Talk:Michael Behe

Undue weight to a fringe view

Can you elaborate on the undue weight that was contained in the short book summary, and how it detracted from the mainstream context?

Can you elaborate on how moving the discussions of falsifiable and the identity of the intelligent designer into their own sections and out of the Darwin's Black Box section affects undue weight or the mainstream context?--Swood100 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to your repeated attempts to add this mass of blockquotes and commentary by the subject of this article[1] into the article, adding about 1/3 by text volume to his exceedingly fringe view, without context or balance? Sometimes including actually removing the mainstream criticism of that view[2] as well? Is that your query? Or did you mean something else? Please be specific with your questions, or people cannot answer them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If this were an article on a mainstream subject, then a fringe view would be allowed little or no space. In an article by a person who holds a fringe view, however, the fringe view has to be reported. That’s what the article is about. When there is a difference between the majority view and the fringe view the article must make it clear which is the majority view.

If it is reported that the subject of an article has been accused of engaging in an Argument from Ignorance and he disputes that, then there are three ways to handle it (a) report the accusation but not the denial, (b) report the accusation and just say “The subject denies this.” (c) report the accusation and report the subject’s reasoning as to why he is denying the accusation.

I am following the third approach: explaining the subject’s reasoning. I have tried to trim the response down as much as I can, but there is a limit to this. I certainly think it’s appropriate to report a rejoinder after the response, if one exists, as I included in the “unfalsifiable” portion. I am not attempting to report only one side of the issue. If you think that I am guilty of this, please point it out. But if it takes a few extra paragraphs for Behe’s response to be presented in a coherent fashion, then I don’t see why that should not be done. This is an article about him, after all.--Swood100 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You said that I removed the "mainstream criticism of that view" but in the link you provided, not one word was removed, although the diff may make it look that way. I only inserted a short book summary. Please point out one word that was removed.--Swood100 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific objections, please state them.--Swood100 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just wait, and not assume that because I haven't included a certain rejoinder critical of Behe that I'm not going to. The judge in the Kitzmiller decision had some things to say on this question that were not at all favorable to Behe.--Swood100 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the added material has a whiff of WP:SYNTH about it and, anyway, appears largely irrelevant. The detail of Behe's claims and counter-claims illuminates very little, and the quality of the article is degraded (IMHO) by the inclusion of such minutia. If any material elsewhere describes the (excruciating) detail of this ding-dong between Behe and others (e.g. who used which particular word and when), then we should use this as a source rather than an excuse to shoehorn in such a level of detail. I think that it really unbalances the article, and for no real gain. Just my two cents. --PLUMBAGO 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Two accusations are made against Behe:

1. Doolittle's study refuted Behe's prediction about the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade.
2. After Doolittle's study came out Behe was guilty of intellectual dishonesty by trying to retroactivly change his definition of the system that was irreducibly complex.

What I have tried to do is give the reader the relevant facts related to this, as well as the arguments on both sides. This will help anyone who is trying to get to the bottom of these particular accusations to decide the question for himself. Previously, we just said that Doolittle's study refuted Behe. That might be sufficient for someone who is looking for a cursory treatment of the issue, but would not be for someone who wants the issue presented in greater depth. Perhaps we should split the article into an overview at the beginning, and then have a series of sections later on for those who want more information on a particular issue. But for those who come to Wikipedia trying to research the question of intellectual dishonesty or whether Behe has been refuted, I don't see how we get around the need for this level of detail.

Could you elaborate on the whiff of WP:SYNTH you detect here?--Swood100 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. What I meant about WP:SYNTH was that the section currently reads like sources have been collected and presented here in a novel synthesis. That is, the resulting back-and-forth storyline presented in the article does not occur in any one source (i.e. it is synthesised). This does not mean that it is incorrect, but it does (IIRC) violate WP:SYNTH. My follow-up point is that, should this material not be a synthesis and actually occur in an external source, then we should cite that source and trim this unnecessary material. It is far, far too detailed, and seriously unbalances this article. Not only that, by just (metaphorically) giving him more rope, I'm not sure that the material really does Behe any favours, so could be viewed as objectionable under WP:BLP. Anyway, those were just the thoughts that I had. --PLUMBAGO 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to take an example, "The final paragraph above shows the animosity that exists between Behe and Miller, possibly in part because of Miller’s testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial" is pure synthesis, taking two primary sources and drawing a novel conclusion without any secondary source. Similarly, the preceding long and incoherent statement culminating in a demand for a charitable reading of his wording is presented without a secondary source on its notability or interpretation. By bending over backwards to give an uncritical repetition of Behe's argument the article becomes TLDR and gives undue weight to Behe's promotion of pseudoscience. Needs better sourcing, and cleaning up. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that this is a little ungainly. I can clean it up. Questions:

1. The sentence beginning “The final paragraph…” was intended merely as a segue into the events at the trial. I thought that it just stated the obvious. What do you mean by “pure synthesis”? It is clear from what Behe wrote (“breathlessly reports,” “seems to have passed Miller by,” “malicious reading”) that Behe has no fond feelings for Miller. And it is clear that Miller’s testimony led to the judge saying that Behe took action “to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument.” What kind of source is required here?
2. I will summarize the long statement. However, this statement is not presented in order to establish the truth of the contents of the statement. It is presented simply to show Behe’s response to the accusation. Behe’s response was “On page 86 I specified limitations on my definition of the system that is irreducibly complex and I meant those limitations to also be in force when I discussed the same system on page 87, even though my use of the word “entire” might seem to negate that.” The reason I quoted the relevant material from pages 86 and 87 was so that the reader could evaluate this question for himself. I don’t see how a secondary source on the “notability or interpretation” of this claim is needed, or even what kind of a statement that would be. We clearly have both Miller and the Judge saying that the claim is not credible. It is nevertheless Behe’s statement of what he intended and he still gets to make it, even if he is the only one in the world who believes it. Not true?--Swood100 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you read Behe's abrasive response as suggesting "Behe has no fond feelings for Miller" doesn't mean that someone else might read it as normal banter – got a source sharing your view? And that says nothing about Miller's views, let alone support the idea that he has "animosity" for Behe. We cite Miller and the Judge, if need be we can go further and show that only a tiny fringe of expert biologists, if any, believe Behe's claim. You're giving a big lump of incoherent text to give undue weight to that fringe view. Wikipedia is about reflecting scholarly secondary sources, not about giving a right of reply to cranks. . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I need to rewrite this. It needs to be made clear that the issue here is not whether the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex but rather what Behe intended to include in his definition of the blood clotting cascade. Under one definition Doolittle showed it not to be irreducibly complex. Under a different definition Doolittle's study did not address the question that Behe raised. I'll take a shot at it.

Also, WP:SYNTH apparently refers to reaching or implying a conclusion. If the comment about animosity between Behe and Miller is troubling to some I will take it out. It certainly doesn't add anything. As for the rest, I was trying to be scrupulous to avoid reaching any conclusions but I'll have another look at it. Maybe some slipped in.--Swood100 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blood clotting cascade

I received the following message:

Please do not edit an article to promote an individual's point of view, as you did to Michael Behe. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:57, 9 January 2010

Could the author please explain how my addition promoted an individual's point of view? Miller claimed that Doolittle's study had defeated Behe. Behe replied that this was based on a misreading of what he had said in Darwin's Black Box. I tried to show that the controversy revolved around the proper construction of a certain sentence that Behe had written, and then I quoted Behe as to what he had meant and why it should be construed in a certain way.

What part of this is objectionable?--Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see also that Behe's response to the charge that his theory amounts to an Argument from Ignorance has been removed by the same person. Is Behe not permitted to respond to this charge? Please explain.--Swood100 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

see above. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Someone just reverted my edits, saying that there are "Serious NPOV problems with recent changes." Could that person point out the NPOV problems?--Swood100 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit war to force your changes in. We don't work that way here. It is up to you to gain consensus for your major changes instead of just forcing them through wholesale. So far, I see no one agreeing with the bloat you are adding to the article. This isn't a detailed debate. It's a biography, and I think you are missing the point. Auntie E. (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

After my edits were reverted I left the changes in place, created this section, and invited the person to explain the problems he or she found. The next day, when there had been no response, I concluded that the person had no problems to report and I undid his or her revert. If someone takes issue with something I have added, please bring it up and we'll discuss it. Please be specific.--Swood100 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry, I dropped the ball here. A cursory glance at the current article reveals most of the same flaws as before. Leaving aside WP:SYNTH, I still don't understand why this material is not over at the article on Behe's book. It does not need to be here, and seriously bloats and unbalances this article. I'll try to pop back later. --PLUMBAGO 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like this article is trying to cover some of the major points about Behe and touch on some of the major controversies. Let's take the part about Doolittle and the blood cascade. Presumably that could all be covered in the article dealing with Darwin's Black Box, but most everything else could also be covered in a different article. I simply added his response, which required a little more detail about the controversy. I think that we have to accept that if there's going to be both an article about Behe and one about the book, then there is going to be some overlap. Could you be more specific about what you mean by bloat and WP:SYNTH and unbalance?--Swood100 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By "unbalance" I mean that this one section of the article is wildly out of proportion to the rest of the article. By "bloat" I mean that the material included is largely only tangentially relevant for this article. It may make more sense over at the Darwin's Black Box article, but even there it may seriously bloat the article. It's also absurd that the subsection on one of Behe's book's is inflated by the inclusion of extensive quotation from another of his books. Furthermore, while I remain suspicious that the added material could be judged a novel synthesis of external sources, I'm now more of the opinion that the larger problem is just the inclusion of so much stuff. I'm also not sure that all of the material used could be judged reliable, at least for the purpose here of extensive quotation. For instance, the various claims and counter-claims deal ostensibly with scientific matters, but are often drawn from non-scientific sources (by which I include DI webpages). If the arguments they make are so valuable, they should appear in scientific literature. This again points, not to removing them, but to trimming mention to a summary statement and a link instead of extensive quotation.

