Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

At least add the POV dispute tag

As the POV is under dispute, the page should be so tagged. I am unable to add the tag, so I'm requesting the help of a registered member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.122.28 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing that justifies a POV tag. Guettarda (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article promotes the POV that ID=creationism, and that the premise of the film is false. Whether or not you agree with that POV, it is certainly not neutral. So I've added the tag. NCdave (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the POV tag is for an ongoing dispute. Is there a dispute? Relata refero (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Just to be clear: that was a feeble joke.) Relata refero (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a much-needed smile, Relata refero.  :-) NCdave (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I also see nothing justifying the tag, and User:NCdave seems determined to edit-war to leave the Scarlet Letter up, regardless of any actual merits or actionable requests. So start talking: why the tag? And no, don't try floating the already-rejected claims that ID =/=creationism, since that so far has convinced no one. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, why is the POV tag there? Tell us before we get into an edit war and someone gets sanctioned for WP:TE and WP:DE.--Filll (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article promotes the POV that ID=creationism, and also the POV that the premise of the film is false. Whether or not you agree with that, whether or not you are completely certain about it, it is certainly not neutral. NCdave (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is obviously DEVOTED to deconstructing the movie and dismissing the theory of ID. It's not neutral. 147.226.236.199 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh how novel. Well I am sure you are aware of WP:NPOV which means we have to present, in large measure, the mainstream view of academia and science in this article. So that is why there is material discussing the falsity of the premise of the film: Because we are required to do so. Do you understand that? Because if you argue against that, that is WP:DE, and there can be consequences including sanctions for tendentious arguments against policy.

And I am sure you are also aware that we have numerous WP:RS that ID=creationism, such as several peer-reviewed journal articles, articles and books by world experts in creationism, and the ruling of a US Federal judge on the matter. So how are these not adequate to present ID=creationism, at least according to the preponderance of evidence? We even have a source or two from a creationist which states that ID=creationism. We even have an interview with the main character in the film, Stein, which indicates that ID=creationism. We even have interviews with the producers of the film where they indicate that ID=creationism. The promotion material for the film suggests ID=creationism. Perhaps you are so upset about this film suggesting ID=creationism, you want to organize a boycott?--Filll (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The premise of the film (at least as suggested by the title) is apparently that religious academicians are too often deprived of academic freedom by folks who oppose, not just religious points of view, but the very legitimacy of religious beliefs, and even the right of fellow scholars to hold and express them. It is one thing to disagree with the correctness of a viewpoint; such disagreements can be congenial and intellectually stimulating. But it is another thing altogether to dispute the legitimacy of a viewpoint; that attitude makes conversation impossible. That problem is apparently what this documentary is about.

"Creationism," as the word is usually used, is a shorthand for "Biblical Creationism," which accepts the creation account in the Jewish & Christian scriptures as being to some extent authoritative. Intelligent Design is not Biblical Creationism. ID is a scientific viewpoint which posits that an ordered universe is not accidental, but rather represents the workmanship of an intelligent "watchmaker." While it is true that creationism (or at least old-earth creationism) is a particular sort of intelligent design theory, the converse is not true: intelligent design is not any type of creationism. It is a subset relation, just as string theory is a type of physics, but physics is not a type of string theory. NCdave (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is not Biblical Creationism - well, that depends on who's speaking. But that's beside the point. ID is one for of creationism. YEC is another. OEC is another. Islamic creationism is yet another. I don't see your point.

ID is a scientific viewpoint - nope. ID proponents claim ID is scientific, but there's no evidence to support that claim. Rather, there is a wealth of evidence that rejects that claim, including a court ruling.

While it is true that creationism ... is a particular sort of intelligent design theory, the converse is not true: intelligent design is not any type of creationism. - the problem seems to be that you have your facts muddled. Either get your facts straight, or provide authoritative sources to support your claim. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has reliable sources describing the movie as an intelligent design movie. We have numerous reliable sources who recognize intelligent design as creationism and religious. Knock off the disruption, NCdave. Angry Christian (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Angry Christian. There are serious undue weight issues especially given a) the makers of the movie talking about it being about ID and being about "religious persecution" and b) Kitzmiller v Dover which ruled that ID was creationism c) the general scientific consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In two years this film will be less well-remembered than Howard the Duck; in the meantime however, AC and Josh bring up valid points. Expelled has linked itself to ID and therefore a discussion of ID is required; sorry if you con't like that NCdave, but that's reality. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We have numerous reliable sources that indicate ID is a type of creationism, and not that creationism is a type of ID, including the ruling of a US federal judge. Also, we do not have to judge the film by its title; we have promotional material, multiple reviews, interviews and articles about it. So...--Filll (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that, as required by WP:V, the points that ID is a form of creationism and not science, that the film promotes the presentation of religious views in classrooms despite this having been ruled contrary to the "Establishment Clause" in a series of court rulings, and that ID in particular was ruled to contravene that constitutional requirement for public school science classrooms, have all been based on third party reliable sources making these points with specific reference to the film. NCdave has given us plenty of original research in his opinions, but no suitable sources. .. dave souza, talk 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, the movie is apparently about academic freedom, not about the technical details of scientists' competing viewpoints. From the movie's promotional material, it does not appear that it delves into a defense of ID. Nor is there any evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that Ben Stein or the movie's producers advocate "presenting religious views" to captive audiences in K-12 classrooms.

Obviously, there are challenges to writing about an unreleased film. But perhaps one source of confusion could be that different people sometimes use the same terminology in different ways. What matters in the context of this article are the definitions that the movie's producers & backers use. So here's the Discovery Institute's definition of ID:

Q:What is the theory of intelligent design?

A: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.[1]

Note well: there's no reference there to creationism, nor even to monotheism. But they go on to explicitly address the question of whether or not ID (as they define it) is a form of creationism:

Q: Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

A: No. ...

and:

Q: Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

A: No. ... (ibid.)

Obviously, the way that the Discovery Institute uses the term "intelligent design," it is not Biblical creationism.

Now, as you know, an organization's own description of its own positions is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. So that's one suitable source.

But what about third parties? What do leading third-party experts say?

Dr. Ronald Numbers is an agnostic, a critic of ID, a past president of the History of Science Society, and the author of the most widely cited history of creationism (which Salon magazine calls "probably the most definitive history of anti-evolutionism"). But he says that the claim that ID is creationism "doesn't hold a lot of water."

Here's what he told Salon:

Salon: More recently, we've had the intelligent design movement. I know some people just see this as a new version of creationism, stripping away all the talk about God and religion so you can teach it in the schools. Is that true?

Dr. Numbers: There's a little bit of evidence to support that. But I think that both demographically and intellectually, it doesn't hold a lot of water. The intelligent design leaders are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism. [2]

Do you agree that that is a suitable source, Dave? NCdave (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into this very equivocal statement NCdave. Numbers included a chapter on ID in the latest edition of The Creationists, and even added a subtitle of "From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design" to it. He would hardly do this if he believed that ID was not creationism. From the context of the statement, he was clearly more interested in contrasting ID with YEC, and drawing attention to disagreements between these creationist factions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers is in fact very careful to never explicitly state that ID is or isn't Creationism per se. In The Creationists he lists (p380) the accusations of many "opponents of intelligent-design" that ID is Creationism, but only contradicts one claim -- that ID and Creation science are interchangeable terms (as CS requires "a recent special creation and a geologically significant flood" -- a point on which I think he's perfectly correct). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Thanks for the source, NCdave, it's very interesting but, as Hrafn says, it's a rather equivocal refinement of the point rather than a refutation. It has the problem that it's not directly related to the topic of the article, and the third party reliable sources cited have explicitly described the topic of the film as promoting intelligent design which is called by them a form of creationism. The source is certainly valid as a clarification of the detail of that point, making it clear that ID is not confined to young earth creationism. Numbers was answering questions about his YEC background, and in that context it's right for him to say "that intelligent design leaders are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism", though some of the prominent leaders are YEC. Intelligent design is clearly creationism in the general sense of anti-evolution, while accommodating young earth and old earth creationism. So, I've no objection to adding that reference and amending the footnote to show that detailed point, but the well attested point that ID is a form of what many people call creationism stands. In particular, that usage of the term relates to the legal background, which as you'll appreciate is central to the question of whether ID or any other form of anti-evolution can be introduced in science classrooms. Since we're in general agreement, I'll remove the tag and trust we can continue this discussion to agree how to incorporate the point into the article .. dave souza, talk 11:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right. "Creationism" has come to be almost synonymous with young-earth creationism (YEC). ID is clearly an attempt to create a bigger tent by remaining officially agnostic on the age of the earth, flood geology, and the other positive claims of YEC, while still repeating other common YEC arguments against evolution. But even so, many of the leaders of ID are also YEC advocates, and only Behe seems to accept common descent, even though ID *should* be compatible with theistic evolution (though Philip Johnson has argued otherwise, using what I've argued are contradictory claims, in the FAQ on Johnson's _First Things_ article at talkorigins.org). Lippard (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is outrageously biased. I came here because I honestly did not know what the movie was about. Instead of being informed what it was about I was bombarded with criticisms from the very first paragraph to the very end. There are pages in Wikipedia that debate the merits of the ID movement in great detail, this page doesn't need to be another. Not that it matters, but I am not an ID proponent, I am chiming in just because this is a classic example of Wikipedia editors who obviously have an agenda far beyond the mere presentation of factual information. Daniel Freeman (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I agree with Daniel Freeman. Here is the pertinent Wikipedia policy (emphasis added):

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

This article should not take a stand about the validity of intelligent design (ID), or about the validity of mentioning it in science classes as an alternative theory (in either private or public schools). Personally, I am 99.999% sure that ID is a load of crap, but this article has no business presenting such personal opinions as the view of Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Daniel Freeman. NCdave (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the article shows exceptional bias outside of the mainstream scientific and media bias, but I do think that the statements criticizing ID in general have no place in this article. The quotes on ID in general should be replaced with criticisms of the movie that have to do with its acceptance of ID. ID criticisms belong on the ID page. There are more than enough direct criticisms of the movie, use those sources rather than generic ones. 68.22.242.33 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not about to read everything that was written about this article's blatant bashing of the entire idea of Intelligent Design, but I will say this much: the fact that this article has remained unchanged for as long as it has is absolutely abominable. What is this, a jihad against anything that offers an alternative to the unproven theory of evolution? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia is it not? I'm going to assume that I'm write. An encyclopedic article is one that presents general information about a topic in an unbiased way without promoting any one agenda. That isn't what I see in the article; in fact, all I see is a desperate attempt in any way possible to discredit or explain away the topics that this documentary will be examine. To those people, I will say this: one of the reasons the world is as screwed up as it is is because people refuse to sit down and listen to each other. Do you realize that a large part of the wars that have taken place over the centuries could have been prevented if the people involved had been able to sit down and work out their problems? People, regardless of what is true, the most important lesson you can learn is how important it is to understand where your oppenent is coming from and I say this to the creationists and the evolutionists.

