side. WP:NPOV requires that for a viewpoint to be given any weight, WP:RSes must be found for it. No scientists appear to be defending the "strengths and weaknesses" language, therefore the article cannot mount any defence on its behalf. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Back atcha re: your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. You seem to feel that you can circumvent a neutral explanation of a topic (see my edit on history page) and proceed directly to trashing the topic AS ITS DEFINITION, then defend your actions by using derisive and insulting language, simply because a "majority of scientists" agree with your POV. It won't work. This article is in serious need of a Neutrality face-lift. You on the other hand plainly feel - and have stated - that YOUR POV is the only allowed POV in this article. That addressing the VERY TOPIC is off-limits ( even in the barest definition) because YOU SAY SO, and the VERY TOPIC should be suborned to your goal of debunking the topic. Pardon me if I'm not impressed by your flawed logic. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your whitewash of the lead had no basis in WP:RSes, so was in violation of both WP:V & WP:DUE. It was in fact nothing but a bunch of WP:OR. It was therefore reverted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Our policy is to present a neutral point of view - one which depicts fringe theories as fringe theories rather than the serious arguments they would prefer to be confused with. Please discuss any proposed changes to this article on the talk page, where consensus can be gauged, rather than make sweeping changes which alter the entire tone of the article unilaterally. - Nunh-huh 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

252, please don't come here and accuse other contributors of using "derisive and insulting language". If you have a personal beef, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I'd prefer to keep this page only for discussion of ways to improve the article.

And the article is about a slogan or campaign which asserts that evolution has "weaknesses". So far, the article has concentrated on providing the mainstream science POV - which viewpoint is opposed to that of the campaign. Do you propose to balance that POV by adding well-referenced information? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The contributor said, "The scientific ignorance of their claims...." which is derisive and insulting. It is an insult to a group of people he disagrees with. I have no interest in arguing one point or the other. As I have stated repeatedly, my interest is in a NEUTRAL lead. As it exists, the entire lead is nothing but argument. There should be a neutral statement of WHAT THE TOPIC IS. But there is no such thing.... it slips immediately into debunking it without bothering to explain what "it" is. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I further contend that it is insulting, but mostly a POV. Petrafan007 (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nunh-huh to claim that any skeptical inquiry into the science of evolution is definitionally "fringe." That appears on the surface to be a very UNscientific POV. Science is about inviting inquiry and examination of evidence, not censoring it. If the skeptics can mount a convincing argument in their favor, so be it. If not, so be it. There are a LOT of them that believe they can do just use science to debunk evolution. It is not up to you or I to unfairly weight the argument in it's very DEFINITION one way or the other. Let the points and counterpoints be made in a neutral framework, not in an article that is exclusively and definitionally slanted in favor of one side. It is entirely fair to include extensive references and explanation of the view that the very topic's legitimacy is in question as a trojan horse to creationism. But to bypass a neutral explanation of the topic, and proceed to DEFINING it in strongly opinionated language is out of bounds.24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nunh-huh claims nothing of the sort. The "weaknesses of evolution" claims are not coming from "skeptical inquiry", but from dogmatic religious presuppositions. Science is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy -- and those making the "weaknesses" claims have neither the facts nor logic on their side (hence the fact that the "weaknesses" often turn out to have nothing to do with biological evolution). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the lead should read: "The topic, "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution" is an examination of the credibility of individual elements of evidence in the theory of evolution. The legitimacy of the topic itself is disputed as a surreptitious means of challenging evolution in the classroom by creationist, while proponents of the topic maintain that skeptical examination of evidence is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry."

That is a neutral and fair DEFINITION of the subject, which is what a lead should be. It is neutral. It includes a promient statement questioning the legitimacy of the subject as a potential "torjan horse." I don't see what is objectionable about it. Some seem to feel that it is Wikipdia's mission to weigh in on controversial issues and bot out all but one point of view. Not so.24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose that you find WP:RSes supporting your changes before you propose them. Your proposed lead is nothing but WP:OR supporting the creationist view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)o

???? Your comments seem completely removed from reality. What POV comments do you find, SPECIFICALLY? Your accusations are based on fabrication. The very existence of the SUBJECT is that some people are skeptical of the science of evolution. It is by it's very existance an examination of said science. Stating so is not endorsing or predicting an outcome of such an examination. You are leaping to wild conclusions, my friend. Let's look at the following sentence: "An examination of the credibility of some elements of the theory of gravity." Do you find THAT statement objectionable, if it defines a movement to do just that? Does it lean one way or the other in reaching a conclusion to the question? No. It simply defines the parameters of the inquiry. To say, "defining the question is forbidden" is ludicrous! Stop insulting and labeling people simply because they don't tow your ideological line to your satisfaction. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, "'Strengths and weaknesses of evolution' is an examination of the credibility of individual elements of evidence in the theory of evolution". (i) It is unsubstantiated by any reliable source (therefore it is WP:OR). (ii) It gives credence to the Creationist view that this language gives support for legitimate "evaluation", as opposed to being a loophole for a bunch of long-debunked pseudoscientific arguments (as becomes apparent when specific examples of "weaknesses" come up). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? So, do you feel that defining the term, "Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution" as "an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of evolution" to "lack reliable sources" as well? This is absurd. You are engaged in censorship. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do please produce reliable third party sources giving verification of the points you wish to be included in this article, and note particularly the requirements of WP:SPS and WP:QS. Remember talk pages aren't a forum, and discussion which isn't focussed on specific improvements to the article is liable to be deleted. . dave souza, talk 23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What in anything I have said, dave souza, leads you to believe I want to make "points" or arguments in this article? I simply want a neutral lead. As it exists now, there is NO DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE, and Hfran has said in no uncertain terms he "will not allow" a definition because doing so will give weight to a POV he disagrees with. What part of "neutral lead" are you not grasping, dave? Is it too much to ask for a Wikipedia article to DEFINE a phrase or movement before it proceeds to discredit it in a hostile overtly POV manner? This is absurd. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks clearly defined to me, as of 00:11, 28 December 2008, and the "definition" is backed by references. If you've got verification from a reliable source of some alternative "definition", do please provide it. Remember that Neutral point of view policy has specific requirements for pseudoscience, avoiding giving it undue weight or "equal validity", while making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. . dave souza, talk 09:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lacking any evidence that such a legitimate "examination" occurs/is envisioned, I see no absurdity. To do otherwise is to accept the viewpoint that this slogan should be taken at face value -- a viewpoint contradicted by the weight of expert opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No substantive POV issue has been raised

The article doesn't have anything nice to say about "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution", well boo hoo. The simple fact of the matter is that the experts (in science education and the relevant sciences) don't have anything nice to say about it, and we will not permit WP:OR, just so that 24.21.105.252 can get something nice in. Unless they can pony up with some WP:RSes demonstrating a contrary expert view, this article will, of necessity, give an entirely negative weight on the topic. Lacking a substantive issue, I am re-removing the POV template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

YOu claim my motive is to "get something nice in" on the subject? Stop it. I have no dog in this race. You are creating fiction out of whole cloth. My edit was simply to state in neutral terms that the topic is:

My edit to the lead: "The topic, "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution" is an examination of the credibility of individual elements of evidence in the theory of evolution. The legitimacy of the topic itself is disputed as a surreptitious means of challenging evolution in the classroom by creationist, while proponents of the topic maintain that skeptical examination of evidence is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry."