Anyway, I've tagged up the section as being too long, and I intend to trim it when I've time. If you think the material is worth salvaging (and I'm sure you do), I'd suggest trying to summarise it here in this article but primarily integrating it with the main article on Behe's book. It really would make much more sense over there. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it might make sense to divide this article up into various conceptual categories rather than into books. I started to break these categories out and another person objected, saying that he thought it should all stay under the book heading. Much of the material I added was simply Behe’s response to accusations made at the beginning of the section. Perhaps we should break these accusations out into separate sections. Then readers who are only interested in one controversy will be able to find it easily. What is your idea of the proper content of an article such as this?

Clearly, if a response to an accusation is available it needs to be supplied, and when we move from direct quotations to paraphrasing we lose something. This has to be weighed against the benefit to be gained by reducing the size of the article. To eviscerate a response in order to cut it down from two paragraphs to one only makes sense if evisceration is the objective.

1. The term “bloat” implies that the information value of the material does not justify its length, or, as you said, that it is irrelevant to an article such as this. Can you refer me to an example of that?
2. Can you give an example of the material that might not be judged reliable?
3. You said “. . . various claims and counter-claims deal ostensibly with scientific matters, but are often drawn from non-scientific sources. . .” I assume you are talking about the blood cascade issue, but the controversy there is whether or not Behe included the factors "before the fork in the pathway" in his definition of the system that was irreducibly complex. It can only be answered by looking at what Behe wrote. I don't really understand the point you are making here.--Swood100 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

1. If you don't understand that part of the job of an encyclopaedia is to summarise and distil material material down to something of a readable length, then I'm afraid I can't help you with your first point. You have added a huge amount of material to a single section of the article, a single section, I should add, that already has an article elsewhere. This material would largely fit much better there: why exactly is it here?
2. My point about the reliability of sources is not that they are a priori unreliable, but just that their nature (i.e. outside the scientific literature) makes them odd choice for commentary on ostensibly scientific matters (I say "ostensibly" since Behe's work has diverged from science to say the least). If they were making good scientific points, they would appear in the literature. That they don't (and I include both pro- and anti-Behe viewpoints here), tells us that we're on political ground. That said, I've no objection to including the sources here, but we don't need to so relentlessly bore the reader with endless detail that they could look up themselves by following a link. In passing, one of the sources is actually Behe's Amazon blog - is this likely to be judged a reliable source? Meanwhile, as I've noted before, another long block of quotation in support of this book is from another of his books.
3. Quoting Behe's response concerning clotting factors is giving undue weight to his views. The previous version of the article (which I note has now been trimmed somewhat by a third party) essentially finished up with remarks from Behe which might lead the reader to conclude, erroneously, that his viewpoint was the last word in this discussion. As it happens, it may well have been the last word in this discussion because the other participants got fed up with goalpost-shifting and tendentious points about particular wordings. That Behe does not publish these ideas in the scientific literature should tell one something about their reliability and whether using them would constitute undue weight.

Anyhow, I'll try to get around to looking at the newly trimmed version of the article. --PLUMBAGO 10:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no response to my request that the person doing that massive revert explain his reasons, I undid it. I have no problem with criticism. It's just that we need to go about this in a civilized way: by expressing and discussing specific problems that we see.

I also broke out the major controversies into their own categories.

I start from the proposition that any theory that is to be discussed in Wikipedia should be presented as its proponent would present it, and that it is not proper to present a weakened or diluted version of a theory in order to accomplish goals related to Fringe theories. Those goals must be accomplished through commentary, response and rebuttal in the same article. The reader is entitled to have the actual, original theory presented to him and often there is nobody better able to present it than the fringe scientist himself. If the words of the scientist are used to present the theory there must be no confusion that this is an exposition of the theory by the proponent, and that this is not an explanation of the generally accepted theory. If that is accomplished, then the theory should be presented.

Do you agree with the preceding paragraph?

In his Amazon blog, Behe is explaining that Miller is wrong because he was mistaken as to what Behe's theory was. This serves to explain and define his theory. There is nobody better able to do that than the man himself. And whether it comes from his blog or from a book that he wrote is irrelevant. Is Behe's blog a reliable source? If the question is "Is Behe's theory true?" then Behe's blog is not a reliable source. If the question is "What is Behe's theory?" then the blog is is definitely a reliable source, and that is what it is being used for here. Disagreement?

Can you give me an example of where I "relentlessly bore the reader with endless detail"?

In your third paragraph, I think you are missing the point. The issue here is this: "Did Behe exclude the factors "before the fork in the pathway" from his definition of the irreducibly complex system?" We are trying to determine from his own writing what he wrote and what he meant. How is it giving undue weight to present his own view on this? Certainly the result may be that we do not believe that he "meant" something that was not explicitly expressed. That was the conclusion drawn by both Miller and the judge. And how can it be concluded that his viewpoint was the last word in the discussion when the judge formally found that Miller's view was the correct one? That Behe did not publish this in a scientific article would be relevant to whether the blood clotting mechanism is irreducibly complex. It is not relevant to the determination of how he defined the system that he said was irreducibly complex. For that, we just look at what he wrote.

Was there a point you were making that I did not address?--Swood100 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A Simple Request

I have heard people assert that there are issues with the edits I have made. Each time, I have asked the person to please point out the specific text he or she is talking about and what the specific issue is, but nobody has done that. Then I get accused of being hard of hearing. Now somebody else has come along and done a major revert with no explanation.

To the people who have a problem with what I have added: how about some specifics? It is not enough just to throw out major categories such as WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. I have read those but I need you to tell me specifically, in English, (a) what text is objectionable, and (b) what is the specific objection. Otherwise, how can we even discuss it? One person says "This is WP:NPOV." The next person says "No it's not." That's not productive. You need to point out the exact text and explain why you think it falls under an objectionable category.

Now Simonm223 has come along and reverted everything to some arbitrary point. Please explain (and please don't just recite category names).--Swood100 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody here who is arguing that it is never permissible to use a fringe scientist's own words to explain what his theory is? And that it is never permissible to show such a scientist's response to the charges made against him? I hope that everyone realizes how absurd that is. No matter what the theory is, it should be presented as the proponent presents it. How else does the reader know what the position is? Then should follow appropriate response and rebuttal. Any other approach that I'm aware of has no justification.--Swood100 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things: 1) You have been trying to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK for a POV supporting the so-called Intelligent Design theory. The inclusion of extensive quotes from Behe, outlining his arguments is neither necessary to understand the subject of the article nor is it within the bounds of WP:DUE. Furthermore it violates WP:FRINGE by destroying parity of sources on an article related to a fringe topic (ID).

2) The burden falls on you to justify inclusion of new material. Not of me to justify reversion of your edits. The fact that multiple people have reverted your edits should indicate to you that consensus does not support the inclusion of that material. I do not intend to defend my reversions point by point. You should seek consensus over whether to include some of this contentious material. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if we understand each other correctly. When the subject of an article is a fringe scientist:

1. I say that it is appropriate to use the words of the fringe scientist to show what his theory is, and you say that this is not allowed because (a) using the words of the fringe scientist is not an appropriate way to understand his theory, (b) using the words of the fringe scientist to set out what his theory is constitutes making an argument on his behalf, and (c) that the harm caused by allowing such an argument to be made cannot be remedied by rebuttal in the article.
2. You say that it is not appropriate to use the words of a fringe scientist to describe his theory because that violates parity of sources.
3. You say that you carefully thought through all the material you removed and determined that it was, without exception, all objectionable.
4. You refuse to address any specific text and explain why it falls into an objectionable category.

You failed to address the WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK issues. Furthermore you entirely disregarded my second point. I've laid out the reason for my revert. I've laid out what you should do if you want some of that material included in the article. I will not play WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT games with somebody pushing for their POV. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how my additions violate WP:DUE. Here is what WP:DUE says:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader.

Please explain what makes this a WP:COATRACK issue:

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".

As far as justifying the inclusion of new material, I justify it this way:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. In addition, see the "Some General Rules" section for additional justifying reasons.--Swood100 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we have a fringe scientist who believes that Copernicus had it wrong and that in fact the Ptolemaic system is the one that is correct. He believes this is true because over time he can see the planets going around in circles in the sky. If this man has achieved sufficient notoriety to warrant his own article, you would argue that his descriptions of the Ptolemaic system, being the one that he asserts is the correct one, and statements of his planetary observations, may not be used in the article since (a) this violates parity of sources, (b) presenting his theory through the use of his own words would constitute the making of an argument on his behalf, and (c) there would be no way, then, that it would be possible to present modern experts who could demonstrate to the reader how far off-base this man is. You say that when a reader wants to understand a man's theory, hearing it expressed by the man himself does not tend to clarify exactly what the theory is. Rather, that is to be avoided in the case of a fringe theory because of the likelihood that no cogent arguments will be available to show the flaws in the fringe theory, and because consequently people will be led astray.