Anyway, this article is in need of immediate and drastic changes that will make it compatible with a neutal, non-advocate informational encyclopedia, or at least that's what I thought Wikipedia was. Raecoli (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Raecoli: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that it is a general reference collection of knowledge. Because it strives for accurate knowledge, there is a bias toward truth, reflected in the policies of NPOV and RS. Though the article should be unbiased, it should not necessarily be even handed on all topics. Treatment should reflect the consensus of experts. In the case of science articles, those experts are scientists. In the case of movies, those experts are reviewers. So, if an article deals with a movie that talks about science, the content should reflect the opinions on it of scientists and movie critics. So far, response from those two groups has been overwhelmingly negative. This is reflected in the article. Kumagi (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that it is a general reference collection of knowledge. Because it strives for accurate knowledge, there is a bias toward truth" --Kumagi. Is that so? Raecoli (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know earlier I said I wasn’t going to read everything in this article and the stuff on the talk page. Well, the subject matter intrigued me, so I decided to read through and analyze the issues in question. While I didn’t read all of the material, I will say this much: Wow. This movie hasn’t even hit the theaters yet and already we have people in tears and threatening to hack each other’s heads off. Is this exciting or what? I've also kind of changed my opinion a bit, and here's why:

After reading the article, I don’t see how anyone could say that it isn’t slanted. If you can, that’s fine, we’re all entitled to our own opinion. Regardless, the article takes special care to make the entire subject matter and people involved look like complete idiots. If you don’t believe me, re-read the article. Now my question is, why? If the movie is a load of crap, then what’s the problem with letting people go and see it? Are people afraid that those not part of the “higher academia” aren’t smart enough to ascertain fact from fiction? Forgive the euphemism, but that is rather condescending, don’t you think? I don’t have a PhD, but I can Post-hole Dig anywhere (notice I highlighted the letters so the “higher academics” would know what I meant, te he he.) My point is if you’re fairly, if not entirely, certain the movie is a load of crock, then you have nothing to worry about.

Now, on the subject of the debate taking place on this talk page, come on guys, let’s be civil with each other here. I’m not going to get into a debate with any of you on the factuality of the existence of God, but I will say this: it takes a lot more faith to believe all of existence formed from a series of accidents to be this orderly universe than it does to believe a God, by his art, created us in his image. A man once described the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory by saying, “It’s like dropping a nuclear bomb into a junkyard and hoping to get a space program.” I can’t remember who said it, but someone on this talk page made a very good point. He said, “consensus does not truth make.” Evolutionists, remember when there was a “consensus” the Earth was the center of the universe? That was when science was controlled by religion. Now, science is controlled by atheism and you know how history has a funny knack at repeating herself.

And to the others, stop running around thinking everyone is out to get you. Even though they probably are, don’t worry about it. If anything, all this attention and attack the movie is getting is GOOD! It gets people interested! If all people see is everyone frantically trying to discredit every aspect of this film, they might be more interested in it. It certainly has me interested; it has me thinking, “Hmm, I wonder what this movie has to say that everyone hates so much?" Raecoli (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If the movie is a load of crap, then what’s the problem with letting people go and see it? No one here or anywhere is preventing people from going to see this movie. However, if you expect people who are educated on the subject matter to remain silent on the complete banal vacuity of their opponent's stance, than your argument is absurd. That hasn't work with combating Holocaust Deniers or traditional YEC Creationism. Freedom of Speech, yes, but idiots spreading deadly ideas justly need to be ridiculed, in public. 66.77.144.5 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is so much fun! Let me help you out a bit, whoever wrote that. Basically you used a lot of really big words ("banal vacuity?"; I may need to see a doctor to find out if my bane is vacuous) to describe something that could be said much simpler: "I don't like this movie because I don't agree with the subject matter, so I'm going to make the people involved look stupid." Writing it that way makes it a lot easier to understand, don't you agree :). By the way, "deadly ideas?" My cooking is deadly, but I think that might be stretching it just a smidgeon. Raecoli (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, whether or not you agree or disagree with the movie is besides the point. The fact is that as an Encyclopedic source, Wikipedia strives to present an account of the world consistent with current expert opinion. For a movie about science, that means scientists and professional movie critics in the mainstream media. Although it's always possible that their take is wrong, they have a more educated point of view. The fact is that most scientists and mainstream media critics who have weighed in have panned this movie, and that should be reflected in the page. I would agree that many of the current criticisms go too far out of the way, and are criticisms of ID in general, and not necessarily this movie, and that should be changed. But the movie page shouldn't be all bubbles and joy. It should reflect the fact that the movie is considered wrong and badly made by many experts. Kumagi (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Kumagi, you make an excellent point, only I've decided I don't have a problem with it anymore. Refer to my comments above. And, ona side note, I guess my elementary school teachers told me wrong when they said encyclopedias present only information. If all the bigwigs with college degrees don't like the movie, of course it should be included, but it should be found in a section called "Criticism" and not be saturated throughout the article. But anyway, I stick to my view that all the attention, good or bad, is good; it gets people interested. Raecoli (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry proves the point of his movie

{{hat|reason=Paranoid, baseless [[WP:SOAP]]. Yes the Evil Atheist Conspiracy ''is'' out to get you — time to put on your tinfoil hat.}}

Holy cow, if any article were a QED for the movie, this would be it. The movie is not about intelligent design, nor about Darwinism, nor about religion. Watch the trailer. The movie is about the squelching of dissenting viewpoints within the scientific and academic community... which is exactly what is happening in this Wikipedia entry.

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a controversial movie, and its Wikipedia article mentions the controversy near the bottom of the page. Michael Moore's films are controversial, and their controversies fork into new articles. Here, Ben Stein's film has not yet opened, and the lead paragraph pretty much declares -- quite unencyclopedically -- that the basis for his film is wrong, and anyone who watches it or believes it is an idiot.

Science is not monolithic. Consensus does not truth make (except on Wikipedia). Scrub this article from all the ready-made refutations and off-topic bloviating, and instead describe the film itself, the way the Gore and Moore entries do. Let Ben Stein's movie compete in the marketplace of ideas, rather than purposely try to torpedo ideas you don't agree with. 216.54.1.206 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no-ones bothering to reply, I won't move this post to the foot of the page in sequence where it belongs, but will merely note that the article reflects the reliable third party sources on which it is based, per WP:V. ... dave souza, talk 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, 216.54.1.206. If anyone doubts that the sorts of things this movie complains of could really happen, they need only look to this article, and its Talk page, for confirmation. NCdave (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this new topic to the end of the Talk page, where it belongs. NCdave (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

hm, the movie appears to be complaining of the fact that most intelligent people think that "ID" is bogus. Well, most people do think it is bogus, so the movie certainly got that right. The problem is just with the implication that somehow there is something wrong with that. Academia sifts through ideas and rejects the useless ones. ID happened to be an useless idea, so it was rejected. Nothing wrong with that. You might as well complain about "No Vril Allowed" or "No Phlogiston Allowed". dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

{{hab}}

I think you are mistaken, Dbachmann, about the point of this documentary. Judging from the promotional material, the complaint is not mainly about the merits of any particular theories, but rather about well-qualified scientists and educators being deprived of their academic freedom, because of their religious views. The movie is about the stifling of non-atheistic viewpoints... just as viewpoints supportive of the documentary are being stifled here on Wikipedia.

Hrafn, please stop deleting other people's comments from the Talk page, and hiding them with {{hab}} templates. How can we hope to achieve WP:consensus if you will not allow other editors to discuss the article and its problems?