That's about as neutral as you can get, I think. It explains the topic in neutral wording while including the very legitimate concern about a possible agenda behind the topic. You, however, want to dispnse with a neutral statment of definition, and create a NEW definition which is itself argument in opposition. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop attempting to introduce pro-creationist WP:OR into the article and I'll stop believing that you've got a "dog in this race". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There you go creating fiction out of whole cloth AGAIN. At no point have I introduced any opinion into the article. IN fact, my concern is simply DEFINING the TOPIC in a NEUTRAL way. You seem to think that a neutral definition is somehow your enemy in your quest to debunk the subject. It's as if you were to open a dictionary to the word "Creationism" and find, as the sole definition, "A fringe nutjob religious theory discredited by scientists and not worthy of definition." The arrogance of such overt, unapologetic censorship is astounding. To exclude a mere DEFINITION because it might be viewed as a defense of the subject..... It is simply astounding that you are allowed to edit Wikipedia.24.21.105.252 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

24.21.105.252, I would suggest you re-read WP:NPOV keeping this page in mind. It seems to me that you confuse "neutral point of view" with "no point of view". The facts are that "strength and weaknesses of evolution" is not, as you would have it, "an examination of the credibility of individual elements of evidence in the theory of evolution," but rather a creationist strategy designed to introduce "unscientific objections to evolution into public school science classes." A neutral presentation of that fact is no violation of NPOV. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A WP:NPOV challenge has been entered at the neutrality notice board. [1] The POV challenge is put back up in the article. Please do not remove it. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:POINT and please provide the evidence that you've repeatedly been requested to provide. Your editing approach appears to be purely disruptive, and you must reform your approach. . . dave souza, talk 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your WP:POINT reference is a non-sequitur and a transparent attempt to "throw mud and see if it sticks." Knock it off. Your credibility as a neutral observer is severely in question on this topic, as you have a long history of being hrafn's attack dog and a biased editor on the subject. I have logged a request for a NPOV check, and cited the reasons for its, and yet you remove the POV check from the article. Why? Why does a POV check on this article scare you? Let more neutral editors look at it. Let the light of day shine on the topic. Odds are your POV will win anyway. What are you afraid of?? 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

24.21.105.252 (or may I call you Firefly322?):

1. You have presented no evidence that I have misrepresented the facts stated in any of the cited sources.
2. You have presented no evidence that I have misrepresented the viewpoints stated in any of the cited sources.
3. You have presented no evidence that I have omitted or de-emphasised any reliably-sourced viewpoints.

You have in fact presented nothing whatsoever, except for vacuous vituperation and baseless assertion. Given the lack of substance to your accusations, the vehemence with which you have pursued them is certainly disruptive, and counts as "disrupt[ing] Wikipedia to illustrate a point" per WP:POINT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you may not call me "firefly322." How arrogant of you to assume that anyone who questions you must be some past nemesis - as if there couldn't possibly be TWO people who challenge your hobnail-boot advocacy tactics. I will say again... It is astounding to me that your account has not been deleted, and that you are allowed to edit Wikipedia. Astounding. Try this: Address the NEUTRALITY issue. All you do is obfuscate and misdirect to IRRELEVANT crap. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Firefly322 was by no means a "nemesis" of mine -- more an ineffectual ankle-chewer. You appear to share with that editor a certain infelicity of style and taste for vapid drama (a taste that has resulted in multiple blocks for Firefly322 ). I will "address the NEUTRALITY issue" if and when you actually manage to articulate one with any coherence and specificity. I am however not holding my breath on you ever achieving either. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error: Language not "proposed." It already exists. "Proposal" is to remove it.

Among the vast swamp of factual errors and POV argumentation in this so-called "encyclopaedic" article is this glaring falsehood:

The "strengths and weaknesses" language ALREADY EXISTS in Texas law and has for 20 years The authors have intentionally misrepresented that the language is "proposed." The "proposal" or movement is to REMOVE the language, not to add it.

This article falsely represents that creationists are attempting to insert language into code to further their agenda, when the exact opposite is the case: Evolutionists are attempting to REMOVE language in code in order to further their agenda.

The authors of the article even state so! IN one paragraph they state ONE thing and in another, they REFUTE THEIR OWN CLAIM. It is absurd and frankly embarrassing for them.

Whichever side of the creation/evolution debate you support (I am an evolutionist), a FAIR, NEUTRAL and IMPARTIAL article should be the goal, not an overtly biased, factually erroneous, and poorly written attack piece, which is all this article is. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Insults will get you nowhere. Your assertions are not supported by the text of the article. . dave souza, talk 21:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Factual errors: 24.21.105.252 can't read

1. If 24.21.105.252 could be bothered reading, they would have noticed that this language has been proposed by Larry Caldwell in Roseville and proposed by the DI petition. It thus has been "proposed" a number of times, but only "introduced" once, in Texas -- as the lead clearly states.
2. It is incorrect to state that it "ALREADY EXISTS in Texas law" -- as a SBOE curriculum is not a "law".
3. Given the solid sourcing for this article, the unsubstantiated claim of a "vast swamp of factual errors" can be seen to be complete codswallop.
4. The article makes no 'representation' that "creationists are attempting to insert language into code"

I am quite frankly tired of your vacuous and vituperative babbling. Take your bile elsewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It should not be asserted that this IP can't read. Better to assume that the IP editor can read, and is wilfully or inadvertantly misrepresenting or misunderstanding the text of the article. More effort by the IP in reading and understanding WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ would also be welcome. Of course these policies aren't always easy to grasp at first, and I'll be glad to help with clarification when requested. . dave souza, talk 21:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Scare Quotes

I see an editor has agreed that such advocacy tactics as scare quotes are inappropriate and a violation of NPOV. There is a lot of work still to do do to bring this article into anything resembling Wiki standards, but at least there are eyes on it, despite the authors best efforts to "hide" the subject while he frames it to his POV. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, assume good faith, your arguments look increasingly uncivil. Since the overwhelming majority expert view, ss shown by the cited sources, is that these aren't real "weaknesses", care has to be taken not to give "equal validity" to the creationist position. I don't have a big issue with the edits, alleged weaknesses works as well as "weaknesses". . dave souza, talk 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I note again that you have no issues with your pal hrafn saying "24.21.105.252 can't read" or his other insults and insinuations, and that you will not in any event caution him for such uncivil behavior. Your purpose here appears to be solely to run interference for him. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read my comment in the section above this one. dave souza, talk 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When I see your warning to him on his talk page, I will be impressed. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't go reading anything into my edits beyond what they are. I removed scare quotes because they are stylistically awkward and unnecessary. This article does not violate NPOV policy as a whole. Any changes to improve tone and so forth would be minor. Your complaints do not appear to me to have any validity. DreamGuy (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply removing the scare quotes and calling them what they are is enough of a validation for me that the article has some POV issues (scare quotes are by definition POV violations). Didn't mean to "co-opt" you into the debate. Thanks for your input. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Argument Table