Please correct any point that I am not understanding correctly.--Swood100 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I repeat that the burden is upon you to justify the inclusion of new material and to gain consensus on the modificiations. It does not fall to me to justify my reversion. Seek consensus for your modifications if you wish to include them. Attempting to attack me for reverting you will not lead to that. I am personally opposed to including a list of Behe talking points as they strike me as a WP:COATRACK for his opinion. Your long string of blockquotes weakly framed as "debate" discussion is thus what I have issue with.Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, let's start with the Doolittle paragraph. You have it ending like this: "This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex." My additions show that this is a disputed point. I try to point out clearly that the dispute revolves around the pages in Darwin's Black Box where Behe says that the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex, meaning that if you remove one of the factors the system will no longer work. Doolittle found that the pufferfish was missing three of the factors and the system still worked. Miller said that his disproves Behe's prediction. Behe said that he had excluded those three factors from his definition of the irreducibly complex system, and so Doolittle's finding did not conflict with his prediction. The answer to the question revolves around how you interpret the simple English he used on pages 86 and 87 of his book. I maintain that since this is a disputed point, and since it can be explained in a brief space, it should be explained. And I believe that Behe's remark about the "principle of malicious reading" is relevant in that it shows his belief that a good-faith reading of what he wrote supports his position. I also included references showing the reader how to get to the relevant testimony of both Miller and Behe on this issue. These additions are more helpful to the reader than just declaring that one of the sides was correct.--Swood100 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Miller-Behe remarks being framed as a debate that can easily be remedied. I'll just give Miller's assertion and then Behe's response.--Swood100 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are having a problem with Behe's Argument From Ignorance response, the response could be paraphrased but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. All his points (or "talking points" as you put it) would still need to be included, because they constitute his answer to the charge. I have no objection to removing the blockquotes and displaying this all as one paragraph with regular quotes.--Swood100 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need to include a multitude of Behe quotes. I disagree with you on this. If you want to include it show that consensus supports your position. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you do not object to the undoing of your revert as long as we leave out Behe's current response to the charge that his theory amounts to an Argument From Ignorance and see if we can come up with a better one. However, you are not proposing that Behe's response to this charge could legitimately be excluded altogether. Is this correct?--Swood100 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is anybody else who has a problem with any of my edits, please let me know what text you are referring to and what the nature of the issue is.--Swood100 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The following statement was made above:

I am personally opposed to including a list of Behe talking points as they strike me as a WP:COATRACK for his opinion.

The critical thing that this person is failing to realize is that the only thing that this article is about is Behe's opinion and how it differs from mainstream scientific opinion. People come to this article because they want to know about Behe's opinion - i.e. his theory. I think that this is the essence of the problem that people have with my edits. They don't want Behe's opinion to be expressed. Is there anybody who has a problem with my edits for some other reason? The solution is not to muzzle Behe. The solution is in the rebuttal. If anyone is aware of any strong, succinct rebuttals that I have overlooked, please point them out to me. I will be happy to present them as powerfully as I can.--Swood100 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no further objections at this point, I will restore my edits, excluding the part about the Argument from Ignorance. I was never happy with that anyway because the quotations from Behe only made reference to chapters in his book where he says that he made arguments that were not merely negative. And the opposing quotations just spoke at a general level. And we need to also include the "God of the gaps" accusation (a form of Argument from Ignorance). We need to reference some specific arguments that Behe says turn his position into something other than an Argument from Ignorance. We also need specific rebuttals: why the particular arguments he is making fail to rescue his position from being an Argument from Ignorance and/or fail to be cogent arguments against the mainstream position. The web is a big place. If anybody knows of any good material on either side, and hasn't got the time right now to incorporate it into the article, just make a little note right here on this page, saying: "Check out this link" and I will either form it into a compact argument or I will tell you why I believe that there might be a better source for that particular point (or I will tell you that I haven't got any time right now to do any editing). The bottom line is this:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

Finally, fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

--Swood100 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not restore your edits until you have convinced us they are necessary. You have no consensus to do so. I see no one supporting you here. We told you we don't think they are necessary, and you haven't even told us why they are. We've told you repeatedly. This is not the page to debate Behe's ideas. Auntie E. (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You are treating this article as if it were an article on a general subject, such as Evolution, in which Behe's theory can be treated as a fringe theory and excluded or truncated because of due weight when compared with the major theories. However, this is an article about a person who is notable because of his fringe theory. Are you saying that in a biography of such a person an exposition of his theory can be excluded on the grounds that it is a fringe theory?

Here are the requirements of WP:NPOV:

1. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
2. A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. … Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: … Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

It is true that the only people who have spoken up so far are those who are trying to enforce their own negative point of view about Behe in this article. But an article cannot ignore the requirements of WP:NPOV, even by consensus.

I described earlier the reason for my changes related to the Doolittle issue. What do you find objectionable about that?--Swood100 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You said that this is not the page to debate Behe's ideas. Is this the page to describe Behe's ideas? If both sides are not going to be portrayed, should we remove all disparagement of Behe's ideas? What exactly belongs on this page?--Swood100 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This has entered far into WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT territory. That's a game I don't play. There is no consensus for your edits. You have provided no valid rationale for inclusion. Until you do so I will not debate further. I will, however, revert edits that go against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, although there are more than two parties there appear to be only two sides, so Wikipedia:Third opinion appears to be available. Would you agree to that?--Swood100 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I support swood100, I think he is correct in including the quotes. Consensus is not required for the edits, a proper argument against them is. Simonm223 have not made a proper argument against, otherwise I would support removal. You Simonm223 are the one WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT as far as I can see. 65.175.224.90 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some general rules

From Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

1. Finally, fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.
2. While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources.
3. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.

From Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

1. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
2. A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. … Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: … Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

1. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

From Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples

1. Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view

--Swood100 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues

This article has serious BLP issues.

1. The statement "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community.[3][4][5", is not supported by the cites, none of which are reliable sources qualified to speak for "the scientific community". At best this is [WP:SYN] which is completely inappropriate for an WP:BLP. Reword or remove
2. "and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement.
3. "Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution". Cites a wikilink. WP is not WP:RS should be removed.
4. "Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures." - Unsourced
5. "Behe's testimony is extensively cited by the judge" - Providing a number of cites none of which make this statement, to justify the statement is OR/SYN.
6. The statement "In 1996, Behe published his ideas on irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box, which was rejected by the scientific community." is unsupported and probably unsupportable. Say specifically who rejected it or find a statement from a scientific body qualified to speak for the scientific community.
7. The first paragraph of the "Darwins Black Box" section is OR. One of the references is broken, the other goes to an infidel.org book review which is not an appropriate a RS for a BLP.
8. "Furthermore, Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public,[21] gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific method.[22][23]" - impugns the authors motives. One is tempted to use the "L" word to describe this statement. Cites don't help here. You need to quote a secondary source so that it doesn't appear that it is WP who is making this charge.
9. "Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution." This entire paragraph is unsourced and needs to be removed or sourced.

When writing BLP's one must be hyper cautious when making statements about a person's work that could affect their livelihood. Some highlights from WP:BLP which this article fails:

• Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively
• Be very firm about the use of high quality references.
• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Although per WP:BP these entries should be removed immediately and without discussion, I am posting this as a courtesy to interested editors to provide an opportunity to resolve these issues.

In addition, the entire article is written in a very non-encyclopedic tone. See WP:Words_to_avoid for hints on improving this aspect of the article. I would suggest that much of the material here doesn't belong in a biography and should be moved to the article on ID where editors have more latitude to discuss scientific controversies without running into BLP restrictions. JPatterson (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the above I have removed unsourced or non-RS sourced material. With minor exceptions I've not attempted to fix the holes this leaves in the article which I will leave to someone familiar with the subject matter. Editors reverting the above edits or adding new material should be prepared to defend the addition at the appropriate notice board per WP:BLP JPatterson (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's fix this article

I agree with Swood100 that this article reads like a propaganda piece. I understand that the editors disagree with his ideas. But that does not excuse the sniping that runs through much of the article. Some of the more serious problems:

• Criticism of Behe is sprinkled throughout the article. The effect is that when we attempt to understand what his views are we are constantly interrupted by reminders that he is wrong (or at least in the minority). This reads like an attempt to shout him down. I suggest moving most if it into a section entitled "Criticism of His Views".

• The statement that all of the other biologists in his university department have disavowed his views (a statement which I have clarified) does not belong in the subheading about his education. This is criticism of his views. It has been placed here to offset his academic qualifications.

• The section "Promotion of irreducible complexity and intelligent design" is confusing. It appears to make a diversion into speculation as to the motives of those who proposed I.D. I think this section should be rewritten to explain the role of Michael Behe in the development of I.D.