Also, I again ask of everyone here that you please not denigrate other wikipedians. That means you should not characterize their views or their religions as "useless" or "stupid," or any other derisive term. Dbachmann, that means you should not suggest that those who disagree with you are unintelligent, or that their ideas are useless. Hrafn, it means you should not call them "paranoid" or suggest that they have tinfoil hats, as you did in this comment. Doing so violates an ironclad Wikipedia rule: WP:no personal attacks, and impedes constructive cooperation. NCdave (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave: it made unsubstantiated accusations of persecution. It is thus legitimately "paranoid" under colloquial meaning on the word. It is also mere WP:SOAPBOXing, that has no legitimate place on this talkpage. Your unarchiving of it is thus disruptive editing. Wikipedia contra to your own repeated, tendentious accusations, does not "stifle" viewpoints, it merely IS NOT A SOAPBOX FOR FRINGE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you said that most people think ID is bogus, but did not give any source to substantiate your claim. Here is a reliable source that contradicts that. It is from a Gallup poll on human origins. Take a look at it. Briefly, the survey states that 14% believe that man developed without God (atheistic evolution), 38% believe that man developed with God guiding (ID), and 43% believe that God created man in present form (Creationism). Data has changed little since 1982. It seems to suggest that ID and Creationism are not fringe beliefs. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you JBFrenchhorn for misrepresenting this survey -- "believ[ing] that man developed with God guiding" could just as easily mean that they believe in theistic evolution as that they believe in ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could mean that they believe in theistic evolution and not ID. The poll should have had four positions: Atheistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution, ID, and young earth creationism. That would have made it much easier to understand. As it is, both sides say it says a different thing. Saksjn (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you would need a lot more then 4 positions and a lot more than one question to actually carefully characterize public beliefs. I do not believe that such a survey has ever been conducted, actually. It has been repeatedly shown for example that the vast majority of the US public cannot correctly choose the definition of evolution out of a multiple choice list.--Filll (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JBFrenchhorn, I am not interested in gallup polls, even if you refrain from misrepresenting them. See WP:RS. The percentage of US Americans embracing ID is merely a gauge of the level of general education in US population. What Wikipedia is interested in is academic mainstream. If an appreciable percentage of USians think ID makes sense, it is the US education system that has a problem, not academia. Wikipedia is built to reflect academic mainstream. If you disagree with academic mainstream (e.g., you like ID), you are certainly free to do that (no persecution), but you cannot expect to be given any voice on Wikipedia (which is a privately owned website which only grants you permission to edit content provided you submit to its policies). ID is not just "a belief" like, say, immaculate conception. It is a religious belief that masquerades as science. No academic would be discriminated against because they religiously believe in immaculate conception. They are rightly treated as incompetent if they are unable to distinguish their religious belief from scientific hypothesis: if you fraudulently try to pass off religious belief as a rational hypothesis I should hope academia treats you as a fraud, anything else would mean academia has broken down. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, dab, refrain from disparaging other people's Faith. When you say that, "if you fraudulently try to pass off religious belief as a rational hypothesis I should hope academia treats you as a fraud," you are calling non-atheists irrational, and those non-atheists who are scientists you are calling frauds. Neither accusation is accurate, and making such accusations or disparaging other people's faith is never acceptable on Wikipedia. NCdave (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is interested in is academic mainstream... Therein lies the problem. This means, any article about a movie, book, or position that challenges the academic mainstream as being dogmatic doesn't stand a chance of a fair shake on Wikipedia when measured against the onslaught of those who wish to defend the dogma.Madjack59 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Woof! .. dave souza, talk 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, that is reality. This Wiki is aimed towards academic standard and has the goal of building an encyclopedia. There are many other wikis which have different goals. I would be pleased to direct you to another one which might suit your tastes better.--Filll (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course the irony of this reply in light of this particular section is that you're essentially proving the whole point here. The point of the movie is that the academic community suppresses opinions that are contrary to the mainstream academic community - to the point of persecution. You are arguing that Wikipedia isn't the place for anything contrary to the academic community, and those that are trying to say others are essentially disruptive editors. This of course makes them open to the various forms of Wikipedia moderation, which is essentially a form of censorship (perhaps appropriate in some cases). However, regardless of whether the censorship is appropriate or not, it does uphold the point that those who advocate for ID are essentially censored, to the point where some have posted block warnings on user pages...Rich0 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, Rich0. NCdave (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Academic community, and wikipedia too, has a dreadful bias against unsubstantiated, illogical hyperbole, and "suppresses", suppresses I tell you, claims for no other reason than that they have no factual basis. Do you know how difficult it is to get the WP:TRUTH that the moon is made of green cheese into either a scientific journal or wikipedia? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn is of course right, and WP:V trumps "Truth". As a parallel to this film, the cheese theory[3] is given full backing in the movie A Grand Day Out. .. dave souza, talk 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of key reminders

According to the splash page of the Crossroads Expelled website:

Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is every generation has its Rebel...

So I want to point out the producers are framing this as an idea being expelled from the classroom and not people. This article by "the producers" from the same web site sheds some light on what idea they're talking about http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=1

Are Atheists Hijacking Academic Freedom? Why some might consider Ben Stein’s new movie to be political dynamite. The theory of intelligent design (ID), holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

Political dynamite.

There are folks working overtime to deny scientists who disagree with the core claim of evolutionary theory the right to pursue the scientific evidence for intelligent design theory. But there is more to this than meets the eye.

They don’t like the very idea of an intelligent cause because they don’t like the idea of allowing even the possibility of the existence of an intelligent “designer.” That might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D. But they simultaneously want you to believe that their belief in atheism has nothing to do with their persecution of scientists and educators, many of whom see scientific evidence for design or a designer. Merely coincidence. That is because they have “defined” science in such a way as to prevent the scientific exploration of intelligent design theory. They say that any evidence that suggests intelligent design in nature isn’t really science. In this manner they are able to “logically” assert that only their theories of life (which just happen to be exclusively atheistic theories) are “real” science, while intelligent design theory is conveniently dismissed as religious “creationism.”

All of this translates into a very nasty piece of business as far as academic freedom goes.

The upcoming film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein articulates why the argument made in the film is irrefutable – meaning that those who oppose “Intelligent Design” theory as a valid topic in the science classroom are simply wrong to oppose it.

But are they also intellectually disingenuous, opponents of academic freedom and proponents of atheism, hijacking “science?” After seeing the film “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed,” we’d appreciate your telling us the answer to that question.

The whole point of man’s thirst for knowledge, scientific and otherwise, is to answer the question “Who are we?” “Where did we come from?” “Why are we here?” and “Where are we headed?” To deny this is to deny the reality of human existence since the beginning. And to simply “declare” that the subject of “science” can somehow side step these questions is either wrong or intellectually disingenuous.

The official definition of science currently holds that it is “the study of observable natural phenomenon that excludes those explanations citing the “supernatural.” This definition is disingenuous – it all but “defines” science as the search for “proof” of …exclusively atheistic theories.

It is the position of the producers of EXPELLED that no government institution or public employee should promote either belief in atheism OR belief in an intelligent designer – one to the exclusion of the other – as official, government policy. Both are presuppositions, both are beliefs and both are valid as scientific bases for scientific exploration. And this is particularly true with respect to the way “science” is officially defined, and especially with respect to our public schools and government institutions. It is simply a tautology to “declare” that science is strictly the study of the natural, and to then simultaneously decree that attempts to explore the universe in terms of the presupposition of intelligent design are “off the table,” and “not science.” To do so is to define “science” in such a way as to officially “favor” explanations that place atheistic presuppositions above those with the presupposition of design at their root. This is not the proper role of the government. Not in America.

Highly credentialed “dissenters” from today’s prevailing “materialist” theories of life’s progression who wish to pursue science on the basis of a presupposition of intelligent design are being persecuted, vilified, denied tenure and even fired from their jobs for their beliefs today. To even question aspects of Darwin’s theory of evolution is being used as prima facie evidence that one is “unintelligent,” and/or unqualified.

To deny this is disingenuous.

Belief in atheism, agnosticism and belief in a designer are real beliefs – let’s not pretend that they don’t exist, can be side stepped or pretend that it is fair, constitutional or intellectually rigorous to favor one such worldview over another... especially in the realm of science. To oppose such academic freedom – especially at the taxpayer’s expense - is simply wrong. If you agree, look here.

~The Producers of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”

Clearly this movie is very much about promoting intelligent design in the classroom and in science. Angry Christian (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. The message that "Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom." and argument that "the possibility of the existence of an intelligent “designer.” ... might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D." , together with the claim that people are wrong to "oppose “Intelligent Design” theory as a valid topic in the science classroom", assertion that the official definition of science currently holds that it is “the study of observable natural phenomenon that excludes those explanations citing the “supernatural.” and the reference to the way “science” is officially defined "especially with respect to our public schools and government institutions." all run right up against the "Establishment Clause" and Kitzmiller. My feeling is that a brief statement about the implications of this reference could be added to the Claims presented in the film section. It also ties in with the very brief statement in the AP news story[4][5] that "The movie argues that schools should teach creationism as an alternative to evolution". ... dave souza, talk 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That excerpt indicates that the topic of the film is academic freedom:

"There are folks working overtime to deny scientists who disagree with the core claim of evolutionary theory the right to pursue the scientific evidence for intelligent design theory."

"...persecution of scientists and educators, many of whom see scientific evidence for design or a designer."

"Highly credentialed “dissenters” from today’s prevailing “materialist” theories of life’s progression who wish to pursue science on the basis of a presupposition of intelligent design are being persecuted, vilified, denied tenure and even fired from their jobs for their beliefs today."

The film's complaint isn't that those who disagree with ID are wrong, it is that they are persecuting the scientists who disagree with them. NCdave (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The film's website quite clearly makes the complaint that ID is excluded from science classrooms (making evaluation of the legitimacy, on scientific and constitutional grounds, of that exclusion a legitimate topic for this article). As to the accusations of "persecution", they are unsubstantiated, and so I refer you to the adjective I employed above to characterise unsubstantiated accusations of persecution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The main point of the film is the persecution of scientists and educators who think there is evidence of a designer's workmanship in the universe. You say that the complaint of persecution is "unsubstantiated," but since the thrust of the film is substantiating that complaint, what you are really saying is simply, "the film is all wrong."

That is essentially what the article currently says. It is a perfect reflection of your POV. However, it is supposed to be balanced. NCdave (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you had better settle down a bit. When I last checked on the "balance" in the article a few weeks ago (before I had added several more paragraphs of material from interviews with producers etc discussing the film's POV), the article was 88% pro-film and about 12% rebuttal (not counting footnotes). Now, given the rules of WP:NPOV, it could easily be balanced at 95% anti-film, however, we are more generous than that. I have no reason to believe that the article does not still include mainly material discussing the film's agenda and POV, with a small amount of material rebutting it. Some of it discusses controversy about the film, much of which was created by the filmmakers themselves, by their cackhanded handling of the creation and promotion of this film. Now if you want some promotional puff piece, you should look to Conservapedia. We do not do that kind of article here, nor are we allowed to, by our rules. Do you understand?--Filll (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said Conservapedia? Their article about Expelled is a fascinating read. The notes and talk page as well. Every editor here would do well to read it. Angry Christian (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

um, why? It's Conservapedia. I could tell they like it without looking. And come on, "persecution" is simply ridiculous. "Not given fair hearing" would sound more reasonable, although it is difficult to imagine what a "fair hearing" would be in this case. dab (𒁳) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Conservapedia article is interesting, but it is still lousy. They decided against discussing any controversy or critical reviews. It is very short and has no content. I think for an encyclopedia article, it should have substantial content, on all sides. It should be valuable for someone 10 or 50 years from now who wants to do research on this event and this movement and this period. The Conservapedia article serves none of those purposes. It is a one-sided embarassment.--Filll (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Conservapedia article is wholesale trash. I linked to it to illustrate what a POV pushing article looks like. Well and for humor reasons, nothing wrong with a little brevity here from time to time :-) Angry Christian (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That "wholesale trash" is at least more informative and less biased than this Wikipedia article. NCdave (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is very negative about the film. Yet Filll says that, by his count, the article is "88% pro-film and about 12% rebuttal." How did you arrive at that, Filll? 88%+12%=100%. Did you find nothing in the article that was actually neutral? Or do you equate neutrality with "pro-film?"