Proposal with no basis in verifiable sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some improvements I would like to see: More detail on the arguments table. There seems to be a statement and a rebuttal argument, but no argument in favor. It would be more neutral for the table to have "Alleged weakness" (distilled statement) +"Argument defending allegation" (more detail and links) +"Argument opposed to allegation" (more detail and links). As it is, there is argument only in one direction, while the statement of the position is left alone as if it is an argument.24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Are there arguments defending the allegation? I thought that the point of it was that they're just hollow creationist talking points. Guettarda (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The cited sources merely list the "weaknesses", they generally not go into supporting arguments -- this means that we'd have to put them together with an argument in favour of them from another source -- which would be WP:SYNTH. Objections to evolution already exists to give details of arguments for/against. This article should not be attempting to replicate this, but should link to the appropriate sections of that article (which is what I've been attempting to do, to date). HrafnTalkStalk 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Surprise, surprise. Hrafn objects. If a SYNTH conflict arises, it is solvable by adding different sources which define as well as list. Big deal. Here is a more informative table to the subject, I feel: Obviously, it is not all-inclusive, and I didn't include everything. But you get the idea. It more logically lists the alleged flaw, the argument, and the rebuttal. Alleged Weakness Argument Rebuttal Evolution violates the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy may be changed, but not created or destroyed. The conflict, according to adherents, is that observations show that "everything started in a stage of order, and is headed towards disorder" whereas evolution maintains that "everything started at a stage of disorder and supposedly goes towards order" and thus energy is created in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero" Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, or entropy The second law of thermodynamics (as interpreted by anti-evolutionists) asserts that energy has quality as well as quantity, and actual processes occur in the direction of decreasing quality of energy while maintaining constant quantity (entropy). Similar to their argument against the First Law of Thermodynamics, anti-evolutionists state that evolution maintains the opposite - that "everything started at a stage of disorder and supposedly goes towards order." "The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice and fertilised eggs turn into babies. Plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen, but [we do] not invoke divine intervention to explain the process [...] thermodynamics offers nothing to dampen our confidence in Darwinism." Evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is sometimes called the law of biogenesis and asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life. Pasteur's law only disproved the (then current) idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. It does not say that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. Evolution is unable to explain the Cambrian Explosion The Cambrianb Explosion was a period of time which, according to anti-evolutionists, is too short and too diverse in introduction of species, to be accounted for by evolution. *How real was the explosion? Possible causes of the “explosion” Alleged frauds and forgeries The premature acceptance of infamous frauds and forgeries such as Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embryo drawings, according to anti-evolutionists, casts doubt on the veracity of evolution evidence in general. Rebuttal of allegations Further information: [[:Icons of Evolution]] Reflist Please leave these references below the discussion including citations. Again, I'm not maintaining it is perfect. Just better. The exact content is just for the idea, and may need to be improved greatly. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC) As ever, care is to be taken to avoid giving "equal validity" to pseudoscience, and adequate explanation of the majority expert view is needed. If this is going to duplicate objections to evolution it'll end up being a very large article. One of the sources, the very scientific sounding San Antonio Bible Based Science Association, "stand ready to go to any venue you invite us to, and can present several hours of scientific evidence which supports creation".[2] "Also, please pray for our board members, other creationists and educators from around the state who will be going to Austin on January 20th to testify before the State Board of Education about this issue."[3] The other source for the thermodynamics claims seems unrelated to the "strengths and weaknesses" issue, and evidence is needed that this is the same creationist claim. Oh, and "Surprise, surprise. Hrafn objects." is uncivil, and a failure to WP:AGF, please improve your manners. . dave souza, talk 09:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The sabbsa.org citations you object to are hrafn's not mine I copied and pasted them from the table in the article. But of course now that you know this, your objection to them will evaporate, I'm sure. And, I'm also sure that hrafn's use of "Surprise, 24.21.105.252 fails to WP:AGF" will also be cause for a *yawn* from you, whereas similar language causes you great consternation when directed AT your pal. Your history shows you are biased. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) You really don't seem to get WP:AGF, disappointingly. Hrafn should not rise to your bait, and you should not be baiting in a way that strongly suggests WP:TROLLing. . dave souza, talk 09:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) And, since you seem to have misunderstood, I've no objection to the sabbsa.org citations as they're directly related to the subject, though of course they're subject to WP:SPS and WP:QS requirements. It's amusing that they're so openly creationist, and my intention was to draw intention to the "several hours of scientific evidence" promised for 20th January, which is unlikely to all fit into this article, even if it goes up to over 100kb. . dave souza, talk 09:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I'd be overjoyed for us to be in that situation Dave. I'm always happier to be in a position of having to distil down/summarise information into a concise summary than having to stretch sources to create a coherent narrative. Your mention of testimony has led me to track down a link to the audio archives of Texas SBOE meetings, including (I think) the ones who heard testimony in November. This may give anybody who's willing to trawl through them, another potential source of material 'from the horse's mouth'. I've put this, plus a link to a transcript of a lecture the chairman gave, into the ELs section. HrafnTalkStalk 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC) [Edit conflict] Surprise, 24.21.105.252 fails to WP:AGF. What sources that both list "weaknesses of evolution" in the context of supporting this phrasing, and "define as well as list"? Most of them don't even list, they merely airily assert or assume that such weaknesses exist. Your "argument"s are not being made by the advocates of S&Wes who are cited for these weaknesses, so this table is WP:SYNTH & putting words in their mouth. Your "Argument" for the first law is actually about the second law. Order is not the same thing as energy. It should be "... or law of entropy." not just "or entropy". Your arguments for the second law, the Law of Biogenesis & the Cambrian Explosion are unsourced. Your "frauds and forgeries" argument appears to go well beyond what the source actually said. What he actually said is hard to construe as a coherent 'argument for it being a weakness'. HrafnTalkStalk 09:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Good god. Despite my repeated statement that "the exact content is just for the idea, and may need to be improved greatly" hrafn devotes all his energy to criticizing placeholder content. Good grief. Talk about "intentionally not getting it." The point is a clearer table that cites topic, argument, and rebuttal. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) The point was poorly made. If it's purely intended as "placeholder content", put in "yadda yadda" or the like. dave souza, talk 09:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) So you want to take language which you don't have, put these words into the mouths of the S&Wes supporters who didn't say them, in order to create content that Objections to evolution is meant to be covering anyway. "Good god" indeed. I would suggest that something more solid, and more policy compliant, is needed for a proposal. HrafnTalkStalk 10:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't see the big deal here. dave souza's Undue Weight argument overlooks the fact that the article is about a unique program of the creationists (otherwise there is no justification for the article), and there is an exception to the Undue Weight rule for exactly that circumstance (if explaining a fringe opinion - in an article about that opinion - gives it a degree of undue weight, then that is OK). Adhering dogmatically to a narrow definition of Undue Weight defies common sense in this case. I see no rational reason to deny the edit. It appears to be a good faith attempt to improve the article, and would probably be edited back out in further good faith improvements later on anyway. I would caution, though, to not let the table get out of control, and keep it as short and sweet as possible while still giving due weight to both sides (considering again that the article is about the creationists "strengths and weakness" program, and thus their "weakness" arguments are due a bit more weight than they would normally deserve, but by no means weighted more than the mainstream scientific opinion). The appearance of equal weight in the table should not be a concern, as the table is only a part of the article, and the weight of the article is more than sufficiently given to the mainstream scientific opinion. If a table is to be used, it should consist of "premise" "argument" and "rebuttal" columns. That is a standard format for such things, and I see no reason to deviate from that. It makes sense, and I defer to the Wiki rule that says common sense trumps dogmatic application of rules. It is possible that the original table is not a good format to begin with, and any improvements would ultimately be a waste of time. But if the anon editor wants to take a stab at it, then hold your nose and try to be accommodating. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC) WEIGHT still applies, in that while explaining the fringe view proponents arguments, we also explain the majority view of these arguments and make it clear that's the majority expert view, taking care to avoid Giving "equal validity" to pseudoscientific views. WP:FRINGE gives guidance. If the anon presents summaries of arguments cited to sources which show their relevance to this subject, then that will form a basis for the suggested arrangement. We can discuss how much detail is appropriate here when Objections to evolution covers the same ground, and duplication may be considered undesirable. If there are no sources for the expanded arguments, we stick with the current outline approach, possibly moving some detail to Objections to evolution. Presenting original research as a "placeholder" only emphasises the importance of good sources. . dave souza, talk 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC) BOLD also applies, as does COMMON SENSE and the exception to UNDUE WEIGHT which I referred to above. You do acknowledge that there is an exception to UNDUE WEIGHT, right dave? Is your concern a matter of degree? How much weight? Again, I don't understand what the big deal is. Keep an eye on UNDUE WEIGHT, but be reasonably accommodating to the exception. I suggest inviting the anon to go ahead and do the table with real text and good sources, here on the talk page (help him out in a friendly way with sources maybe), and give constructive (not obstructive) criticism, then let him make the change. Remember, it doesn't need to be perfect. You probably won't like it, but hold your nose and let it happen. It could end up being a segue way to improvements you might not immediately see from your entrenched position. Better to let him jump in than to beat the guy up over good faith suggestions that are not unreasonable. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) <unindent>WP:BOLD assumes that you actually have something ready to go into the article -- not mere irrelevant/OR "placeholder text". As to WP:UNDUE, proponents of the S&W language almost never mention specific weaknesses, and on the few occasions they've done so, I've never seen them give a detailed articulation of the "argument" for the weakness. How on earth can it be 'due weight' to insert arguments they themselves don't make? Unless and until you can come up with sources, relevant to this topic, for your weaknesses "arguments", this issue is closed. HrafnTalkStalk 23:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't recognize your authority to unilaterally "close" the topic, Hrafn. See WP:Ownership. Any objection to sources and placeholder text seem to be a pre-emtive objection. How do you know there are source problems if all he's proposed is a rough concept? Let him knock himself out and be receptive to suggestions rather than obstructionist. The degree of angst over what appers to be a simple and reasonable table revision is out of proportion to reality. It's almost laughable, and might qualify as a good example of WP:Point. Listen: If what he comes up with has issues, help him make it better constructively. With that, I am saying, "toodles." There is entirely too much hostility around here. If I want aggravation, I can call my ex-wife. LOL. Good luck. Don't forget to run naked through the grass once in a while. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The "authority" to close this thread comes from WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". Until relevant verifiable information can be found, this whole thread is purely hypothetical, and thus "not relevant to improving the article". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt

1. Where a S&W-language advocate makes a detailed argument for their "weaknesses", it would be appropriate to describe the detailed argument here. To my knowledge, none have done so.
2. Where only others have made such an detailed argument for an issue that has been listed as a "weakness", it would be appropriate to include this detailed argument (and its scientific rebuttal) at objections to evolution and merely link to them here.
3. In no case is it appropriate to describe detailed arguments here, where they have only been made by third parties, and have not been made, or explicitly cited, in defence of there being "weaknesses in evolution", to the conclusion that the S&W language is therefore reasonable.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Who concludes?

John Callender objected to my phrasing "This has led to the conclusion that the language is creationist code-language" on the strength of an AU citation and changed it to "This has led church-state separation advocates to conclude..."

This is problematical as it is not just "church-state separation advocates" making this claim -- just that they were a good indicative source for this uncontroversial statement (whose conclusion is supported by the entire body of the article). I have added "science education advocates" and "reporters" to those making this point (as well as "scientists" making a related statement). Essentially, this is a point that is being made by all relevant experts and neutral observers who have ventured an opinion on the issue, and appears to be uncontroverted except by the creationists themselves (who have a strong motive in making their "code-language" seem innocent). Is there a less clumsy way we can summarise this (particularly as it's not beyond the realm of possibility that I can find further groupings supporting it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: we also have prominent Philosopher of Science, Historian of the ID Movement & ID opponent, Barbara Forrest, saying the same thing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Texas Freedom Network here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• The NYT here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing changing the language to state: "This has led many critics, experts and observers to conclude that the language is creationist code-language,in an attempt to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses." I think the citations already in the lead + the ones above, amply support this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern with the previous language was that the passive construction ("This has led to the conclusion...") was unclear as to who was doing the concluding. The current language does a better job with that, while also improving on my admittedly too-narrow characterization, which I based on the one reference that accompanied the earlier version. Thank you for taking the time to dig up those other references and improve the phrasing.

It was interesting to me to go back and read through the history of the article as a whole. It's actually kind of impressive to me to see how it has developed, given that it is a topic that is (at least potentially) so contentious. I worry a bit that the current language of this section ("This has led many critics, experts and observers to conclude...") is still coming down pretty hard on promoting the "it's code language" position. Please understand: I am not arguing that the phrase is not code language. I'm saying that the current version of the article seems to me to still have some room for improvement, in that it goes beyond a neutral presentation of the facts of the controversy, and strays across the line into advocating a particular interpretation of those facts.

There's an interesting twist in this case, in that the whole strategy of the "teach the controversy" advocates is to create a misleading impression of a controversy existing among scientists, when in fact no such controversy among scientists exists. I can see how that would make someone working to keep science education grounded in actual science, rather than religion, extremely sensitive on the subject of needing to present even-handed information about a controversy, when the scientific consensus is clearly coming down on one particular side of the question. But on some level, I think that's a cross that this particular article is going to have to bear, so to speak, given the nature of the topic, and given Wikipedia policies on neutrality. It's a "weakness" of science, if you will (scare quotes intentional), that it lays itself open to challenge, and resists the reflexive dismissal of competing explanations, even in cases where an experienced participant might well view the motivations of those advancing competing explanations with a jaundiced eye. In that, science and Wikipedia have a lot in common.

I'd like to see the current article be more willing to let readers draw their own conclusions from a neutral presentation of facts, rather than hitting them over the head with the conclusion that the "strength and weaknesses of evolution" phrasing is dishonest code language. If that phrasing really is dishonest code language (which, again, I am not disputing), then it should be possible to craft a good, neutral Wikipedia article that allows an open-minded reader to draw that conclusion. -- John Callender (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The original wording was part of an unconscious attempt to keep things as simple as possible (leads aren't meant to go into excessive detail) and thus not get too bogged down on exactly who it was stating this. Given the large number of citations now in the article on this point (a number of them covering hundreds of scientists), I think the "many..." is a fair summarisation -- it is in fact low-balling the fact that everybody-but-the-creationists have had nothing good to say about the language. I don't think you've got your representation of science quite right -- it most certainly does 'reflexively dismiss' any claim not backed by hard evidence -- and rightly so. Only when the cranks gain political power does science feel the need to offer any rebuttal. I also think you're conflating WP:NPOV with Giving "equal validity". If the vast majority of the reliably-sourced coverage is negative, then (per WP:DUE) the coverage in Wikipedia will of necessity be likewise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I were writing this article, I'd say something more pointed. I think that Hrafn's language should stand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. On the "reflexive dismissal" thing, I think we actually agree more than we disagree. If the dismissal by scientists happens after an open-minded investigation into the question of whether or not there is evidence supporting the criticism, then the dismissal isn't "reflexive", at least not in the way I'm using the term. I'm just saying that it's an important feature of science (good science, anyway) that a good faith evaluation of the offered evidence, to the extent there is any, takes place before the dismissal. And since scientists are human, and prone to human weaknesses, there will always be a certain tension between that requirement and the understandable defensiveness people feel when their views are challenged.

Where it gets interesting (or annoying, depending on one's perspective) is when a criticism has been offered, it has been evaluated and found wanting via the normal process of science, and then bad-faith critics continue to offer the same (or similar) criticism in an attempt to mislead those who haven't been following the debate. I think it's pretty well-established that many of the actions of the "creationism should be taught as science" crowd fall squarely into that category, and I have no problem with this article presenting evidence that the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" language is an example of that.

With that said, I still get a little bit of a sense, when reading this article, that I've walked into the middle of a heated argument, and I'm hearing one side responding to another side that I didn't actually hear. I understand the concerns about undue weight, and am not suggesting that the "strengths and weaknesses" side should get anything like equal treatment. But I think it might be worthwhile to evaluate the article with a view to making clearer, in a neutral, value-free way, what it is that the controversy is about.

I'll see if I can come up with a more-specific suggestion of the kind of language I'm looking for. If I do that, I'll post it here in the Talk page for comments. Thanks. -- John Callender (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Two brief points: (i) New claims have to get past the 'gatekeepers', in terms of presenting at least some semblance of evidence, before they warrant "an open-minded investigation". Generally the 'gatekeeper' will be the editor of a scientific journal -- who probably throws out a large number of crank articles, without passing them on for more thorough peer review. (ii) If you think that there's "another side that I didn't actually hear", then you're welcome to go looking for it. From what I've seen to date, there's very little out there, and what is there tends to have very little substance (hence my difficulty in finding sources that actually list purported weaknesses, let alone explain them, as opposed to simply vaguely asserting that some exist). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a subtle, but to my mind important, distinction between saying 1) that there is a scientific argument in favor of creationism that is receiving insufficient weight in this article, and 2) that this article could do a better job of presenting a neutral account of the facts of the controversy that is the article's subject (that is, the controversy over the use of the phrase "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" as part of public school curricula in Texas and elsewhere). I'm not asserting #1. I'm asserting #2. But again, I think it would be helpful for me to come up with a specific example, so you and other editors can see more clearly what I mean. I'll try to do that. -- John Callender (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Here's a list of proposed changes to address some of the concerns I've been talking about. I'm holding off on implementing these as edits in the article for now; please consider them merely as a starting point for discussion.