• This section should also explain how Phillip E. Johnson is related to Behe's "Promotion of irredible complexity and intelligent design". If the only relationship is that they both wrote books on the subject, then the reference should be removed (since this is not an article about I.D.).

• The section "Darwin's Black Box" contains a speculative (and highly cynical) theory as to why Behe wrote a popular book.

• In many cases, the views of Behe's opponents are described or can be inferred from the criticism which they level against him, but his views remain obscure. This makes it particularly difficult to interpret the quotes from the Dover decision. I am pretty sure that many of the 'damaging admissions' are in fact his espoused views. They may seem inconsistent with his views only because they are juxtaposed with views which, unknown to us, he rejects.

I do not believe that adding more rebuttals from Behe will help. Doing so would simply make the article more confusing than it already is. Instead it needs to be reorganized so that the reader can clearly see what his views are, to what extent they differ from mainstream thought, and to what extent his opponents have addressed his points.

Chappell (talk) 9 January 2010

Any comments re the BLP issues raised above? I've been going through the cites and many are are not of sufficient quality to be used in a BLP. If no one raises their hand to address these issues in a few hours, I'm going to start removing poorly sourced content. We can then add stuff back in to an article restructured to your proposal which is a good approach. The article as it stands is a WP:Coatrack for a critique of a theory that is and should be addressed elsewhere. There is no doubt that we need to make clear that his theories are not widely accepted but it needs to be done with excellent sources an in accordance with WP:BP. JPatterson (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The wholesale removal of Behe's involvement is whitewashing, as is the removal of much of the material critical of his viewpoints. Some of your changes seem acceptable, but overall the net impact to the article is negative. Per BRD, you should be discussing the changes here, not reverting back to your changes. Ravensfire (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. As of Jan. there is a push to clean up the BLP space. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced material and editors are to be "firm" in their insistence on well sourced material. And please note the burden of proof for re-insertion is with the editor re-inserting. The reverting editor did not attempt to justify the sourcing as required. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, you object to the "wholesale removal of Behe's involvement" and call it "whitewashing". To what are you referring? If you mean the section about his involvement in the promotion of I.D., then of course it shouldn't be removed. Well actually, it probably should be removed until someone can rewrite it to more clearly explain what his involvement was (with appropriate sources, of course).

The problem is that right now it is so vague it sounds weaselly. There is a large paragraph which seems to suggest that I.D. is a conspiracy to sneak religion into the classroom, a conspiracy in which Behe may have had some involvement. I say may have had some involvement because he isn't even mentioned until more than half way through where we learn that he went to some kind of meeting ("at Pajaro Dunes") where he presented an idea. A "supplementary textbook" called Of Pandas and People swims into view. Somebody edited it. Who? Behe? It seems that Behe is somehow connected with one Philip E. Johnson (helpfully identified as "a lawyer"). How exactly? What exactly is the "Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars"?

The last paragraph really puzzling. We finally learn that Behe and the Pandas are at least somewhat connected. We are told that chapter which he wrote for this book presents basically the same (unspecified) idea as he presented in an (unspecified) chapter of Darwin's Black Box, and Behe agrees. But, why are we supposed to be surprised that he expressed the same idea twice?

Note that I am not asking you all to answer my questions here. I am asking you to fix the article so that they either do not arise or are answered there.

Chappell (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Further note to one of the OP's comments - critical comments generally should be placed in the same section as the view. If the subject's view is in the minority, that should be clearly stated with the view. Ravensfire (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure but they need to sourced properly. OR and SYN no longer make the grade here. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just spent time studying the Richard Dawkins page where the critical comments are presented as Ravensfire describes. It seems to work, so I withdraw my objection. The difference is that that page is well done while this page is a mess. Dawkins' views are clearly described while Behe's views are described wholly inadequately, sometimes in one sentence, then there is a much longer description of the criticism, and then there are even longer quotes from him as a rebuttal to some narrow point in the criticism. This style is confusing and uninformative in the extreme. In several cases this 'discussion' wanders far from the theme of the subheading.Chappell (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to whitewash the page, but misprepresenting sources in edit summaries is out of line. I don't like seeing sourced content deleted as "unsourced." Washington Post, NCSE, New Scientist, a US court decision are reliable sources. Even Panda's Thumb and Talkreason. Please re-add the properly sourced content. Auntie E. (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I took the trouble to edit in a series so that any objections could be raised on a point be point bases. I was very careful to check sources but it is possible I made a mistake. If you would like to re-insert some material feel free but be prepared to justify your sources. Note that court transcripts are primary sources which must be used with great caution. You can not draw conclusions based on primary sources nor say things like "the judge quoted extensively from Behe's testimony". Both are by definition OR, not allowed in a regular article much less a BLP. JPatterson (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If I could make a suggestion, I would reword the the lead paragraph to something like

Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and author best known for his theory of irreducible complexity criticizing some aspects of evolutionary theory that is held by the vast majority of scientist. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

This solves the problem of juxaposing the two opposing views without introducing difficult to source statements. The statement on evolution doesn't have to have a reference since it is in the lead and presumably would be expanded upon in the article (see WP:LEAD). I would also suggest again that this is not the best place to proxy the evolution v creationist battle. If it were me, per WP:SS, I'd have a section summarizing his views and their critique with a link to the main article on irreducible complexity . Another short summary section for the book and its critique, linking to the main article on that topic. The section on "the wedge" or whatever its called has interesting information not covered elsewhere so it should stay although it could use a good clean up. As it stands there's too much back and forth that is irrelevant to a biography. In any case, I don't have a dog in the hunt so don't shoot the messenger. I'm just on BLP patrol. JPatterson (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Each edit must be discussed

Many things were removed from this article that should not have been removed. I reverted back to the last consensus version. I'm in favor of moving forward, trimming, rewriting, etc. but it absolutely must be done with consensus and not unilaterally. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced and non-RS sourced material. Editors are to be "very firm" in there insistence on solid sources and the onus for providing evidence to support re-insertion lies with you, the re-inserting editor. I've added a BLP dispute tag to the article page. It appears this WP:Coatrack is going to require admin attention. JPatterson (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed statements that were very well-sourced. Since you have not established that you understand WP:RS, you will need to discuss with other editors before going on this whitewashing campaign again. I encourage you to find an administrator to help with this discussion. The more eyes the better. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You've re-inserted material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, OR and/or SYN as outlined above. You must provide evidence for your contention that this material is well sourced, per WP:BLP. For example, one can not support the contention that "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community" with an opinion piece by a non-scientist (ref 1) who doesn't make that claim, a WP piece that's not on point(ref 2), and an article by an non-notable author on a non-RS website(ref 3). And none of these references make the claim, true as it may be, that "[Behe's theories] have been rejected by the scientific community". Stringing references together to make a point none of them make explicitly in their own right is the definition of WP:SYN. The material I removed, on both sides, all have similar issues. JPatterson (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can respect the synthesis issue, but let's talk about the flip-side. None of Behe's theories have been accepted by the scientific community. He's a pariah, an outcast in his own university, which took the unusual step of publicly repudiating him and saying that his entire field is unscientific on its face. Would it be better to list each of his theories individually, and then show that each individual theory has been rejected? Or would people then claim that the article was being devoted to demolishing ID instead of being an article about Behe?—Kww(talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the SYN issue is as clear-cut as you make it out to be, JP. I'm willing to consider new references, but removing the statement which you admit is "true as it may be" looks to me like gamingto be paradoxical. Let's find new sources that we all agree are good and move forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that verifiability and not truth is the standard for inclusion. See WP:V and WP:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22. Also, please WP:AGF. JPatterson (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a suggestion above for changes to the lead that avoid the BLP SYN issues and also some suggestions for structuring the article per WP:SS to make it more encyclopedic. Beyond that, I'm not here to say how the article should be written, it is not a subject I'm familiar with or interested in. I am just insisting that it follow the clearly stated policy wrt sourcing. JPatterson (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not here to say how the article should be written, what are you doing here and on the noticeboards? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Dover court case section is probably due some trimming for WP:UNDUE. There's a lot of quotes from Behe that the judge used in his ruling. I think we can replace most with "quoted extensively by the judge" and include one or two that seem to be fairly important. Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Somebody has clearly got so worked up about Behe's theories that they insist on having a refutation of them in the intro, taking up more space than the rest of the intro put together. This is clearly not balanced and should be removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that point-by-point refutations are rarely the best. Of course, we should keep some criticism in. WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims may be of service to us. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, I have adjusted the lede. More adjustment could be beneficial. Please help! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think more than a single sentence opposing Behe's views are necessary in the lede. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now we have one compound sentence and the second half is essentially a vague statement about Lehigh University's statement which was made in direct response to Behe. Is that okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the second half necessary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The bit about Lehigh University? I think it is somewhat remarkable that the university made a statement explicitly about the subject of intelligent design because of this person. Maybe we could make it even shorter... let me try. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I failed in making it shorter, but I did make it more relevant, I think. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

per #2 in Blp Issues above, "and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" is unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement. JPatterson (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added "author" back into the intro, he's fairly well known for the books. I also slightly shortened the case mention by removing the "extensively cited by the judge". That is in the case section and shouldn't be in the intro. I also tweaked the wording some to indicate he's testified in several cases. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is mentioned. The Department explicitly mentions Behe in the statement. We even have the IDers themselves acknowledging that this is the reason: [3]. Would you like to include that? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But again, it does not say it was prompted by "Behe's high-profile advocacy". That's OR. Nor does it say that in the reference you provided. JPatterson (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording has been tweaked. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't addressed the BLP sourcing issues outlined above. JPatterson (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You've brought so many issues, and the ones I've looked at don't seem to be issues at all - they are correctly referenced (the text doesn't have to appear verbatim in the source). This makes it hard to asses which have merit. Please just pick one or two to start with, and explain clearly what the problem is and why the supplied references, in your opinion, fail - because I just don't see it. Verbal chat 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's do it the other way. Pick one from the list below (not the first three - 1 has already been discussed and is clearly WP:SYNTH, 2 is fixed and 3 is a minor point) and show how the analysis is incorrect. And yes, paraphrasing a source is fine but it has to be a paraphrase. You can't make a source say something it doesn't. Nor can you "read between the lines" and make explicit something you tthink is implicit in the text.JPatterson (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box section