For instance, the current lead sentence is, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of design in nature." Other than the negative bias introduced by use of the word "claim," that sentence seems purely descriptive to me, neither pro- nor anti-film. I would count that 29-word sentence as a 28-word neutrally descriptive sentence, plus one word carrying a negative (i.e., anti-film) connotation. How do you count it? NCdave (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Change it to "argues that" rather than "claims". I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. The problem with the conservapedia article is that it ignores almost the totality of reviews published in mainstream media outlets, and chooses a clearly biased source for its one review. The page also contains original research and an amazing amount of biased language in the Critical response section. It cites only two articles, when a great deal more have been written, almost all negative, and uses an attack on the reporter's integrity that was not made by any reliable sources. The conservapedia article is a textbook example of a biased article. Kumagi (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New review

Lying for Jesus? - Richard Dawkins Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add the Dawkins review and Myer's daughter's review, even though they are WP:SPS since they are notable figures and therefore these are WP:RS for their views which should be included.--Filll (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawkin's comments seem relevant. It isn't completely obvious to me why PZ's daughter's review should matter much. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

if you do, please include Dawkin's remarks about an 'uniformed goon', a 'gauleiter', and his remarks about Stein's 'rotten acting' in Dachau. Stein is Jewish and maybe had a relative murdered by Nazis. Northfox (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read them?--Filll (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not when I wrote that comment. I'm reading them now. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Or trying to, link doesn't seem to be working. Whats the correct link? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It took me quite a few tries before I read Dawkin's review, which is pretty good. I had no trouble with Myer's daughter's review.--Filll (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what are the links you are using? The one Guettarda gave above doesnt seem to work. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The daughter is named Skatje Myers I gather: [6]--Filll (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had already read PZ's daughter's blog and I'm inclined to agree that I don't see any obvious reason to include her commentary. She is not notable in her own right and her only claim would seem to be her relation to PZ and she attended the screening. Would we add the blog comments from one of the Crossroads Expelled producer's kids? I would hope not. I did find her comments well worth reading but I don't think her thoughts belong in the article. We'd open a very ugly can of worms if we did. Angry Christian (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Dawkins link I used. It was very hard to get it to work. I had to try over and over: [7]--Filll (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Front page of digg. Like so many other things that receive that distinction, the website collapsed under the strain. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Relata refero (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Inside Higher Ed has an article on the event, and has a couple more quotes from Mathis. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

John Lynch notes that all future showing appear to have been pulled. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My reading of that is that all future free private showings have been hidden, and invitations will now go out by a secure method. Tied to pigeons or something. Of course since they're showing an extremely rough bodged version without its proper soundtrack only a few weeks from release, expect them to cancel release with the complaint that "Big Science ate my homework". ...... dave souza, talk 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another new review, this one is from New Scientist Are ID Proponents Being Silenced This one includes audience members telling people questioning things in the movie to "shut up" and a claim that many of the people posing "friendlier" questions to the producers were working the movie registration tables prior to the screening. Fascinating Angry Christian (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is impressed and is "literally shocked" by the "condescension and the arrogance" of the professors interviewed. Literally, huh? :) Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My favorite quote "they will readily admit that Darwinism and evolution do not explain how life began." Well of course they will readily admit it, that is a fact. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with life's origins. Note that evolution does not even attempt to explain the universe either. Yet another literal shocker! What amazes me is how ignorant of evolution (and science in general) most evolution critics are. Ben Stein is a perfect example. He's pissed because evolution doesn't explain the universe or how life started. Well duh. Angry Christian (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If evolution does not explain the origin of life, then what does it explain? Kookywolf (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC) See biology....... dave souza, talk 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Hopefully, a side benefit for people who are not well versed in this material who are visiting this page, is that they will actually learn a bit about what evolution is. Kookywolf, remember a book called "On the Origin of Species It was Darwin's book that described evolution. And guess what evolution describes? How we get different species! Amazing, isnt it?--Filll (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) If evolution is how we get different species, then obviously evolution must be how we got the first living creature on earth, which would then produce varieties of more complex creatures. So my rational conclusion is that evolution must be how life originated. If it is not, please educate me - how did life originate? Kookywolf (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Um there is some confusion here. No it is not "obvious" that evolution is how we got the first living creature on earth. And evolution has no internal mechanism that leads to necessarily more complicated organisms (another common fallacy). No one knows how life originated, although there are dozens of theories. But the origin of life (or abiogenesis) is not part of evolution. Discussing it at length is outside the purview of this page, however.--Filll (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC) please educate me - no, please don't. This isn't the place to correct an editor's general misconceptions. Guettarda (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Basic, Darwinistic, Natural Selection evolution does not describe how life began, it just attempts to explain a way that species change. Modern evolutionists on the other hand, have used explanations like Primordial Soup to describe how life began. So really, you're both right, and you're both wrong. Whether or not evolution tries to explain the origins of life depends on whether you're talking about basic darwinistic evolution, or talking about modern attempts to explain the origin as well as diversification of life. Saksjn (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC) My problem with abiogenesis is this, long ago the scientific community said that all life must come from life. Theories like primordial soup go against that. A reverse in theory has taken place, and a long time accepted theory has been discarded. Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[Archiving restored and further disruptive off-topic WP:SOAPboxing by NCDave removed per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) ]

Edit needed

The following needs to be changed:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial, which forbids the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools, as promotion of religion by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The paired commas makes the bit about the Kitzmiller trial a parenthetical statement, and hence it would appear that the film discusses the trial as a promotion of religion.

Furthermore, there's a problem with saying that it violates the constitution. Judicial rulings change from time to time. The 14th amendment didn't change between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. What changed were the rulings and their resultant precedent. My rewrite would be to the following:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal judge ruled the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If that's kosher with all y'all, I'd like to make that change. Dolewhite (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The existing grammar is unclear, however I do not support your proposed change. Better wording would be: "The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial which forbids, as promotion of religion by the government and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The *trial* doesn't forbid anything. The ruling does. That sentence is a run-on nightmare. If you don't understand that the first amendment contains the establishment clause, then click on the link. That's way too much information for a single sentence. Dolewhite (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the original language is tortuous at best. I have a couple minor issues with Dolewhite's suggested change, while finding Hrafn's still rather hard to follow for the average reader. I like Dolewhite's version better, but I'd drop "wherein a federal judge" and simply have it read, "..., which ruled the...". And there ought to be some quick mention of *why* the teaching of Intelligent Design was considered afoul of the First Amendment, something along the lines of, "...a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it promoted a religious position." Also, this isn't the place to get into it, but the Kitzmiller decision didn't actually prohibit "the teaching of intelligent design" per se, it only prohibited teaching of ID performed similar to the manner attempted in Dover. It would still be allowable to "teach ID" in a purely secular manner, or as a topic in a religious study class, just not (as was attempted in Dover and almost everywhere else people have attempted to introduce "ID" to a curriculum) as a vehicle by which to make students more receptive to creationist views. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the *case* didn't "rule" anything. The judge did. A judge is a person, and a person can do things. The abstract 'trial' is not an actor. As for the why, I'd suggest I throw in "the establishment clause" of the first amendment. So how about:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal judge ruled the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Better? Dolewhite (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Readers are well aware that judges are responsible for case rulings. The extra verbiage adds nothing, and a quick Google turns up tens of thousands of examples of language along the lines of, "the decision ruled that..." As a compromise, how about, "...the consequences of Kitzmiller blah, which prohibits the teaching of..." Even after the judge has gone home, the case itself now prohibits such teaching. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources such as Larson use terms like "essentially" to characterize similar ambiguities in earlier anti-evolution cases. Didn't Kitzmiller explicitly only "forbid" the Dover version of ID presented at trial? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly, yes, but by implication it (and all other court decisions) have the effect of also affecting other situations which would be "essentially" similar enough to run afoul of the same criteria used to nix the one explicitly struck down. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording needs changing. However, it is inaccurate to say that "Kitzmiller... prohibits the teaching of," because the case is valid precedent only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and also because even in the Middle District of Pennsylvania what it prohibited was not the teaching of ID, but the requirement to teach it. It is not a gag order on science teachers.

What's more, "Establishment Clause" is the wrong term. The "Establishment Clause," itself, says nothing at all about schools, it only restricts "Congress." In fact, when it was adopted most States had "establishments of religion" (official State-supported churches). Ironically, Congress still has daily prayers, which are not deemed to violate the Establishment clause, but in the schools prayers are prohibited, ostensibly by the Establishment Clause. In truth, it was not the Establishment Clause which prohibited school prayer and the support of religion in public K-12 schools, it was an activist SCOTUS, ruling supposedly on the basis of the 14th and 1st Amendments in combination, after the authors and ratifiers of both those Amendments were all safely in their graves (along with most of their grandchildren), with an interpretation of that Amendment that would have astounded those authors. So, rather than saying "Establishment Clause," we should simply refer to (un)constitutionality, which gets the job done without wading into this whole ugly can of worms.

I tried to fix this, but was immediately reverted, and Hrafn then also deleted the discussion of a possible compromise wording from the Talk page (contravening WP:Talk).