• Condensing the lead - I'd suggest editing the lead to read as shown below. What I'm mainly looking for here is streamlining it, as well as giving the pro-"strengths and weaknesses" side a more neutral presentation of their actual argument, at least as far as I've been able to determine it from the admittedly thin information I turned up in a quick search.

"Strengths and weaknesses of evolution" is a controversial phrase that has been proposed for, and in Texas introduced into, public school science curricula. In late 2008, it became a highly publicized issue as the Texas State Board of Education held public hearings on whether this language should be removed from the curriculum. Those who support retaining the phrase say that there is scientific evidence that supports Biblical explanations of creation and undermines the theory of evolution, and that students should be exposed to that information in order to give them a balanced treatment of the subject. Opponents respond that the examples of weaknesses that have been raised have been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community, and view the phrase as a disingenuous attempt to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses.

• Adjusting the balance of references - There are a very large number of references on one side of the issue. I'm not trying to suggest that undue weight be given to a minority view, but for an article that is about this particular controversy, a 19:2 ratio of anti:pro references seems problematic. I think it might help the article's tone if the anti references were trimmed down to a smaller number of the most authoritative, while adding a few from the other side. I took a quick look, and suggest that the following are references that might be removed: One I'd suggest adding on the pro side (though I admit it's pretty weak; I'd like to find something better) is:

• Moving the National Center for Science Education blockquote further down in the article - It seems awkward to me to have the extended quotation from the National Center for Science Education in the lead. It makes more sense to me for it to be moved farther down in the article, where an amplified discussion of the controversy can be given.

• Avoiding "SBOE" as an acronym - This is a pretty minor point, but it seemed to me when I first read the article, scanning through the headers, that using SBOE in place of Texas State Board of Education was a bit confusing. I think it might be clearer to just use the spelled-out form.

• Revising headings in the body of the article - The current headings seem somewhat unclear. I would maybe consolidate the History and Texas SBOE headers into a single section under the name "2008 Texas State Board of Education controversy". Perhaps replace "Educational and scientific value" with "Impacts of the 'Strengths and Weaknesses' language"? "Specific alleged weaknesses" bothers me from an NPOV standpoint, because it puts the article in the position of asserting an opinion via the word "alleged". "Specific weaknesses" is unacceptable, though, because it plays into the creationist gameplan of falsely presenting the "weaknesses" as representing a legitimate scientific challenge. Maybe just take a cue from the linked-to article, and use "Specific objections to evolution" for the header? Then the introductory sentence could avoid "alleged" with something like: "The following have been cited as weaknesses by proponents of including the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" language in public school science curricula:" That way we're specifically attributing the characterization as "weaknesses" to the creationist proponents, without asserting an NPOV-problematic editorial judgment on whether they are, in fact, real weaknesses.

I look forward to hearing what other editors think. Thanks. -- John Callender (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I have a number of problems with this:

1. "overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community" -- the sources that I have provided demonstrate that it is "overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific and science education communities, as well as many outside observers" While I will not propose my preferred "overwhelmingly rejected by everybody who knows what they're talking about", I will not condone lowballing what the references already in the article demonstrate as the breadth of opposition.
2. If we're putting so much scrutiny on who exactly it was who rejects the language (remember "This has led church-state separation advocates to conclude..."?) why aren't we putting equal scrutiny on those promoting it. Shouldn't "Those who support retaining the phrase say..." rather say "The creationist dentist who heads the Texas State Board of Education [list of other creationist board members by (lack of) qualifications] and an obscure creationist group from San Antonio say..."?
3. "Adjusting the balance of references" -- please find a single proponent reference that is weightier than even the least weighty of the opponent references. Heck, I doubt if there's a single one of the opponent references that doesn't carry more weight than every single proponent reference combined. This makes dropping opponent refs for proponent ones very difficult in terms of WP:DUE.
4. The NCSE quote makes a very important point -- placing S&W as the latest iteration of Neo-Creationism's successive waterings-down of creationism. The point is echoed (if with less clarity) by several other sources (including newspapers who are outside observers), so really isn't at all dubious.
5. Generalities should come before specifics. WP:DUE weighted discussion of the opposing views should come before discussion of the most notable specific incidence of this controversy to date.
6. "consolidate the History and Texas SBOE headers into a single section under the name '2008 Texas State Board of Education controversy'" -- neither Roseville nor the DI are in Texas.
7. "Impacts of the 'Strengths and Weaknesses' language" fails to cover the first and last paragraphs, which as specifically on the (lack of) "scientific value" of the language, not on their "impact".
8. "Specific objections to evolution" gives just as much WP:UNDUE weight to the substanceless creationist claims as "Specific weaknesses" would. My personal preference would be "Vacuous and long-debunked creationist lies presented as weaknesses", but that doesn't really fit WP:NPOV. Given the enormous WP:WEIGHT against these "weaknesses", some acknowledgement of the majority view is needed. "Specific weaknesses and their scientific rebuttals" would be long-winded, but a reasonable nod to the majority.
9. For the table, I would suggest "Supporters of the 'strengths and weaknesses of evolution' language have proposed the following as weaknesses of evolution, and the scientific community has responded with the following rebuttals:" (carefully avoids "alleged" or similar, but likewise carefully avoids any unfounded acknowledgement that these "weaknesses" are genuine)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Prominence of sources

WP:DUE states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So what are the prominent viewpoints:

• Most prominent:
  • National Center for Science Education: prominent science education body, has numerous prominent scientists and science-education experts among its board and supporters, its website has been described as one of the two best resources online on the Creation-evolution controversy‎
  • Barbara Forrest -- historian of the ID movement, whose testimony was found to be compelling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎
  • The New York Times -- one of the most prestigious newspapers in the US

• Medium prominence:
  • Americans United for Separation of Church and State
  • Hundreds of Texas scientists making up the '21st Century Science Coalition'
  • TalkOrigins Archive -- the other of the described two best resources online
  • San Antonio Express-News

• Moderate prominence
  • Wesley R. Elsberry
  • Nick Matzke
  • Texas Freedom Network

• Least prominent:
  • Ken Mercer -- undergraduate degree in biology, but thereafter specialised in Business, Texas SBOE member
  • SABBSA -- very obscure creationist organisation (almost all web-hits are to science community blogs mocking their op-ed)

As I have said before, more weight to the proponent side requires more prominent (of which credibility is a component) proponent sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes (continued)

I'm sticking this in a separate section only because I want to address both of your (Hrafn's) recent comments, and don't want to split my response across the two sections.

I appreciate your taking the time to address my concerns. I like the language you've proposed in your points #8 and #9, for the heading and introduction to the comparison table; I'll edit the article to use that language unless you or another editor does so first. I agree with your concerns about wordiness, but I think the avoidance of "alleged" makes it a worthwhile change.

I also appreciate your concerns about WP:DUE, and agree that the two pro-creationism sources currently in the article are at the lower end of the prominence scale, and are, in fact, less prominent sources than the pro-evolution sources that I'm suggesting be removed. My concern here, however, is that there are other considerations that have be balanced against WP:DUE. Specifically, I'm bothered by the sense I get that the article is falling short of the larger spirit of WP:NPOV (of which WP:DUE is just one component).