This section is nearly half of the article, and really needs to be trimmed some. A significant amount of the length is from the many long quotes from the book, from critics and from Behe's responses to criticism. I think most of those quotes can be removed, with the critical comments and responses replaced by summaries. There is an article for the book already, so I don't think this section needs to be quite so long. Thoughts before I start up the weed whacker and go trimming? Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues Redeux

I'm posting this here again with greater detail so as to be able to link from BLP/N because we're not supposed to post problematic material there.

1. Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community - As discussed above, the souces provided are non-RS and the claim here is a classic WP:SYN. None of these articles support the claim explicitly and none of the authors can speak for the scientific community.
2. and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy - unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement. - fixed but ref [7] is not on point.
3. Behe is married to Celeste Behe, and they have nine children[8] who are homeschooled by Celeste in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.[9] - Minor point but the cite is seven years old so the homeschooling bit, besides the privacy issue (we normally do not mention where a subjects kids go to school), is probably incorrect by now.
4. Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution. - ref is a wikilink
   1. No, it's actually a video. The ref includes a link to the article about the video, but it's the video, not the Wikipedia article.
5. Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. - unsourced
   1. Does this quote seem sufficient support for this statement: Behe’s signature contribution to ID has been ‘irreducible complexity’ (IC), the claim that complex biological objects comprising functionally integrated parts, such as a bacterial flagellum, could not have been produced by natural selection but must have been deliberately and intelligently designed.Forrest, Barbara C.; Gross, Paul R. (2007). "Biochemistry by design". Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 32 (7): 301–310. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2007.06.001.[4]
6. After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms. OR - not in provided sources.
   1. Matzke p. 378; "The actual label "intelligent design" was was adopted in a decision made my the editors of the Pandas books, in direct response to the Supreme Court's 1987 Edwards decision that rules 'creation science" unconstitutional."
7. "The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design." OR - not in provided sources.
   1. Matzke 381-383; Humes 284-286
8. "In 1993, Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial" - one reference is a blog, the other a primary source (trial transcript)
9. Furthermore,Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public,[18] gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific method - Very problematic. Impugns the motive of the subject. removed from article [5]
10. Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. - unsourced OR
11. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.[19], source points to a nolonger existing web article.
12. This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.' - More OR. The statement or anything like it is not found in cited reference.
13. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers. - unsourced OR
14. Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy. unsourced weasel
15. Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory nor attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to evolution. - source is a web site article. Maybe ok
16. Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism." - OR
    1. [6] Talk Reason is certainly a reliable enough source for an approximate count of page numbers in a book.
17. Dover testimony section - This entire section appears to be OR based on primary sources (court transcripts)
    1. Primary sources ≠ OR. Content is supported by Humes' chapter 15 (pp. 297-315), although the specific quotes are (quite properly) taken from the court transcripts.
18. Behe received $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns. The case was filed by Association of Christian Schools International, which argued that the University of California was being discriminatory by not recognizing science classes that use creationist books. - source is a blog

JPatterson (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the reference handy, but most of this can be sourced to Matzke's chapter in Ruse's 2009 book. Will dig it up later if no one else has access to it. Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, Guettarada! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'd like to put discussion beyond a single comment inserted into the list above (as you have done) here so as to maintain readability. I've switched to a numbered list for easy reference. In order to get it to format correctly I had to change your input from '**' to '##'. Hope that's ok. Re 4, My mistake. I've stuck the entry in the list. Re 16, ok but I would reject the editorializing ("polemical attack") as non-encyclopedic and not supported in your cite, which uses the (also non-encyclopedic) term "assails". The article in many places uses language one would expect to find on an op-ed page and not in a high quality encyclopedia.

Re the Dover section:

It is true that Primary sources ≠ OR. But analysis based on primary sources is OR. Take the first sentence: "In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science.". I count 5 claims here. The second sentence, "Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.", is a weasel with an addition 4 or 5 claims depending on how one counts. This kind of analysis is by definition OR based on primary sources forbidden in articles much less BLPs. If the claims are supported elsewhere references beyond the primary sources need to be provided. JPatterson (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the change in formatting. Makes things easier to discuss. As for the comments on OR, don't worry about it too much - I may disagree with your interpretation, but I'm happy to work on improving sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indented comments not in italics are mine.

• Matzke, Nick (2009) "But Isn't It Creationism? The Beginnings of "Intelligent Design"in the Midst of the Arkansasand Louisiana Litigation" pp. 377-413 in Robert T. Pennock and Michael Ruse. But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Promethus Books, Amherst, New York.
• Humes, Edward. 2007. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battel for America's Soul. Ecco, NY.

Guettarda (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, past my bedtime, but this is an important source. Guettarda (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has challenged #9 above which from a legal stand-point is the most problematic I have deleted this sentence from the article. JPatterson (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get around to it at some point. I feel pretty sure that can be attributed to a reliable source. But which one? And is it in my personal collection? Sucks that Control-F doesn't work with dead tree sources... Guettarda (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda re 5: It certainly works for me. JPatterson (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On Whitewashing

Some seem to believe that the demands that this article be rewritten to conform to various Wikipedia policies are a smokescreen for Behe apologists. They seem to think that the article as it is does a good job of showing Behe to be a nut-case or a charlatan.

Leaving aside the question of whether the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to persuade, I think they overestimate the article's persuasive power. I suggest they try to read it through in the role of devil's advocate. Much of what was previously damning evidence now looks like spin-doctoring. Many of the 'talking points' are now simply unexplained digressions or trivia. All the reader comes away with is the idea that someone feels threatened by Behe's ideas and would prefer that we not examine them seriously.

Ask yourself, could you, strictly as an intellectual exercise, re-spin this article to present Behe in a favourable light without substantially changing the selection of facts presented? Maybe you could cast him in the role of courageous dissident persecuted by a conformist community. It is an exciting and moving plot. It goes something like this: The narrow minded scientific community pursues its atheistic agenda at all cost! Dissent must not be tolerated! Since they are unable to adequately answer Behe's arguments, the biology faculty of his university takes the unusual step of publishing a rambling statement repudiating his views without addressing them. His status as a scientist is inconvenient, but no matter, his ideas are, with the stroke of a pen, defined as non-science!

The section on the court case presents no more difficulty for our spin-doctor. The case was lost not because Behe's ideas were in any way uncompelling but because they were held to a standard of proof which his opponents, by their own admission, cannot meet for their own ideas. The implication of his testimony (that the [scientific] theory of evolution is merely a reflection of a particular school of thought on the question of the existence of God) were simply too much of a political hot potato, and so the judge punted.

Why is it so easy to spin the facts in the article either way? Because most of them have not been selected to be genuinely informative. They are simply hooks on which speculation is hung.

The Wikipedia rules require us to use only verifiable information about Behe, his views, and the views of his critics. The existing article is short on information and so leaves most of the truly interesting questions about these conflicting views unanswered. I would like to know whether any evolutionary biologists consider any of his criticism to be valid objections pointing to the need for furtherer research. I would also like to understand his relationship to the I.D. movement. Did he start it? Is he a leader, or is he perhaps a tool on the edge of the movement?

The section on Dover could could be very interesting, if improved. Unhappily, the information about Behe's testimony seems to have been selected for juicyness rather than informative power. Questions abound: Did he take a position on the central issue of the case? For example, did he claim that I. D. should be discussed in school? Did he claim that evolution as the origin of species should or should not be taught in school? How did the judge “rely heavily on his testimony” but rule against the side which called him? Had Behe been forced to say things which he did not want so say? Or maybe Behe made other statements which the judge could not accept? If so, what where they? Or maybe the ruling was on narrow legal grounds. Currently we are expected to use our imagination to interpret Behe's statements in a way embarrassing to him.

Answering these questions with the help of reliable sources requires more effort than drawing cynical conclusions. It will also almost certainly paint a more nuanced picture of Lehe that is currently presented in the article. Anyone who wants the article to be a counter-blast to Lehe will be unhappy with the result. But, it will unquestionably be a better, more informative encyclopedia article.