The compromise wording we were narrowing in on was something along the lines of, "according to current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, promotion of religion in American public schools is unconstitutional." So what do you folks think about a wording like this:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

The three key points are:

• We need to just refer to (un)constitutionality, since the basis for that alleged unconstitutionality is much more complex than just "the establishment clause" or "the 14th amendment," and a discussion of 14th Amendment Incorporation is way, way beyond the scope of this article.
• Kitzmiller did not prohibit teaching ID, it prohibited a requirement to teach it. The difference is important.
• The Kitzmiller case is not a generally binding precedent. It applies only to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

So, what do you folks think of that wording? NCdave (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from NCdave. What we "need" is for you to stop repeating this baseless, discredited line about the Establishment Clause. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You might find the Incorporation (Bill of Rights) article informative, Hrafn. NCdave (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kitzmiller verdict is regarded as a "broad ruling", usable as a legal precedent for all similar cases throughout America (in the sense that any attempt to introduce ID in a similar fashion elsewhere will be swiftly dismissed because it would be a rehash of Kitzmiller). Therefore any claim that the precedent is technically limited to just that district is essentially moot: legally, ID is dead. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, I'd like to second what Hrafn and Robert Stevens have said. They are correct, and your attempts at nit-picking do not add anything to the discussion, much less the WP articles. Like it or not, the Kitzmiller decision does indeed have the effect of nixing the teaching of "ID" as a surrogate for creationism in all public schools. This remains the case until/if someone mounts a successful challenge to it somewhere. Until then, however, you haven't a leg to stand on. Deal with it. You also need to deal with the fact that your personal interpretation of the Establishment clause and its judicial/legislative implications is not the one that holds sway in the courts. And your irrelevant side issues (such as the fact that Congress has prayers) does nothing to change that. Maybe you can't figure out why, but if anything this is only more reason for you to sit back and leave the subject to those who do actually understand the subject well enough to not keep tilting at windmills. In short, your repeated attempts to force your personal viewpoint into articles instead of describing the world as it actually exists are more disruptive and irritating than useful. --Ichneumon (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, ID can be taught in Dover, just not portrayed as science in science class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Oops Angry Christian (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert, the term "broad" as in "broad ruling" is descriptive of what the ruling says, and has nothing to do with where the ruling is binding. Appellate-level courts can create binding precedents within their jurisdictions, but Judge Jones is not an appellate judge. The decision is binding only in the particular case, though it is likely to be respected as non-binding precedent within rest of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Consider the opinion of Barbara Forrest, who was an expert witness for the ACLU in the case, and who is on the board of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. She speculated that the reason Discovery Institute did not participate in the case was their concern that the Dover policy was on shaky legal grounds. She wrote, "The problem, however, was that DI did not want this case because the Dover board, urged on by TMLC, had explicitly crafted its policy to promote “intelligent design.”"

Ichneumon, welcome to the discussion. I plead guilty to nit-picking. In fact, if you click on my name you will see that the one thing I say about myself is that I am a "sticker stickler" for truth and accuracy. Even if an inaccuracy is a "nit," I still want it fixed. Don't you?

Discovery Institute's position is (and always has been) opposed to requirements like Dover's, which require teaching ID. Here's is what they say:

Discovery Institute's science education policy has been consistent and clear. We strongly believe that teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, but we think mandatory inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula is ill-advised. Instead, we recommend that schools require only that the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinism be taught, while not infringing on the academic freedom of teachers to present appropriate information about intelligent design if they choose. Although we believe teaching about intelligent design is constitutionally permissible, we think mandating intelligent design politicizes what should be a scientific debate and harms the efforts of scientists who support design to gain a fair hearing in the scientific community.[8]

The difference between requiring and permitting is important enough that DI's participation in the Kitzmiller case hinged on that difference, and they ultimately declined to participate because Dover's policy was mandatory. So I think you'll agree that at least the 2nd of my three bullets is no nit.

Now, can we please discuss the specifics of the proposed compromise wording? What do you folks think about this version:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

Is there anything there that anyone thinks is inaccurate, unbalanced, or even just clumsily worded? NCdave (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, if you're not going to listen to what other people say, I see no point in repeating the same material over again for you to ignore again. Suffice to say that I do not agree to your proposed rewording. For reasons why, look above, and stop your time-wasting attempts to succeed by repetition that which you have not achieved the first time. And no, it's not worth being a "sticker [sic]" for truth and accuracy when your attempted "fixes" muddle the issue more than they clarify it, and/or give a misleading impression to the reader unfamiliar with the details of the topic. --Ichneumon (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a typo. My page actually says "stickler." Thanks for the correction, Ichneumon. (How embarrassing to have a typo in a sentence about being a stickler for truth and accuracy!)

However, accuracy does not "muddle" or "mislead." Thus far, nobody has identified any problems with the proposed sentence. But the current version is misleading or inaccurate in multiple ways. Here it is again:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial, which forbids the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools, as promotion of religion by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Look at all the inaccuracies in that sentence:

• The Kitzmiller trial didn't forbid anything, the presiding judge did. (Okay, this one's a nit.)
• Judge Jones didn't forbid teaching intelligent design, he blocked the requirement to make teachers read a statement about intelligent design. (This is definitely not a nit.)
• Jones' decision didn't forbid anything in the "American public schools," his ruling applied only to the Dover schools. (This is definitely not a nit.)
• "The government" is a misnomer, and an important one, since what is prohibited to one level of government is not always prohibited to others. (Okay, this one's maybe a nit, but it is kind of a pet peeve of mine.)
• Promotion of religion by government has not been held by the courts to violate the constitution in all cases. For example, the Congress and State legislatures customarily open with daily prayer, the military employs chaplains, currency displays the motto "In God We Trust," etc. (This is not a nit.)
• It is a gross oversimplification to say that the Establishment Clause (alone) enjoins government promotion of religion; see Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights). (You might think this is a nit, but I do not.)

That's six inaccuracies in just one sentence! Admittedly, a couple of them are nits. But even nits should be fixed. The proposed version fixes them all. So won't you please discuss it? NCdave (talk) 22:06, 27 March & 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pertinent to bullets 2 and 3, this is what Judge Jones ordered:

"...we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

(The "ID Policy" was the school district's requirement "that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement [regarding ID] to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School...")

Note that Judge Jones' order applied to the Dover Area School District, not to "American public schools." Also, note that he enjoined the school district from requiring teachers to mention ID, or requiring them to "denigrate or disparage" evolution. He did not forbid teachers from teaching or disparaging anything at all. NCdave (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

May I assume, from the lack of replies/argument, that there is no disagreement with this list of inaccuracies in the current sentence, and thus no disagreement with the need to fix it? NCdave (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You can take from this that we're sick to death of your tendentious, disruptive & WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments and have given up on searching through this way-over-bloated talk page to find them repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kitmiller case established that ID is not science. Period. Rather, it is religious creationism. Period. Because ID is religion and not science, it will never be legal to teach it as science within American state schools anywhere: ID won't suddenly become science if it's taught in the next district, nor if it isn't made mandatory by the school board. That is the actual consequence of the Kitzmiller ruling, regardless of any technical details. That's why the DI is now complaining that Jones "shouldn't have ruled" on whether ID is science: because it is accepted that he DID so rule. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if a later judicial ruling overturns Kitzmiller, something highly unlikely to happen now, this might be reversed. The precedent established by this ruling is the thing that hurts ID badly. And I do not quite understand all the complaining about our wording; it appears accurate to me.

I also do not understand all the whining from the creationist community on this issue. What they really want is the right to force other people's children to be indoctrinated into the beliefs of their particular narrow miniscule minority religious sects, in public secular schools, using public funds, in science classes, and to force teachers to do it using the power of the state (police, jails, fines, etc). This is just pure nonsense, and of course it is opposed as unreasonable, which it should be. What if I tried to force your churches to preach that all their beliefs were nonsense every Sunday, or else I would put your preachers in jail? And forced your churches to pay for this? When you examine this in a bit of detail, the entire arguments fall apart.--Filll (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The KvD case is analogous to the McLean case. "Creation science" got its clock cleaned in McLean, but only for Arkansas, since the state of Arkansas declined to appeal the decision. The Edwards case got taken to the Supreme Court, and that's the decision that applies nationwide and is precedential for "creation science". McLean, though, certainly influenced the courts, and is largely the reason that the plaintiffs in Louisiana got a summary judgment leading to the Edwards case. As some wag put it, ID has had its McLean but not its Edwards. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you have some misconceptions regarding the ID hypothesis and its supporters. Nobody I've heard of who supports it wants "the right to force other people's children to be indoctrinated into the beliefs of their particular narrow miniscule minority religious sects, in public secular schools, using public funds, in science classes, and to force teachers to do it using the power of the state (police, jails, fines, etc)." Certainly there's no indication that any of the people involved with this movie hold such a view. Unfortunately, however, there are plenty of folks like Dawkins who demand that other people's children be indoctrinated with atheism in the schools. NCdave (talk)

NCdave, again you are confused and, to be blunt, flat out wrong (I guess this should not be too surprising, considering that you had never heard of Behe, the most important scientist in Intelligent Design, and the one scientist on whose testimony the Intelligent Design case rested on in KvD, yet you claim to be an ID expert and presume to lecture us on what ID is about and what ID people and supporters think about every single issue with some presumed authority and knowledge).

You should of course know that Dawkins is on record, numerous times, in print and in his books, of advocating the teaching of mandatory religion classes and comparative religion classes in publicly funded government secular schools (for example, read The God Delusion). You should also know that Dawkins at one time signed a petition arguing that religious upbringing of children should be illegal, but then withdrew his support for this campaign when he realized this would prevent the teaching of religion classes as he wanted in public secular schools with public tax money. That is not really promoting atheism, but choice, right? More information, not less. Knowing what the organizing principle is behind biology, that is subscribed to by over 99.9% of all professional biologists (over 99.99% by my calculations) is not about teaching atheism. If it causes trouble for biblical literalists, well their beliefs are either too fragile, or they need to consider other options for their children's educations, which are of course available to them. What they really are doing is not worrying about their own children's education (which they can already accommodate in many different ways), but wanting to force other people's children to get exposed to their own ridiculous beliefs.