Here are the specific parts of WP:NPOV that are troubling me:

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints... Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

By my count, the article currently contains 20 references, 2 "further reading" links, and 2 "external links", for a total of 24 outside sources. Of those, 1 is the archived audio of the Texas SBOE meetings, which I'm assuming can be counted as neutral. Of the remainder, it looks like there are 3 sources sympathetic to creationism, and 20 sources critical of creationism. (Admittedly, a few of the sources I'm counting as critical of creationism are actually straight news stories, rather than editorials or opinion pieces. But I think a creationist, at least, would probably view those sources as hostile.)

Please note: I'm not saying that this ratio is the result of biased selection. I believe the article's editors, including yourself, have made a good-faith effort to locate more and better sources for the creationist side of the controversy, and that this is simply the best you've been able to come up with. I think it probably is an accurate reflection of the proportion and prominence of the sources available, and it isn't lost on me what that says about the relative strength of the arguments being offered by the two sides in the controversy. With that said, I'm concerned about the cumulative effect of so many sources taking one side. I worry that at a certain point, the proportion of sources starts to undercut the article's ability to live up to the spirit of the WP:NPOV passages I quoted above. Especially given that the subject of the article is this controversy itself (rather than, say, a more general discussion of evolution vs. creationism in science education), the imbalance in the sources concerns me.

What I've proposed is that 4 of the critical sources, the ones that seemed the weakest to me (of the critical sources) be removed, while 1 source sympathetic to the creationist position be added. At that point, the article would still have a 16:4 (4:1) ratio of anti-creationist to pro-creationist sources, which seems to me like an acceptable balance in terms of avoiding undue weight on the creationist side.

On the question of the article's lead, I think I'm fine with the idea of organizing it from general to specific, as you suggest, but I'm still bothered by the inclusion of the extended quote from the National Center for Science Education. I agree with you that it's a good quote in terms of identifying the larger context of the "strengths and weaknesses" language campaign, but I'm concerned about the following issue raised by WP:NPOV:

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

The inclusion of the extended quotation makes the lead somewhat long for an article of this size, at least according to WP:LEAD. Also, the use of the cquote formatting gives the statement extra prominence in the lead, in a way that (again) concerns me from an WP:NPOV standpoint, and also looks kind of awkward to me.

I think your proposed language for the lead ( "overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific and science education communities, as well as many outside observers") would be an improvement, and I'll grant you that it's supported by the citations in the article. At the same time, I'm given pause by the following from WP:NPOV:

A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.

Would you be willing to give up the "as well as many outside observers" part? I think I'd be pretty happy with the sentence you've proposed if it were taken out.

Again, thanks for all the time and energy you've put into the article. -- John Callender (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

---

• Firstly, I think we need to differentiate between citations for opinions versus citations for factual matters (including for what statements have been made by third parties). WP:DUE applies only to opinions, not to facts. Additionally, many of the more minor sources are cited for these facts, so removal of them will reduce the coherence of the article.
• Secondly, a large number of the citations were necessitated by John's edit which raised the question of the breadth of the opposition. These citations merely collectively verify a fairly short statement on this breadth, and cannot be considered as being given undue weight.
• Yes, I would object to removing "as well as many outside observers". Without it, the issue has somewhat of the appearance of a 'he said she said'. Further, the "outside observers" are both numerous and prominent. Finally, I have seen no evidence of outside observers of any prominence giving any contrary opinion. As I said above, the reality is that the language is (or is very close to being) "overwhelmingly rejected by everybody who knows what they're talking about" -- the purpose of the sentence should be to reflect this reality as fully as is verifiable and without clumsy digression. The article should document the extent of the opposition, to the extent that it is verifiable. Failure to give notice to prominent outsider observers would appear to render the article both inaccurate and biased.

I would conclude by saying that John's advocacy on these last two points tend to undercut each other -- that simultaneously asking that the breadth of opposition be minimised and that the number of citations (which, in part, verify this breadth) be reduced is not tenable under WP:DUE or WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum:

• What "4 of the critical sources" were you intending removing? What material is cited to them? Can they be removed without damaging the accuracy and coherence of the article?
• What "1 source sympathetic to the creationist position" were you intending adding? Does it meet the minimum quality requirements of WP:RS & WP:SELFPUB? What pertinent material would it add to the article?

I remain highly skeptical about a generic, numbers-based removal or addition of citations, without analysis of the prominence, reliability and information-value of them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if the SABBSA's Statement of Faith was the "1 source sympathetic to the creationist position" that you were talking about, I would object strongly as:

1. WP:SELFPUB applies, and I don't think this passes it on a number of criteria.
2. The material that you cited to it above is not verified by it.
3. SABBSA is a very obscure organisation -- I would not have cited them at all if it weren't for the fact that their op-ed was one of the few sources offering specific weaknesses. WP:UNDUE means that they shouldn't be given any prominence beyond that which is purely incidental to providing a coherent and verifiable exposition of the topic.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

John, I think you've not quite gathered the full implications of WP:WEIGHT, which gives weight proportionate to expert opinion, and provisions of WP:NPOV/FAQ including Pseudoscience, Giving "equal validity" and Making necessary assumptions. The neutral point of view is not one that presents fringe views, particularly pseudoscience, as equivalent to the views of overwhelming majority of scientists, in other words the scientific consensus. Hrafn, I'm not a fan of putting quotations in the lead section, perhaps the quote could be summarised and attributed to "educators", with the full quote being moved to the body of the article. Regarding Texas, both the relevant section and the lead should mention recent developments, though obviously the decision is awaited. . dave souza, talk 17:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I've heard, the Texas SBOE are in a habit of overriding their 'drafters' (they apparently did this with the recent English curriculum), so I don't intend updating until a final decision is out. I don't share your dislike of quotations-in-the-lead, but will look at the possibility of a paraphrase. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. Agreed that the SBOE is prone to overriding the expert recommendations, and the source covers that point, but it is significant that they have a strong final draft that they must override if they are to provide a loophole for creationism. Doubtless the courts will find it notable if it does come to a case. Anyway, bit tied up myself, and guess we'll know in a couple of weeks. . dave souza, talk 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not suggesting that the creationist viewpoint be presented as equivalent. I don't think the current version of the article is in any danger of doing that, and would still be on solid ground with respect to WP:WEIGHT even if all the changes I proposed were made. It does seem to me, though, that the article's lead could do better in terms of living up to the spirit of those parts of WP:NPOV that I quoted above.

Putting myself in the hypothetical position of a supporter of the "strengths and weaknesses" language, I don't think I'd be satisfied that the current lead confines itself to a neutral presentation of undisputed facts about the controversy. It gives me the impression that it is promoting a particular opinion (that the "strengths and weaknesses" phrasing is, in fact, disingenuous code language), rather than letting the reader arrive at that conclusion for his or herself. I think moving the quotation from the National Center for Science Education out of the lead would help address that.

I understand the concerns with removing relevant sources, and would be willing to set aside for now my suggestion that some of the anti-creationist sources be removed. (The ones I'd suggested were the blog entries by Sandhya Bathija and by the Louisiana Coalition for Science, the op-ed piece from the Houston Chronicle by Lisa Falkenberg, and the editorial from the New York Times.) I'll make another stab at finding and adding some better sources for the creationist position; I think that's probably a better way for me to address my concerns about the current mix of sources, assuming I can actually find any, which I'm not particularly confident I'll be able to do. But I guess it's worth a try.