Chappell (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some good points in there but please see WP:TLDR. The accusation of whitewashing shows an appalling inability to WP:AGF. That aside, I think many editors are working at cross purposes to their goal. A reader who is convinced one way or another re ID or IC or whatever is unpersuadable. Those who come here with an uninformed view will immediately recognize an article like this as a partisan hit piece and discount its content accordingly. The most important and often overlooked aspect of WP:NPOV is dispassion. Encyclopedia's should be written in an above-the-fray, non-judgmental tone. The facts speak for themselves. Passionate embellishments only serve to weaken the article and discredit WP. JPatterson (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Homeschooling

Doesn't it seem a bit WP:UNDUE to refer to the Behe children's home-schooling? Eugene (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, it's a general biography piece, so it paints a picture of who he is. 65.175.224.90 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Some of the world greatest thinkers have been schooled at home. Furthermore, kids schooled at home perform better at university that ANY other group. It is a tribute to Behe. Public school alumnists are....less than average ...but they think public school is better.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/9034-canadian-study-confirms-advantages-of-homeschooling http://www.degreeinfo.com/off-topic-discussions/35831-so-how-do-homeschooled-students-do-when-they-go-college.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

New source

John C. Avise Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome PNAS 2010

Useful analysis and commentary in a very reliable source. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Class?

With 61 citations and many other sources cited, and obviously a lot of work and controversy, I am hesitating to suggest it, but perhaps this article is better than Start class now. I leave it to other editors to decide what class it should be. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rejection by the "scientific community"

I added the bolded portion this phrase from the second paragraph: Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by many members of the scientific community.

My edit was reverted with this remark: "the community as a whole has rejected his ideas as indicated by several sources."

Yet looking at the cited sources, none of them even make that claim. Even if they did, they would clearly not be reliable in making such a claim, because there is no authoritative voice for the "scientific community." (Even the scientific community article states as much.) Thus, while one can easily document that this person or that group has rejected Behe's work, it is impossible to state with any verifiability that the "scientific community as a whole has rejected his ideas." After all, Behe himself (not to mention plenty of other ID proponents) is a member of that community. He is a biochemistry professor at a university, which is a pretty standard qualification for inclusion. He and other ID proponents may well be bad scientists, but they are scientists, nonetheless.

Not only is this claim of a wholesale rejection by the entire scientific community demonstrably untrue on logical grounds, but it's not even supported by the sources cited next to the phrase. EmausPriester (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think something like "rejected by an overwhelming majority of scientists," or of "biologists," might be better--it indicates that the rejection by professional scientists is nearly universal (which, as far as I can tell, it is--Behe is so prominent because he is the exception that proves the rule: he's one of a very tiny number of bona fide scientists working in a relevant area who support the claim of intelligent design as science. Are there even three other biochemists who support his arguments?). "Many members of the scientific community" doesn't convey the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't consider irreducible complexity as a legimate scientific idea, theory, insight, research program, what-have you. BTfromLA (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be more accurate language, but there would need to be some new sources to cite, indicating some kind of reliable survey of scientists' opinions on the subject, not just individual articles against it. EmausPriester (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheist son

Added it to the article but dont know how to cite links http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dngag/iama_son_of_michael_behe_the_catholic_biochemist/?sort=confidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.22.93 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is not credible. You will have to find a new one. It will need the son's name, and must be a source that meets the requirements at WP:SOURCES. Sorry. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Okey Dokey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.22.246 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

http://thehumanist.org/september-october-2011/the-humanist-interview-with-leo-behe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradDill9Eever (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Evolution denial, etc.

I reverted an edit which said "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific". This is a controversial edit that needs consensus first. I thought the lead was fine the way it stood - "religious in nature", "rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community," and that this extra phrase was, at best, overkill. A similar discussion (debating almost the exact phrase) is going on at Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 1#Evolution Denialist, but is yet to reach a consensus. StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• No this is NOT "a controversial edit" -- see (i) List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design & (ii) WP:LEDE: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." (my emphasis). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead already says "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community." StAnselm (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Donald E. Simanek PhD specifically refers to Behe as a denialist here. We might want to attribute it to him in the sentence, but overall it makes sense to call a spade a spade here. The denialist statement is unequivocal, while the "rejected by the scientific community" isn't strong enough in my opinion. Still, I would change it to something like "has been characterized as an evolution denialist" as it just sounds better. SÆdon^talk 07:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We're better off describing him in specific terms as an ID advocate, rather than using the vague term "denialist." Also, we can find a tonne of reliable sources criticising ID, but not for the statement that any specific person is a "denialist." -- 202.124.75.254 (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How is "evolution denialist" a vague term? See AIDS denialism for another example of the term. Also note that a reader who is unfamiliar with the subject may not realize that the converse of advocating ID is evolution denial. SÆdon^talk 10:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Denialism is a controversial term, and vague in that it doesn't specify exactly what's being denied (as opposed to YEC and ID which are more specific positions). We don't even have an article on "evolution denial" any more. Also, it's hard to find reliable sources that say "Person X is a denialist" (most sources using the term are unreliable web sites). It's much easier to find reliable sources that say "Person X claims Y" and "most scientists reject Y." -- 202.124.73.123 (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's only controversial to denialists. The statement is a reliable sourced one, and I guess we can move on. NEXT. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I actually agree with the IP here. Denialism is such a horribly loaded word - your mind immediately jumps to Holocaust denialism. IMHO we should keep it out of the ledes of BLPs such as this if at all possible. It's enough to say that his ideas are almost entirely rejected by scientific consensus. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And if SAedon's goal is to combat "evolution denialism," it would be better just to state the facts ("Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community") rather than using a controversial polemic term like "denialist." -- 202.124.73.119 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's been rejected by ALL of the scientific community. Science denialists, of course, don't count as scientists. There is nothing controversial about denialist except to denialists. Seriously lame argument. We can find dozens of BLP's that, as long as it is supported by a reliable source, where the subject doesn't get to control how they're described. Michael Behe is an evolution denialist. We have reliable sources (and not just one or two, dozens); do you have one single worthless even partially reliable source from a real scientist that says he isn't? Seriously, just one? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy is not undesirable; regardless of how you, personally view a term. As uncomfortable as you personally may be with specific content, Wikipedia is a tertiary knowledge resource and as such we must strive for accuracy. If there is something which may be viewed as negative to report about someone, we cannot omit it because it is negative. Including such is not polemic nor controversial. If we did omit any such terms or facts then most biographical articles would be incredibly short and misleading. Maintaining a neutral tone and respect for the subject =/= leaving out relevant information. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that "denialism" is an accurate term, but I really have problems with source quality in this instance. What makes Donald Siminek such a reliable and globally representative source that we can use his statement in this manner?—Kww(talk) 13:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that most scientists use the term "evolution denialism" at all (mostly because it's too pejorative for polite conversation); certainly one web site from Donald E. Simanek (whoever he is) doesn't demonstrate that a majority of scientists apply the term to Behe. What's wrong with the existing wording anyway? ("Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community") -- 202.124.74.96 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that "pseudoscientific" characterises Behe accurately either -- Behe's original book made falsifiable claims (which were indeed falsified). Again, you need more than a single random web site to argue that a majority of scientists apply the term to Behe (as opposed to saying Behe is wrong, which a majority of scientists would do). The book Only A Theory by Kenneth R. Miller is one of the more thorough demolitions of Behe, for example, but doesn't use the words "pseudoscientific" or "denialist." -- 202.124.74.96 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you're going with that? Siminek is a real scientist compared to Behe who wouldn't know science if it was spelled for him, and all of his experiments set up for him. LOL. Please go on quote mining however. There are dozens that I can bring. BTW, Miller is one of those religious types who claims to believe that evolution is compatible with religion. LMFAO. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Siminek may be a real scientist, but he's not notable and doesn't speak for the scientific community as a whole. And now we're criticising the respected Kenneth R. Miller because he happens to be Catholic? Is this argument about being pro-science, or about being anti-religion? -- 202.124.75.23 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have protected the article for a week so that editors can concentrate on this discussion. It should be possible to craft a compromise version of the wording that pleases everyone. Good luck. --John (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• The statement "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific" does not seem to be that controversial to me. As one of the most notable proponents of Intelligent design theory, both Behe (the man) and Behe's theories have been the subject of of a great deal of negative scrutiny. His theory of irreducible complexity is often described as a pseeudo-science. That's one of the more polite terms I've heard scientists use to describe it. The point here being, that he's not just promoting a theory which is unpopular in science (a fringe theory), but one which is considered absurd by mainstream science. If you could show that the sources cited are in some way fringe or not in line with the scientific consensus I'd be open to changing my mind about this. I've read the sources and they just seem to be saying much the same thing as just about every critique of Behe's very flawed work. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion, the findings in the Dover vs Kitzmiler trial included some judicial summaries of Behe's work[7] which might inspire more agreeable wording. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• On "pseudo-scientific": Matt Young and Taner Edis characterize Behe as a pseudo-scientist in Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Behe and his ideas appear in at least two books devoted to pseudo-scientific ideas: The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Michael Shermer and Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia by Brian Regal. Michael Ruse's book, The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debates states "Behe's work has been largely dismissed as 'pseudoscience'". 92.2.91.151 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the pseudoscience description is easily sourced. It's "denialism" that I have an issue with. Accurate as it may be, I don't think the term is being used by reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Massimo Pigluicci describes Behe as an evolution denier in a book review published in Bioscience. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears we have consensus. Now if you could all check out Ken Ham where the same edit warring editor is trying to sanitize the article for an even worst evolution denialist.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