The creationists and intelligent design proponents push to have less information available, so people have fewer choices, and less information on which to base their decisions. In state after state, and now in Florida, the intelligent design movement is all about forcing others to pay to promote the narrow religious beliefs of a tiny segment of the US population and an infinitesimally small fraction of Christendom and the world's population, and forcing others to preach their religious beliefs. Read the Wedge Document. Listen to the interviews with the producers of the film, or the interviews seeking to promote the film. These are not good people, or honest people. And before you promote their agenda much more, you should understand it a bit better.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can present a whole host of examples where ID advocates have attempted to have children "indoctrinated" with fallacious, religiously-motivated "criticisms" of evolution -- the Kansas & Ohio SBOEs come immediately to mind. Also, I would ask you to substantiate or retract your claim that Dawkins "demand[s] that other people's children be indoctrinated with atheism in the schools." He may demand that they be taught accurate science, and may disapprove of them being indoctrinated with religion, but I highly doubt if he's ever demanded atheism indoctrination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wesley, you are correct about the court cases. As a matter of law, Judge Jones' ruling applies only to the Dover Area School District. Federal district judges do not create binding precedents for the whole country.

Also, Jones' order did not prohibit teaching about ID, it only prohibited a requirement to teach about ID. (Aside: the McLean and Edwards decisions regarding creation science also only prohibited a requirement to teach creation science.) NCdave (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that it was a "requirement to teach about ID" that he was ruling on, that is hardly surprising. However, his findings of fact and law would equally apply to 'unrequired' teaching in public schools as well. That is the power of a legal precedent -- it doesn't apply to just identical situations, but situations with sufficient similarity. And while it might not be binding outside the Federal District, it is likely to be influential (in the same way that Epperson v. Arkansas‎ was). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the Kitzmiller decision might influence future decisions. But it is not binding anywhere except in the Dover Area Schools. As it was not an appellate decision, it has no authority as a precedent elsewhere. So it isn't accurate to say that it "might not be binding" outside the Dover Area Schools. It is not binding anywhere else, there's no "might" about it. NCdave (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The current sentence about Kitzmiller in this Wikipedia article is wildly inaccurate. May we please discuss how to fix it? Here is a proposed replacement:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in public schools.

That doesn't explicitly make the point that Jones' decision applies only to the Dover Area Schools, but that might be more detail that is really necessary. Would anyone care to suggest improvements? Wesley, what do you think? NCdave (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with this heavily watered-down wording. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The only "watering down" I did in in that sentence was to omit the clear statement that the decision applies only to the Dover Area Schools. We could say:

The film also discusses the consequences of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in the Dover, PA public schools.

So what, specifically, don't you like about it, Hrafn? NCdave (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...I'm sorry, but one or more of three things are true: 1. You have no knowledge of how legal systems ANYWHERE work. 2. You are a ridiculously tendentious editor or 3. ...Well, WP:CIVIL doesn't allow me to say 3.

"ruled that it is unconstitutional to require teaching about intelligent design in the Dover, PA public schools." That is one of the most idiotic suggestions I have ever seen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Idiotic or not, it is factual. But we're now discussing a proposed replacement for a version of the sentence that is long gone from the article. The current version is much expanded, and is improved in several ways: it now explicitly states that what was at issue was a requirement to teach about ID (though the final sentence obfuscates that fact), and it no longer expounds unnecessarily & inaccurately on the Establishment Clause. The current version (reformatted as one paragraph) reads:

The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Kitzmiller was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. The court ruling noted that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and that it was "not science" and, indeed, "fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science." The court concluded, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) and finally noted, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

Despite the improvement, I still have problems with the current version. For one thing, it is way, way too long. More importantly, it is misleading in several ways:

• The summary of the Judge Jones' ruling draws entirely on his ancillary remarks, and not at all on what he actually ordered, which has the effect of dramatically increasing the apparent scope of the decision beyond what he actually ordered.
• There is no indication that this was a district-level case, which has no binding precedent authority outside the Dover Area Schools - an extremely important fact.
• There is no indication that this decision was the opinion of just one judge.

The last problem is trivially fixed, simply by substituting "the judge" for "the court," throughout. Or, better yet, substitute District Judge John E. Jones, III for the first one, and either "the judge" or "Judge Jones" for the 2nd one. Can we all agree on that simple change? NCdave (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your concerns, I don't agree with that one. If it's in the issued opinion, then it's the court, according to standard description of judicial opinions. You can throw in that "Jones wrote" something, but it's still the court. Only if it's an independent statement would you really say it's the Judge. However, I do agree that the paragraph is too long, and might suggest removing the block quote portion of it so people can see it's just a brief summary, and get more information about the case in that article. Mackan79 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NCDave, you were blocked once for all this tendentious arguing. Can you please drop the damn quibbling? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's tendentious arguing or an unreasonable suggestion. Mackan79 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Claims that scientists were misled by interviewers" additional information

This section should really mention the whole "domain registration" issue -- apparently the domain "expelledthemovie.com" was registered by them a couple months BEFORE PZ and Dawkins were questioned by the filmmakers; So their claim that "Crossroads" was simply the working title are very dubious. This information should really be included in the appropriate section of this article, as I think it's very pertinent. How should it be sourced? We could probably find a WHOIS link to show when the domain was initially registered. Elecmahm (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to second this. I actually came to the talk page to suggest the same thing. It's also mentioned in the last three paragraphs of Dawkins' "Lying for Jesus?" blog article. It's a piece of objective evidence that makes the deceitful practices of the makers of the film blatantly obvious. -- HiEv 07:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there's more on the topic. Interviews with Ben Stein have him contradicting the story Mathis insists upon concerning "Crossroads" and raises the likelihood that the "Expelled" producers used (without permission) the Harvard/XVIVO animation to recruit Stein for the project. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok -- I'm going to go ahead and add this under the "Interview Controversy" section. Here are some references I'm using: Whois.net entry for expelledthemovie.com and Whois.net entry for expelledmovie.com. The former entry was created on March 2nd 2007, (registered through Tucows) the latter one month later (via Godaddy). But both domains point to the Expelled movie's website. PZ claims he was contacted in April 2007. I've been looking for some corroboration on this point, but have not yet found any. Is it worth noting in the wiki article anyways, perhaps with the preface that it's a claim made by PZ himself? I don't think this is damning PROOF of deception, but it certainly lends credibility to those that claim they were deceived. Elecmahm (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intrusion or Inclusion

Consider this edit. It seems to me that User:Brain Rodeo was correct in making this change. But it was reverted by User:Dave souza, restored by yours truly, and reverted again by User:Hrafn. Hrafn stated: "'religious doctrines' have no legitimate place in 'science classes' -- so it is an 'intrusion', not an 'inclusion'"

I think that using "intrusion" violates POV. We aren't supposed to decide what does or does not have a legitimate place in a science class (even if this court or that court has said so) and tailor our wording to reflect that belief. We are just supposed to state the facts. Those people who are being described are opposed to the inclusion of ID in science classes. That is the fact. There is considerable disagreement as to whether or not such inclusion would in fact be an inclusion.

Please reply here if you agree or disagree. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"We aren't supposed to decide what does or does not have a legitimate place in a science class" or whether ID is religion-based or not. While I do not think this is in serious dispute, it is still being contested by the promoters of ID and others. Gralgrathor (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, care to explain what "I think that using "intrusion" violates POV" means? And how the word intrusion violates it? Since there are about 20 or more court rulings stating this, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and science classes are for science, and teaching other things in science classes is an intrusion, I do not understand what the problem is.

I will point out that we are not deciding what belongs or doe not belong. We are just reporting what the courts have ruled and the science community has stated. The law of the land. And the consensus of the science community. Period.

Now, I am uncertain about which word to use from a linguistic perspective. However, there is no problem with using the word intrusion if we are just worried about accuracy and exposition.--Filll (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite what are biases are I think inclusion does sound less POV. I mean, is it really that different and the changing of it would appease some of the more radical editors and save us from a long argument. Saksjn (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When there is sloppy language and reasoning used, like "less POV", this discussion starts to lose any meaning whatsoever.--Filll (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

'inclusion' is "less POV" than 'intrusion' because intrusion has very negative meanings that inclusion does not. We could say Judge X said this was an intrusion into the classroom but wikipedia should avoid strong language like that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If its my language you are talking about, please point out the mistakes. I am willing to learn and want to be given advice. Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note well that the sentence in question explicitly shows the views of those opposed to teaching of religion in science classes – "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes." The change to the mealy-mouthed "inclusion" casts their view in the terms preferred by the minority who oppose the US constitutional separation of church and state, and so violates NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, there is the issue of context: these scientists would themselves see it as an intrusion, therefore this form accurately reflects the nature of their objection. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The article currently says: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes" (emphasis added).

Some people evidently want to replace the word "intrusion" with the word "inclusion". I would disagree. There's no reason why Wikipedia cannot say that those scientists view it as an "intrusion". On the other hand, we don't want to give the impression that Wikipedia views it as an intrusion, lest we violate the NPOV principle. So, I would suggest rewriting the sentence like so: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what they view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes" (emphasis added).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also the view of Edwards v. Aguillard, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, & McLean v. Arkansas. In fact it would be difficult to find a credible authority that didn't consider it to be an "intrusion" (and no dissenting credible authority has been cited). Therefore stating that it is only viewed by "scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution" as an intrusion is not to give it its WP:DUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The language I suggested did not say or imply that "only" the interviewed scientists view those doctrines as an intrusion. As the article stands right now, Wikipedia is taking the position that those doctrines are an intrusion.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting into a revert war. This comment My most recent edit will be my last edit today at this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia should not take the position that these doctrines are an intrusion or are not an intrusion. If someone wants to edit this article to say that various court decisions have viewed them as an intrusion, then that would be fine. That is not the same thing as Wikipedia taking a position on the matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your enthusiassm for giving equal validity to the minority viewpoint, your proposal gives undue weight to the minority position and misrepresents the clear majority view in science and amongst science educators as well as the established legal position. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So should wikipedia also carefully avoid stating that a burglar breaking into a home is an "intrusion"? The basis for that "position" is the same as for the statement under debate -- strong legal precedent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We can weasel word things a lot, but at some point the writing becomes tortured and hard to read. When there have been something like 15 major court decisions saying it is an intrusion, including a couple of supreme court decisions, and many many dozens of minor court decisions saying it is an intrusion, and well in excess of 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields in favor of teaching only evolution in science classes, and every major scientific and educational body stating the same thing, as well as all the major religious organizations in the US (covering over 80% of all Americans) then it is pretty overwhelming that it is an intrusion. The only groups that are in favor of putting intelligent design in the classroom are (1) a tiny fraction of religious fundamentalists and other extremists, somewhat like a Christian version of the Taliban; an extreme minority among Christians worldwide (way less than 5%) (2) a large fraction of the US public that have been confused about the issue by propaganda; most members of the US public could not pick the definition of "evolution" out of a multiple choice list (as shown repeatedly in surveys) (3) a few politicians who pander to this faction of the public for votes (4) assorted religious leaders like Ken Ham who make money (over 200,000 dollar a year salary, last I checked) from spewing lies and other nonsense, or Discovery Institute fellows who are paid an extra 30, 40 or 50 thousand dollars a year to publish unscientific drivel.