As I said before, I think the article has improved a lot. I just think it could be better. -- John Callender (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I think you're misapplying WP:LEAD when you suggest that it should "confine[] itself to a neutral presentation of undisputed facts about the controversy". (i) If we did as you suggest, there'd be nothing left of the lead, given that one side disputes the existence of the weaknesses, and the other side disputes the scientific consensus. (ii) It would appear to violate WP:DUE by failing to give the majority view "prominence of placement".
2. I would be against the curtailment of documentation of the level of opposition to the language -- given that you have made the level of this support a continuing issue, and particularly would question how a NYT editorial, and a piece by a key expert witness in KvD, isn't 'prominent'. One compromise I would consider would be consolidating these citations into a single reference.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, on your first point, it's certainly possible I have a mistaken idea of the policy, or expressed myself badly. On the second point, on further reflection I think I agree with your position. I was actually kind of ambivalent about talking out the NYT editorial from the beginning, since I think it's important. I was just struggling with the desire to cut down the imbalance in the number of references on either side of the he said/she said part of the lead. I think the approach in your latest batch of edits, where you consolidated several links into a single reference, is a nice solution.

I generally really like the latest edits. I think they go a long way toward addressing the issues that were bothering me. Thanks. -- John Callender (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias in lead?

After giving it a few days, and coming back and reading the article again, I'm still having trouble reconciling some of the language in the lead with WP:NPOV. Of greatest concern to me are the following issues:

• Normative attributions - Those proposing the phrase purport, while the scientific community rejects, and views the examples that have been given as being without merit. This has led many critics, experts and observers to conclude... The overall effect of these choices is to convey an editorial judgment favoring the anti-creationist point of view. I think I'd prefer a more neutral verb (such as "says") in all cases to avoid creating the impression that the lead is taking sides. See "Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances" in WP:NPOVT. Also, the term "creationist code-language" seems problematic to me, since I worry that it inherits a strongly negative connotation from its use as "racist code-language" in debates over racisim. Do all three groups cited ("many critics, experts and observers") use that specific "creationist code-language" phrase? If not, it may be problematic to attribute it to them.

• Inauthentic creationist voice - The one statement in the lead representing the creationist viewpoint currently reads, "Those proposing the phrase purport that there are weaknesses in the modern evolutionary synthesis that should be taught for a balanced treatment of that subject." I'm concerned that that might be framing the creationist position in terms that they themselves would not use. At least in the creationist references given so far, I haven't seen that particular language (though maybe I overlooked it). That was why I substituted the following language in my proposed rewrite of the lead: "Those who support retaining the phrase say that there is scientific evidence that supports Biblical explanations of creation and undermines the theory of evolution, and that students should be exposed to that information in order to give them a balanced treatment of the subject." There may well be other problems raised by my proposed language, but I'm having difficulty reconciling the current language with WP:NPOV, in terms of the admonition to "write for the enemy" in a neutral manner.

• Undue anti-creationist weight - To ruthlessly (and perhaps not very fairly) summarize the current lead, it reads something like this: "A controversy over X exists. Those on side A are described by side B as claiming Y. Those on side B reject Y, and finds A's arguments in favor of Y to be specious. This has led many critics, experts and observers to conclude that Y is actually a dishonest attempt to achieve Z. According to one prominent source on side B, Y is just the latest in a series of discredited attempts to achieve Z. In late 2008, C held hearings on X." With the exception of the first and last sentences, which are neutral, the entire lead appears to be written from side B's point of view. Side A's point of view is almost entirely absent. I'm having difficulty reconciling that with what WP:NPOV says about adopting a neutral editorial tone.

To save time, let me stipulate that the sources on the anti-creationist side are both more numerous and more notable, and that both the article and the lead should reflect that, as required by WP:WEIGHT. My concern, though, is that the current version of the lead goes too far in that direction, to an extent that overlooks competing obligations under WP:NPOV. --John Callender (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1. One editor's "Normative attributions" is another editor's acknowledgement of the relative WP:WEIGHTs of opinion and avoiding Giving "equal validity" to a viewpoint lacking any scientific credibility.
2. My original had the link as 'Theory of Evolution' (which redirects to Evolution). How would 'Theory of Evolution' piped to modern evolutionary synthesis be a better solution?
3. This is getting to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Find some weighty creationist viewpoints (to the extent that this isn't an oxymoron) and we'll give them WP:DUE weight. Until then, this line of argument simply amounts to trying to get us to give the creationists 'nicer' treatment than the sources merit. The current lead goes no "further in that direction" than the current weight of sources merits. I would further suggest that even if weightier sources were to be found, they'd most likely avoid stating anything substantive -- the major creationist players know better than to let themselves be nailed down on specific 'weaknesses', which gives the scientific side something specific to rebut.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking your points in order:

1. As I've said already, I'm not calling for the creationist position to be given equal validity, or anything approaching it. The avoidance of normative attributions is a well-established policy when editing articles on controversial subjects, and the examples I cited from the current lead seem like pretty clear examples. Are you saying that it is not possible to replace those with neutral attributions without violating WP:WEIGHT?
2. Yes, I think that would help. Thanks. Oops. I missed the "How" at the beginning of your point. It would help in that it would come closer to being a statement of the creationist position as creationists have expressed it, rather than being a restatement of the creationist position in the other side's language.
3. It's not my intention to be disruptive. To the extent I've acted inappropriately, please accept my apology. If you would be willing to tell me more specifically how I've approached a violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'll try to avoid behaving that way in the future. I'm not seeking "nicer" treatment for creationists, except to the extent that they represent one side in a controversy, and given that, WP:NPOV requires that an article on that controversy neither endorse nor reject their point of view, but merely present it in an impartial tone.

On what I take to be your larger point, I think I basically agree: I should try to dig up some more or better sources representing the creationist viewpoint, after which we can talk about how or whether they should be represented in the article. I don't think it's reasonable, though, to require that a source for the creationist position, as referenced in this article, satisfy a scientific standard of substance or specificity. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed science journal, and this article is not about evolution per se. It is about this particular controversy. A statement on the controversy by the Discovery Institute (say), or a member of the Texas SBOE who is not a professional scientist, would seem to me to clearly satisfy WP:WEIGHT for the purposes of this article, regardless of whether the statement satisfies a scientific standard of weightiness, or would qualify for inclusion under WP:WEIGHT in an article on evolution.

This article can (and should) present such statements in a manner that allows a reader to evaluate the authority of the speaker and the strength of the argument being made. But to decide on the reader's behalf before the fact that all such statements fail a weightiness test in comparison with the sources on the other side of the controversy, and therefore to exclude those positions from the article altogether (or present them only as framed by the opposing viewpoint's non-neutral language), fails WP:NPOV. And it hurts the article: How can the article present a neutral account of the controversy if if completely excludes one side?

That seems obvious to me. What am I missing? -- John Callender (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

1. What verb would you suggest as an alternative to "purport" for the unsubstantiated claims of unqualified individuals which is contradicted by a mountain of facts and expert opinion, that does not sacrifice accuracy for a false impression of neutrality? The "normative attribution" for this would have been "lie". "Purport" would seem to be a kindness.
2. The only concrete proposal you have given (datestamped 08:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC) above), gave equal space to the creationists, omitted the central scientific contention that a scientific theory must be without weaknesses to have been accepted as such, and failed to describe the extent of opposition (and thus gave the false impression of equivalence between the two sides). Your latter request that we omit the "many outside observers" again sought to make the article less accurate by lowballing the opposition.

If you can suggest an alternate articulation that gives WP:DUE weight to all the WP:V information cited in the article, or can find WP:RSes establishing a case for greater weight to the Creationist side, then I'm happy to consider it. I am not however willing to argue this around and around. No more argumentum ad nauseam please. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestones & Texas Freedom Network

This article has been up for something like six weeks, and has grown to twice its original size. The topic has been the subject of four NYT articles (including two editorials).