We do not have consensus. Some reliable sources have been suggested for "pseudoscience," but not for "denialist." A passing remark in a book review is just one person's opinion: you need a WP:RS that the term is widely applied to Behe, and I don't think it is. -- 202.124.75.23 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Apart from the above book review, I couldn't find any obvious sources specifically referring to Behe as an evolution denier or similar. The characterization also conflicts with other sources e.g. H. Allen Orr in Boston Review distinguishes between Behe and other creationists by noting that Behe does not wholly deny evolution. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As per usual in these cases you are writing the article in the lead; don't. Write the article and summarise it in the lead - if you want this content in the article, then put it in the appropriate place. That will help establish due weight for the lead. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion means what? Oh, I don't care. Most people don't read beyond the lead. It should be clear that Behe is an evolution denialist and pseudoscientist with his head up his ass. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

And I'm certain we can't find a WP:RS for "with his head up his ass." -- 202.124.75.23 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, his opinion is based up WP:LEAD, and it's good advice. If you can find good sourcing for "denialism" as being a widely applied term, then place it in the body. Once it's there, it will probably be worth putting in the lead. Nothing should be in the lead that isn't in the article, as the lead is a summary of the article, not a section of the article itself.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You're pleasant. It should be clear that Behe is an evolution denialist and pseudoscientist with his head up his ass; with this attitude you should not be editing this article, please limit your contributions to the talk page as this goes forward. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is a little concerning. First things first, 'the term denialism is only controversial to denialists' is plainly absurd. Try applying that same logic to derogative terms for black people, for instance. I'm about as secular as they come and I can see quite clearly how the term is controversial - you want to paint geocentrism in a negative light, just call it 'heliocentrism denial'.

Secondly, the sources used for this sentence are awful. The first [8] is an unusable self-published source that doesn't support the claim that Behe is a denialist. In fact, it specifically distinguishes between 'denial movements' and the 'intelligent design movement', then examines members of the latter: "The Intelligent Design (ID) movement does marginally better, so let's look at a few of the players in this drama". Even if this were not an unusable self-published source, it could only be used to support the connection that Behe is a member of the ID movement.

The second source [9] is equally as bad - this is an opinion piece (Voices is the opinion section of what is effectively the UCLA campus newsletter) that has no specific connection to Behe whatsoever. Attempting to link a generic criticism of ID to the specific subject of Behe's ideas is textbook synthesis. You can't combine source A (Behe believes in ID) with source B (a random UCLA professor says ID is pseudoscience) to produce statement C (Behe's beliefs are pseudoscience). To support this statement, you need a source specifically saying Behe's beliefs are pseudoscience, or you need to rephrase the statement appropriately (eg. "Behe is a believer of intelligent design, a theory regarded as pseudoscience by much of the scientific community").

Thirdly, the sentence "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific" has no attribution whatsoever. Absent attribution, it suggests 'everyone' considers his ideas as such. An overstatement like this simply can't be included in a BLP and needs to be attributed to one or more sources that specifically assert this fact.

If there are reliable, independent sources specifically linking Behe's beliefs to denialism and pseudoscience, they should be brought forward. Without them, there's very little chance of this sentence being returned to the article. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Leading voices in the mainstream science and skeptical community have described Behe as a denialist. That really should be good enough for us. I'd propose taking the matter to RS/N if there's any remaining dispute. Personally I would avoid using the word denialist (promoter of pseudo-science is more appropriate). Behe does accept that evolution is a real phenomena, he just does not believe that it fully accounts for the full diversity of life on earth. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I also would avoid using the word denialist. But the key thing is to satisfy WP:BLPSOURCES. -- 202.124.73.242 (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In particular, WP:BLPSOURCES has the guideline "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." That explicitly rules out using the personal web page of Donald E. Simanek, which had been used as a reference. It almost certainly rules out the anonymous article from UCLA's internal campus newsletter as well. Ideally, we should be using books, journal articles, newspaper stories, and official websites -- of which there are certainly a huge number. Self-published material by Behe (such as his CV) is acceptable under some very specific guidelines. -- 202.124.72.115 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be the end of the conversation. I assume nobody can find a source satisfying WP:BLPSOURCES to back up the suggested addition, and we need to stick with the existing wording. -- 202.124.75.193 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, have not read fully here, yet I have a simple idea for consideration: Dr. Behe's ideas should generally be considered as Evolutionary Theory denialism [or the denial thereof], as long as Evolutionism itself is classified in the field of Naturalism. His ideas are meta-scientific.... Lehigh's stance is in part that his ideas re Intelligent Design "have no basis in science, & etc." [Please see main article.] Yet a religious, metaphysical, or philosophical concept, such as Intelligent Design, may indeed 'something to do' with science, and even very well at it's roots. It all depends on whether the concept (Intelligent Design) is true or not. The statement by the school assumes the truth of the negative value of ID, and *if that is correct*, sure, ID has no basis in science. (Yet fiat does not work in education.) The point of not having Falsifiability, and of metaphysical conjecture, can be made against the Naturalists themselves... Each side represents a metaphysical position. Therefore, Lehigh's stance that ID has "no basis" in science, without proof, reasons, or even discussion, is a rather rude manner to treat one of their own Professors. Nonetheless, the article had them in quotes. (Agreed.)

---

I am therefore proposing that a qualifier be attached to the 'Denial' of Evolutionary Theory (because if I recollect accurately, Dr. Behe would uphold the Theory on several points, not all), and suggest using the phrase "Meta-scientific" rather than "Pseudo-scientific". (John G. Lewis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC))

The word "denial" does not appear in the article as far as I can find, where do you want to modify text? . . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Dave: I was merely reading Wiki late last night, and thought I might drop a helpful comment, or try to.... I saw the heading to this section in Talk, and the statement: "I reverted an edit which said 'his ideas are considered [as] Evolution[ary Theory] denialism, and pseudo-scientific.'" The latter claim is incorrect, but the first does have some limited truth value. I was suggesting a compromise with the individual whoever placed in the statement. Behe will deny certain facets of Evolutionary Theory, but that his work is pseudo-science is really an improper disparagement [as perhaps we both concur]... To sum, that ID may be a metaphysical position does not entail it is pseudo-scientific. And consequently, Dr. Behe, along with many others, such as Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Stephen Meyer, and Dr. Jonathan Wells, will deny Evolutionary Theory, some in totality, some not. Behe is more of an interesting intermediate thinker, more so perhaps on the side of Darwinism than not (as the article suggests), but that he pulls the entire theory of Darwinism away from its formerly central locus of *Naturalism*, and envisions it a much more Metaphysical, and quite possibly Religious, light. Dr. Behe's simple protest is to the Naturalism present in Darwinian Theory. So I might therefore suggest, for the article: "Dr. Behe will deny Darwinism as necessarily being a Naturalistic Theory... In all likelihood, it is not." Is this acceptable? And btw. David: Sorry for the discussion. And you can delete what you want. JGL (John G. Lewis (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC))

One more point for all: it seems like Professor M. Behe's ideas are pulling very close to that of Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, as expressed in Finding Darwin's God (1999). The latter's defense of Darwinism, in that book, was in part a reply, and even an attempt at refutation, of Dr. Michael Behe's ideas (see chapter 5). Yet the twain might fundamentally agree on very much. (John G. Lewis (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC))

Doesn't really work. Behe is promoting ID which is classic pseudoscience, claiming to be scientific while failing to follow scientific method. In Behe's case, he asserts that some detailed features could not have evolved, and from that jumps outside science to the unsupported conclusion that a supernatural entity made them that way. As for Darwinism, it means different things to different people, and does not mean the same as modern evolutionary theory. . dave souza, talk 12:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Reworded article summary

The original read "..which he states supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers."

This is incoherent and incorrect. I've read the article and as the original entry states, the paper does not mention irreducible complexity. So how can it be true that he states it "supports irreducible complexity" (which is a nonsensical phrase anyway). If he stated this somewhere else it should be cited, but I doubt it since the article has nothing to do with irreducible complexity but rather casts doubt on whether Darwinian processes as currently understood can account for the evolution of biochemical systems. Also, there is no cite for the assertion that "[references to IC were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers."

This article still suffers from most of the deficiencies I pointed out over two years ago and still reads very unencyclopedic. I would again suggest that a biographical page is not the place to debate Behe's theories, there are other pages that cover that topic well.

Regarding the claim that "Numerous scientists have debunked the work"

Guettarda, you removed my citation needed tag after "Numerous scientists have debunked the work", claiming in your edit description that "citations are given". Which citations are you referring to? I'm talking about a citation that demonstrates that numerous scientists have debunked the work. I don't see a source that supports that claim. Please show the allegedly given citations. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Guettarda, actually, you removed two citation tags from that sentence (not just mine). Claims must be supported by reliable sources, or else they may be challenged or removed. I'm undoing your edit since the needed sources remain absent. Please find reliable sources. Dontreader (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Quoting this talk page's guidelines: "Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information."