So all in all, intrusion does not sound so bad and so unrealistic.--Filll (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing weaselly about striking through these three words: "In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."[9] This strikethrough was reverted, and the effect of the reversion is to insist that Wikipedia take a position, and abandon NPOV. There is not the slightest problem of undue weight if those words are struck out. Nor is there any problem of undue weight if instead the words "what they view as" are inserted.[10]

It is very clear that some editors here wish to rely on several court decisions to justify Wikipedia taking the same positions as those courts. That is a blatant POV violation. Reporting in this article what those courts said would be fine, but adopting it as the Wikipedia position is not fine.

Additionally, if you want to discuss what courts have said, not a single court in the United States has said that those doctrines are an intrusion in any science course at a private school. All of the court decisions have been about public schools. So, you're not only violating NPOV principles, but are using false arguments to try to justify it.

Personally, I don't think religious doctrines or pseudoscience belong in science classes at private school or public school, but that is my personal opinion, and I would not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advance that personal opinion of mine (as you folks are doing).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you do seem to be using this talk page to advocate a rather liberal concern to pander to the minority view at the expense of clearly showing the overwhelming majority view as required by NPOV policy. Nuff said. .. dave souza, talk 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously against Wikipedia policy to portray a majority view as the correct and only view, and to furthermore adopt it as the Wikipedia view. You are free to say what the majority view is and what the minority view is in this article, but it is not Wikipedia's business to take sides. And if you ever do decide to conform this article to NPOV, you might also mention that courts in the United States are unanimous that mentioning creationism and the like in science courses is not an intrusion, except at public schools.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made an edit on the matter, with reasoning being in my edit summary. I have never before edited or even looked at this article before today, and I think that the theory of intelligent design is complete and utter nonsense, so I can hardly be described as POV pushing. Restepc (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ferrylodge, the courts in the United States have consistently ruled that these are not science. It therefore follows that teaching non-science in science classes would be an "intrusion" in any school, not just a public school: it's just that the church/state angle doesn't cover private schools, which are actually free to teach anything (creationism, skateboarding, hip-hop, wrestling...) in "science" classes. But I think Restepc's edit does the job: it keeps "intrusion" and attributes it to those who care. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the edit by Restepc, and also with everything that Restepc said in his comment, with a few caveats. It does seem like the basic laws of physics emanated from an intelligent design, and lots of eminent scientists have said so, from Newton to Einstein. So, it's not completely outlandish to suppose that scientists in the future might find some intelligent design at work in conjunction with the evolutionary process of natural selection --- but that hasn't happened yet. And don't forget that choosing your mate does involve some intelligent design: would you choose a mate who would cause your offspring to be hideous? I think not.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

current edit war

I'm really tempted to get involved in the current edit war, but I'm not going to. I'm going to ask every one else to do the same and finish discussing it here before we start edit war this thing to mush. Saksjn (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit war untile the conservative blogger /pov tag team showed up. There's a COI violation in there somewhere I bet. Odd nature (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How funny! I'm going to have to stop reading this talk page: my stomach is starting to bruise from the hysterics! Raecoli (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein would have liked Darwin to just keep quiet

I am not about to try to edit this Wikipedia entry, but I'd like to bring up something that might be worth including. Ben Stein basically saying that Darwin should have just shut up:

"5. What would you like to say to Darwin?

[Ben Stein answers]" "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don’t you just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?" "

So much for their concern about freedom, academic or otherwise. If Stein could have persuaded him not to publish science, that's what he'd have done.

I am not sure where this might go in the entry. Obviously it could serve as a counterexample to any of their claims to be promoting "academic freedom," but that's up to those who know more about editing.

Glen Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Davidson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting link, Stein certainly makes some bizarre statements, such as "If you’re taught something, and asked to take it on faith, in your science class, then you should say, “Sir, you’re asking me to take it on faith. And if we’re talking about things that are taken on faith, then could we also talk about Intelligent Design, which is my faith?” Yup, that argument's really going to help next time there's a court case about pushing religion into science classes. However, my feeling is that it's a primary source in terms of WP: no original research and we really need a published reliable secondary source verifiably making the assessment of Stein's statements. . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that little interview snippet, but I would prefer to wait until after the interview with Dobson air to incorporate them both into this article. --Filll (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what were the comments made by Ben Stein immediately before or after he made that statement? I'm interested to know if they may have been taken out of context. Not saying you did, of course, I would just like to see that information made available before something we're not sure wasn't a joke, or sarcastic, or serious. Raecoli (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raecoli, the article is linked. Notice that Dave Souza wrote "Thanks for an interesting link". The phrase "Ben Stein basically saying that Darwin should have just shut up" is in a lighter blue color than most blue words in the discussion page, because it is an outside link that you may click on to read the quote in its original context. That link takes you to this address: http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007058.cfm Glen Davidson

Thank you, Glen. I had always had trouble with those bright blue words, what do you call them? hyper something? No, Glen I read the interview on the website and it looks to me like he was making a joking remark (the kind I make on a daily basis.) But of course, if it really is that big of a deal, I suppose I'm doomed to Hell for sure. Raecoli (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a very original dodge. Glen Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Davidson (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he was dodging anything. I simply think he was making a humorous remark (we all know Ben Stein is notorious for his dry wit) before getting to the crux of the matter. One of the most important things to know in life is not to take everything at face value. We've all said things that I'm sure could be considered questionable or offensive on paper, but when looking at them in the context they were used a lot of the time you see what was said wasn't really meant at all. And that's the truth, son. Raecoli (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming that Stein was dodging anything. Other than telling Darwin to shut up, that statement is consistent with everything else he says. So it's pretty clear that he meant it. What is not an original dodge is for creationist apologists to claim that someone was joking when there is nothing to indicate that he was. Glen Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Davidson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Glen, if you get nothing else out of this discussion, I want you to learn two things: 1) a major reason why we have so many problems in the world is because instead of sitting down and talking to each other respectfully, people tend to say inflammatory things at one another and get all sorts of feathers ruffled until we wip out the AK-47s and settle it the old-fashioned way. 2) You want to avoid using vague generalities to legitimize a claim (i.e., "that statement is consistent with everthing else he says"; with what other statements is it consistent?, and how so?)

I am not a creationist apologist (as far as I'm concerned, neither creation nor evolution has been proven scientifically) and if I appeared to be dogding, please allow me to clarify. Granted, the comment on its own, may indicate a lack of belief in academic freedom. But, when read in the context of the entire interview, it is blatanly obvious he making a casual remark, possibly out of sarcastic frustration. In the previous question, he said, "No science teacher can tell a student how life originated on this earth, or anywhere. No science teacher can tell anyone for sure where matter originated. A biology teacher cannot offer any evidence of a single, distinct species that has evolved under observation. You can clearly see the effects of gravity. Where is the observed proof of Darwinism?" And earlier, he said, "Darwinism had led to academic suppression. Anyone who questioned the orthodoxy of Darwinism was losing his job, getting harassed, losing his grants, losing his office, her office. This was not supposed to happen in a country based upon freedom of speech. I was very worried about that."

He was not going on a ideological tirade against a proven fact, he was listing grievances caused by a widespread teaching of an unproven, unsubstantiated theory as irrefutable scientific fact. For example, at a football game, one team totally wipes the other out. Afterward, the winning coach says, "They [the losers] might as well have stayed home." Did he literally mean they should have stayed home? Of course not. Plus, I want you to look at what he says immediately after making that comment, "I want to emphasize, Darwin was not like the crazed neo-Darwinists of today. Darwin believed in the freedom of inquiry. He encouraged there to be further study and debate. He said that in writing before he died. Neo-Darwinists ask us to believe in things not seen. We’re not supposed to have an established religion in America, but we do, and it’s called Darwinism." Doesn't look like a literal attempt to suppress a scientific idea to me, but an example of sarcastic frustration.

And, that's really all there is to say on this whole thing. You can take the one comment at face value, or look at in the context of the interview as a whole, but I think you should really consider it before including this comment in the article. You might mess around and prove Stein's point if you're not careful. Raecoli (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An edit conflict ate my first response, which may be just as well. Look, what matters is that Ron came in here with the idea that the context would mean that Stein's remarks were "joke, or sarcastic", not serious, and of course he concluded that they were. Nothing he says changes anything, and little is even to the point.

Ron is an apologist for creationism (that is what I meant with "creationist apologists", which I admit is ambiguous), or he wouldn't be calling a highly substantiated theory an "unsubstantiated theory". That is the only context that he's actually appealing to, the idea that Stein is relating true grievances over the teaching of evolution as an "irrefutable fact" (strawman fallacy), which has been thoroughly refuted across the web, and especially in the journals. But the fact is that forcing scientists to accept pseudoscience and its anti-science underpinnings as if these count as real science is already a violation of free speech, freedom of religion, and of the freedom of inquiry, hence Stein's statement that he'd tell Darwin to live quietly and to keep his science to himself only fits the broader context.