One thing that I have noticed while covering this topic is that Texas Citizens for Science seems to have been eclipsed by the Texas Freedom Network (who seem to pop up in most news coverage of this topic). It might be an idea to think about starting an article on the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious tagging

Contrary to Sixtrojans' tagging, we have:

• A vast list of scientific rejections of creationist anti-evolution arguments generally (e.g. see List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design‎) and specifically (e.g. see Objections to evolution) without significant dissent. It is therefore reasonable to state that "scientific community rejects that any substantive weaknesses exist, and further views the examples that have been given in support of the phrasing as being without merit and long refuted."
• Press coverage of the "weaknesses" has been almost totally negative, so it is WP:DUE weight to give expression to that coverage. In any case "critics, experts and observers" is supported by the long list of sources this statement is cited to. I could add more, and/or return to having the full number of them showing up inline (as individual citations) if Sixtrojans wants.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A meta-observation

I don't want to re-open the discussion of the issues I previously brought up here. But having followed the edits on this page over the last few months, I want to make an observation/suggestion. Hrafn, I think this article would benefit from your being more inclusive of other editors' contributions. You are very quick to revert any change that departs from your preferred version of the article. For myself, I found it difficult to work toward consensus here, in part because of your resistance to considering other viewpoints, and your tendency to drag all discussion in the direction of a debate about the underlying controversy.

I realize you feel strongly about this subject and know a lot about it, but Wikipedia works best when it reflects a consensus of many contributors' visions, rather than the vision of a single editor. In your zeal to make this article reflect your own ideas, you are fostering an environment that discourages contributions from others. Why don't you try easing up a bit, and see what comes of it? Yes, the article won't be exactly the article you would have written. But that could be a good thing, and over time I think it certainly will be, if it helps build a community of editors who care about the article and are willing to contribute to its improvement. -- John Callender (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

John, I am perfectly happy to accept "contributions" where they reflect (and give WP:DUE weight to) the reliable sources available on this topic. To the best of my knowledge, none of my reverts have contradicted either these sources or any consensus on talk. I would further note that our above discussions left the ball in your court to find prominent creationist sources on this topic that should be given due weight -- something that you have completely failed to follow up on (possibly because such sources don't in fact exist). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you should consider the possibility that you're giving undue weight to the question of undue weight. Yes, I indicated a willingness to look for some more sources, and failed to follow up on that, but besides the paucity of weighty creationist sources, a contributing factor could be that I just got tired of dealing with the issue described above. WP:DUE is just one of several key Wikipedia policies that need to be balanced against each other. Among other key policies are those summarized at WP:5 and WP:TRI. You've clearly got the WP:DUE part down. I'm suggesting that over the long term, the article would benefit from your giving additional consideration to some of the others. -- John Callender (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As always, see WP:BRD, WP:TALK, WP:V, WP:NOR and of course WP:NPOV which includes WP:DUE and WP:PSCI. WP:RS's welcome. . . dave souza, talk 07:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I should rather be considering the possibility that your vague references to omnibus policy groupings means that you have no particular policy basis for your views. If you are tired of hearing about WP:DUE, then how about WP:NOTCENSORED? You have been demanding that (i) we should water down statements as to the pervasiveness of criticism of S&W, and then (ii) that we prune the citations that demonstrate this pervasiveness. Such demands have no basis in WP:5, WP:TRI or any other policy. In conclusion I will state that no, I will not give "consideration" to suggestions that have neither basis in policies nor sources -- any more than I would give consideration to suggestions made on the basis of the existence of Russell's teapot or the Invisible pink unicorn. As far as I know, there is no policy that states that I should give consideration to such baseless suggestions. To loosely paraphrase an old legal aphorism: 'if the sources are on your side, pound the sources; if the policy is on your side, pound the policy; if neither are on your side, then don't expect wikipedia editors to give your pounding of the table any consideration.' Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, I would note that the suggestion that you "look for some more sources" was first made fairly early on in the piece (in #Proposed changes above), long before any 'tiredness' appeared to set in on your part. It would seem that you had far more endurance for arguing around and around in circles without basis in sources or policies than you did for finding sources to support your position. I would suggest that it is counterproductive, both for myself and for wikipedia, to give "additional consideration" to such a lopsided strategy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages covers this admirably. I'd highlight "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. ... Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material... Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it." . dave souza, talk 10:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First law comment

Since this article focuses on the relationship between religion and biological evolution, I've rewritten the section responding to the odd idea that evolution violates the requirement that energy be neither created nor destroyed in reference to biology rather than cosmology. However, since I find it very hard to grasp how on earth this argument could be made in any way that would not also argue against the day-to-day existence of life itself, I may not have summarized the source I found in a way that directly answers this "objection". Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I must have been asleep when reading the original stuff about gravitational fields. Clearly (and as magnificently detailed in the reference) it's the Sun that is to blame for providing the energy required for Life on Earth, although I suppose the original text might have been trying to extend the explanation even further into history. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent indeed. I was never happy with the original rebuttal, and only included it as the only WP:V one I could find. The new one is far more relevant & robust. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I stumble on reading a phrase in the lead (problem is in italics): "The scientific community rejects that any substantive weaknesses exist in this scientific theory, or in the evidence that it explains, and views the examples that have been given in support of the phrasing as being without merit and long refuted." Normally people talk about evidence supporting a theory, but this is the other way around. I know that the wording above is correct in that the theory provides an underlying cause for a bunch of observations, but I still stumble on reading it. Since this article is not intended for specialists, I'm wondering if the sentence can be reworked. I'm inclined to just go with common usage: or in its supporting evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "the data that it explains"? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

The phrase "strengths and weaknesses", by definition, does not apply exclusively to the Evolution debate. Therefore, I am changing the redirect.--Trelawnie (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect is inappropriate, but what would you change the redirect to, that would be less inappropriate? I suspect that deletion of the redirect may be appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted the redirect. In its place, I started a stub topic Strengths and weaknesses, see also Talk:Strengths_and_weaknesses. --Trelawnie (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Texas SBOE current curriculum

The 2010/2011 Texas SBOE curriculum includes strengths and weakness requirements.

Chapter 112. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science Subchapter C. High School

§112.34. Biology, Beginning with School Year 2010-2011 (One Credit).

(7) Science concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The student is expected to:

(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;

(B) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;

(C) analyze and evaluate how natural selection produces change in populations, not individuals;

(D) analyze and evaluate how the elements of natural selection, including inherited variation, the potential of a population to produce more offspring than can survive, and a finite supply of environmental resources, result in differential reproductive success;

(E) analyze and evaluate the relationship of natural selection to adaptation and to the development of diversity in and among species;

(F) analyze and evaluate the effects of other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and recombination; and

(G) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.

The article gives (me) the impression that there is still some debate going on. Should the article be updated to reflect this ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

These requirements appear to reflect the status quo as at "In January 2009..." -- no explicit "strengths and weaknesses", but "sudden appearance, stasis" = "teach about aspects of the fossil record that do not neatly fit with gradualism". Lacking a WP:SECONDARY source stating that things have changed, I see no reason to alter the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I had a version of the 2009 TEKS that was issued before they put strengths and weaknesses back in. Finding information on SBOE's website can be a nightmare. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds rather like a Beware of the Leopard kind of thing. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL. If I make it to the next round of public hearings I might just read that aloud. I've noticed Wikipedia does not have a separate TSBOE entry. Given its stature in the "culture wars" and US public education in general, would a separate entry be appropriate/valuable? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so. Not only would it bring together all the material on it that is currently only covered piecemeal in other articles, but (because of its prominent anti-intellectual tendencies) its elections (and appointment of its chairmen) have received considerable non-local coverage which probably isn't currently covered elsewhere. Even with a very superficial search for sources, it would easily pass WP:ORG (you'd be more likely to have trouble trimming for interestingness than finding material to fill out the article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor editorial point

Discovery Institute is not a state, obviously, so the organization of the "history" section looks weird to me. We should probably either change this to a state-by-state history and move the Discovery Institute bit elsewhere, or turn this into a chronology. I'm about to give a speech to a couple thousand Texas school board members :-), so I don't have time to make the change just the moment myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Strengths and weaknesses of evolution/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'm trying to figure out how to delete this useless page. Any help? Farsight001 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)