Guettarda, please keep that in mind. Dontreader (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dontreader, the citation is the first one in that paragraph, currently #30. It's not original research to say "at least seven scientists have debunked the work" or to say "numerous scientists have debunked the work". If you really wish to get technical about it, see WP:CALC. Manul ~ talk 04:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Manul, that citation is used in a different sentence. If you are sure that the sources that are provided in citation #30 debunk the work and address the other citation tag, then please add that citation to the two places where there are currently citation tags, and remove the tags. Thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Manul, better yet, if that is the case, please remove my cn tag and insert current citation #30 where the other cn tag is placed in that sentence. I assume someone placed it there for a reason, but please do remove it if you are sure that the claim is supported by that citation. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dontreader, I don't consider it a problem that citations cover multiple sentences. Tagging every sentence with a citation would not improve the article and just cause clutter, in my view. Manul ~ talk 05:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Manul, very well. If that is what you believe is best for the reader to be able to easily corroborate claims, then please undo or revert my edit. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well OK, but I should mention that the style is typical. See for instance 1924 Rose Bowl#Game summary, a featured article I just picked randomly. Manul ~ talk 05:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Behe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821201728/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Behe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120635/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml to http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120635/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml to http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121005418/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906165307/http://www.lehigh.edu/%7Einbios/faculty/behe.html to http://lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Behe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201221735/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1271 to http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1271

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Inteligent Design and uneautrality

There is absolutely no need to spam the word "ID" or Intelligent Design in the whole page. Behe doesn't even disagree with Darwin in some concepts, his work despite some people not agreeing with everything in it has been of great contribution to the debate, the debate of how consistent evolution is, since there's no way to get to the past to make empirical tests, and see how individuals can become populations for example, in order to get populations you must first have individuals. It's the very existence of individuals that is problematic for Darwinism. There is also no proof that DNA mutates based on environment. Darwin didn't know science as we know today, he didn't know how complex DNA is for example. Science is always open to new discovery. Now I don't see any reasons why there's in every line of the page the words intelligent design, it is being used in a very pejorative and sentimental way. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The only thing Behe is known for is "ID" or Intelligent Design, and that's the reason for the focus in the article. Behe's the one who used these terms. You seem to be confused about CD and Darwinism, its only relevance is that Behe refers to it when promoting his concepts of "ID" or Intelligent Design. . . dave souza, talk 07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the term "Darwinism" is increasingly used only by those with an agenda to create the impression that evolution is an "ism", a belief system, involving one man, one book and one theory, rather than a series of scientific discoveries including those documenting evolution in nature. Astronomy isn't "Copernicism", and gravity isn't "Newtonism". Evolution is evolution; it's science, not belief. -Nunh-huh 17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh, you Newtonists are just being uneutral about Intelligent Falling. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

🙂 - Nunh-huh 23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)]

Intelligent Design

Why describe intelligent design as "pseudo-scientific"? Is not that violating Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View? Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If you read the yellow information box at the top of the talk page and the bold blue linked pages you will understand why it does not violate Wikipedia's NPOV. Robynthehode (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Some editors here need a refresher on the WP:BLP policy.

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Emphasis mine.202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you believe the content you wish to remove violates the policy on biographies of living people it is up to you to demonstrate this. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope you are reversing the burden of proof. Once you reinstate a bad citation that I've cleaned up, it's on you. 202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the fact of the matter is that you are outnumbered. Most editors interested in the article clearly disagree with your position, so obviously you are going to have to convince them that they are wrong if you want to accomplish anything here. What is the evidence that there is a "bad citation?" Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

By all means, don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. It doesn't support what the text said and if you haven't actually checked it yourself, then why are you reverting to it?202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Just asserting that you are right isn't going to accomplish anything. You cannot expect other editors to simply agree with you - that is futile. The talk page is where you should be making your case, based on logic and evidence. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't. I asked you to see for yourself. You refuse for some reason.202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, can you let Robynthehode that BLP violations aren't subject to 3RR. I know you guys think you have 6 to my 3.202.27.212.13 (talk) I see Just plain Bill just showed up. make that 9202.27.212.13 (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You did simply assert that you are right. You will be blocked and you are not going to accomplish anything. Potentially it might have been different had you made a reasoned case here instead of demanding that other people agree with you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

OK so explain to me how I am to show you that the citation doesn't say what it's purported to say. It doesn't say it. You do realize that it's impossible to prove a negative yet this is what you demand in order to clean up a bad citation (albeit on which the POV pushers are fine with) 202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Please. If a given document does not say something it is perfectly possible to show that it does not say it both by carefully discussing what it does actually say and by quoting from it. You had your chance to make your case, but you have ruined it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You cannot quote what is not there. I could cut and paste the whole article as proof, but then we'd be right back where we started. You refusing to read it.202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from quoting the most relevant portions of the document to make your case. That would be the appropriate thing to do if you want to argue rationally. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you figure would be the most relevant portion of a document talking about a different subject?202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, a statement from its author about what it is actually about - indicating that it is different from what it is purported to be. I shouldn't even have to say that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sourced mention has been removed, of the judge's ruling in the Kitzmiller case, that ID is religion, not science. Is it your assertion that the judge did not write what he wrote? Just plain Bill (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You new citation is broken. Does it mention Michael Behe? If not, it's original research.202.27.212.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the link in the citation. There is ample sourcing in the body of the article for the fact that Behe testified in that case. See the judge's opinion, where Behe's name does in fact appear. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So someone used a primary source to make a tendentious statement in the lede of a BLP. You really don't see how that's WP:OR on one hand, and a NPOV and BLP vio on the other? 202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

202.27.212.13, you're edit warring to remove a properly sourced statement, despite noting at the top of this thread that BLP removal of info only applies to "unsourced or poorly sourced" material. As for Kitzmiller, "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." Presentation of that religious proposition as science makes it pseudoscience. . . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Dude, you're quoting me a primary source. You can show not tell. Notice I haven't touched the next paragraph - why? Because it's properly sourced and merely states facts 202.27.212.13 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that specifically criticises Behe for his pseudoscientific views especially in his new book. stating. Robynthehode (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to add that cite after ...Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community...? Seems appropriate. 202.27.212.13 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No this is a cite to replace/add to the cite after the lede sentence about Behe's views being pseudoscientific. Robynthehode (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the cite: ideally we'd cite "A biochemist's crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence". Books, Et Al. 7 Feb 2019. Retrieved 9 Feb 2020. or Lents, Nathan H.; Swamidass, S. Joshua; Lenski, Richard E. (7 Feb 2019). "The end of evolution?". Science. 363 (6427). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 590–590. doi:10.1126/science.aaw4056. ISSN 0036-8075. but I don't have subscription access to Science. . . dave souza, talk 13:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

dave souza, talk - thanks for adding the citation and restoring the lede to its former status. I believe the current editing pattern of removing these passages and citations and using WP:BLP seems to be a form of gaming the system WP:GAME but the addition of that citation I found adds further weight to keeping 'pseudoscientific' in the lede and attributing that to Behe's work. Shame about the original source as I to do not have a subscription to Science either. This is often an issue with these sorts of sources - the fact they are behind a paywall making referencing Wikipedia a bit more challenging than I would like. Robynthehode (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

change "advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" to "advocate of the scientific principle of intelligent design" or at least just delete the word ""pseudoscientific" Why? Because this unsubstantiated and bigoted verbal attack at the very beginning of the article prejudices the reader before they even have started to read the article. Also, in his latest book, "Darwin Devolves", Behe reasons scientifically, cites numerous peer reviewed journals, and draws scientifically accurate conclusions. Given the evidence presented in this book that shows that random mutations typically remove, not add genetic information, it is the Darwinian industrial complex that is "pseudoscientific". Read the book for yourself if you dare. 24.4.188.64 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No. WP:RSs informs that ID is a pseudoscience. Ixocactus (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

In the section Darwin Devolves: Add "in the journal Evolution by Gregory Lang and Amber Rice" to the last sentence to read "and a detailed scholarly rebuttal in the journal Evolution by Gregory Lang and Amber Rice, Behe's own colleagues at Lehigh University." This will be consistent with the way the other scholarly rebuttals are cited in the same sentence. 65.78.107.194 (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I only noticed now that it was added so recently, but thanks, I have found this reference helpful to expand the section. —PaleoNeonate – 13:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Intelligent design is a textbook case of pseudoscience. Nothing of what we discuss here can change that. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The term "intelligent design" is a generic expression. It is not, as the article claims, "pseudoscientific."

The words "intelligent design" are neither theistic or non-theistic. Intelligent design could be a function of quantum probability, not necessarily the work of a divine Creator. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:7D70:218D:579B:EBC5 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC) James.

Reliable sources disagree with you. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

Remove the word 'pseudoscientific' from the first sentence. At best it is unnecessary, at worst it establishes/conveys bias against the efforts of an community which is in pursuit of scientific proofs which adhere to the same levels of scientific rigor as any other scientific organization. If the word is to be kept, then it must be demonstrated how creation science is "fake science" otherwise.

I cite other bodies of scientifically untestable bodies of work like big bang cosmology, evolution, string theory, etc. Are those written about using words like "pseudoscientific"? Neuroplexus (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)