However, the case demonstrating Stein's assaults against freedom is not to be made here (I agree that Raecoli wrote an off-topic rant), nor is this the place to claim that Stein is a freedom fighter, hence his remark is out of character. The fact is that it is in-character, and only states explicitly what is inherent in his whole attack on science and scientists. We should be operating with this well-substantiated conclusion in mind, and not be arguing all over again about issues that have been resolved to the satisfaction of all interested parties except for the partisans of ID and anti-evolutionism. Glen Davidson

Okay, Glen if you say so. By the way, my name is Roy. I was confused about who you were talking about when I started reading your response. Regardless of what you may have your mind set on, I am not an apologist for creationism; sorry, but I think I made that very clear. If you think that disagreeing with a theory that in my view is unsubstantiated, then I guess maybe under that definition I am. That's a sort of, "If you're not with me, then you're against me," mindset, which is the point that Ben Stein is trying to make. On a side note, I think the same burden of proof applies to both creation and evolution, and as far as I'm concerned, neither side has satisfied it. But, you can rest assured that I will raise hell if this quote is added to the page as "proof" of Ben Stein being a hyprocrite. He may be, I don't know the man personally, but this quote does not offer any sort of proof in the affirmative. Raecoli (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I did not enter this discussion with any predispositions. It's actually funny how you selectively chose my words to form a quote. Just for reference, my actual words were, "Just out of curiosity, what were the comments made by Ben Stein immediately before or after he made that statement? I'm interested to know if they may have been taken out of context. Not saying you did, of course, I would just like to see that information made available before something we're not sure wasn't a joke, or sarcastic, or serious." Raecoli (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, Roy, you know nothing about what you're "discussing," but you're bound and determined to force your prejudices onto Wikipedia. And you may succeed in your prejudiced aims, since not understanding these issues is no actual barrier to editing Wikipedia. This is exactly what we have learned to expect from your side, along with the nauseatingly dull and baseless charges of having an "if you're not with me, you're against me" mentality. Clearly anti-science know-nothings are against science proponents such as myself, it's simply part of the structure of reality. Glen Davidson

"You might mess around and prove Stein's point if you're not careful" He's going to prove Darwin caused the Nazis? Fascinating, this I gotta see! Angry Christian (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys make me laugh. Really, I just wasted a lot of words on something that makes little or no difference. I'm sticking by what I said up top in the "At least add POV tag" section. When it all comes down to it, Stein has accomplished what he set out to do, which was to start the debate. To that end, I believe the film has been a success. And the funny thing is, it hasn't even been released yet! Raecoli (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this sort of off-topic rant does not belong on this talk page. Please go somewhere else on the internet for these sorts of statements and debates. If you continue, we will have to start summarily archiving and userfying these sorts of posts.--Filll (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Filll. I believe this discussion is very relevant to this article. It has to do with the possibility of adding a statment made by Ben Stein that may or may not mean what it is being portrayed to mean, as a means to show hypocrisy. If that isn't relevant and on-topic, I don't know what is. Raecoli (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

School Field Trips

I have at least one field trip to report. My school is going to watch the movie next Friday. Do we have any other trips that have been reported? Saksjn (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - You're a minor, and while that doesn't mean we don't respect you as an editor, you should probably be careful about revealing too much information about yourself in relation to this discussion. But do tell us what you think of it - your memories and opinions may not reach the level of verifiable, reliable source, but that doesn't make us not interested in them, and they might be useful for letting us know whether we got the balance right. Optionally [if you want to], take a notebook with you (if possible) and jot down notes on what's covered, the order in which things are covered, in which interviewees are introduced, and so on - that would be extremely useful for knowing how to organise the article =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What type of school is this? A private religious school? If it's a state school, that has constitutional implications. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Saksjn does your school have an online student news site? If so send us a link to any articles they might publish about this event. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have an online news site, but the school website might have something on it. I know the school post a school newsletter up, but it mostly just talks about sports and the elementary school. We are a private school, which changes things a lot. I probably should have said that when I posted this. I did mention we were a private school in a different thread, but it should have been re-stated. Thanks for the notebook idea Shoemaker; that's a really good idea. I don't think that mentioning a field trip is revealing to much information, since you guys don't know what school I go to. I'll try to outline when people come in and when different topics are covered. After that we could all have a better idea of what is exactly in the film. Thanks for the idea and I'll try to put my notes in an electronic form at some point so I can post them on here. That way we can all see them. Saksjn (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, just saying you're going on a field trip is probably harmless enough, but, you know, if your school is small, it might start to get too easy to identify you if you start to reveal specific details. And, you know, better to mention it now before you start telling us about the trip itself, which, as a travelogue, offers a lot of chance for revealing personal information. =) Also, be careful about linking the newsletter [or don't do it at all] if the school is fairly small. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Just a note - You're a minor, and while that doesn't mean we don't respect you as an editor, you should probably be careful about revealing too much information about yourself in relation to this discussion. But do tell us what you think of it - your memories and opinions may not reach the level of verifiable, reliable source, but that doesn't make us not interested in them, and they might be useful for letting us know whether we got the balance right." Lord, have mercy. Why do we have to be so vicious to one another? (that's a joke by the way) Raecoli (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation 32 needs attention

[Evoloution is]......"a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs, and a scientific theory explaining why this occurs.[32]". The cited piece references no scientific observations or data and indeed misrepresents evolution as: "...a scientific fact to be known." Any citation in support of observed adaptive mutation (itself controversial) must contain actual information.63.230.77.249 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it doesn't. That is readily available elsewhere. The reference summarizes the scientific view, and specifically mentions the movie. Meanwhile the article itself already links to Evolution in the lead. And how is stating the scientifically-accepted "factual" status of evolution "misrepresenting" it? This topic is not "controversial" (among scientists): as other citations in the article (and related articles) make clear. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The user is saying that it needs to be cited, not arguing about whether it's true. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the relevant portion of the article says: "...to lend plausibility to the argument that evolution is a matter of faith, rather than a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs, and a scientific theory explaining why this occurs". And here is (some of) what the supporting citation says: "As a natural phenomenon based on scientific evidence, evolution is not a matter of belief or faith, any more than gravity or genetics... ...Stating it that way would acknowledge the fact of evolution and show that those who refuse to accept it are denying established evidence and proof... ...Thus the theory of evolution aims to make logical and rational sense of the facts of evolution, proposing mechanisms to explain how evolution occurs. Those who attack evolution as merely a “theory” misunderstand what a scientific theory is.". It is therefore pretty clear that the authors of the reference are supporting the claim that evolution is a valid scientific theory which explains a large body of actual facts (and they are also saying that ID misrepresents this, and they are criticising the film on this basis). Thus, the reference supports the text of the article. Anyone who actually doubts that the facts of evolution exist, or doubts that those facts support evolution, can go to the appropriate articles instead (or actually enrol at a university and study the evidence firsthand if they're still not convinced). Meanwhile we reflect what notable authorities (in this case, two university professors) are saying. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So when does a theory become of "fact." When scientist decide that it's convenient to have it as a fact. As far as I know, the only "facts" in science are laws; such as the law of gravity. Saksjn (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, evolution is a fact and a theory: the fact is that creatures evolve, the theory explains how. Thus, the facts are the raw data that supports the theory: in this case, changes in populations of organisms over time (which, for short-lived organisms, can be observed in the laboratory). However, the "theory" of evolution is also "fact" in a more colloquial sense, as in "very well supported" and "generally accepted by the relevant experts": like saying that the historical existence of Napoleon is "fact". It's also pretty close to a natural law, as it's a seemingly inevitable consequence of the existence of mutation and natural selection: it will happen unless something stops it from happening. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can clear this up. Laws are really not that important in science; they are just sort of general rules of thumb that have been observed (and can be broken or violated anyway). What are most important are data, also known as scientific facts, and theories, which are the explanations for these data (facts).

So in evolutionary biology, what are the facts? Well there are literally hundreds of millions of them, if not more. For example:

• observations of where a dinosaur bone was dug up, and what shape it was
• genetic markers in human DNA showing the results of endogenous retroviruses
• the observation that humans and other primates have opposable thumbs
• the fraction of people in the population that are colorblind
• observation of a teleomere in the middle of human chromosome number 2
• observation that the species of plants on different sides of the Great Wall of China are different
• discovery of nylon eating organisms
• laboratory observations of fruit fly population changes over time
• observation of the species of mosquitos that live only in the London Underground

These are all data. These are all "scientific facts". They come from observations or measurements or are the results of experiments. They are very hard to argue with since they have been verified to exist, over and over.

The definition of evolution as "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time" can come into play here. Some of these observations are direct observations of a "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time". So that is why people say "evolution is a fact". Because according to that definition, some of these data, or observations, are "evolution". And therefore, it is reasonable to say "evolution is a fact" according to the scientific definition.

Now what does "change of distribution of alleles in a population over time" really mean? Suppose you took all the adults in your neighborhood and found out that 33% had blue eyes and 67% had brown eyes. Then suppose you took all the kids in your neighborhood and found out that 23% had blue eyes and 77% had brown eyes. Wow, the next generation has fewer blue eyes! Blue eyes are one allele, and brown eyes are another. And we have a change of the distribution of alleles in a population (people in your neighborhood) over time. So this IS evolution, by definition. The fact that there are fewer kids with blue eyes than among the adults is a "fact". And it is evolution.

Now what is the "theory of evolution"? A theory of evolution is an explanation for these "facts". There have been many explanations advanced. All of these explanations are called the theory of evolution. Darwin's theory was a very important "theory of evolution". And today, when people say the "theory of evolution" it is an explanation that is not quite Darwin's explanation, but it is related to Darwin's explanation. --Filll (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Adaptive Mutation" is a fact (observed and accepted in NON-evolutionary biology). "Adaptive Mutation" is also a part of "SOME" very specific, developing and controversial hypotheses that contradict mainstream theories of evolution in regards to the randomness of mutations. Please reconsider describing evolution as "a large set of observations and data showing that adaptive mutation and selection occurs". Adaptive mutation is a unique, specific, non-random form of mutation that is not an accepted part of modern evolutionary theory. Reference: "Adaptive Mutation of a lacZ Amber Allele-Patricia L. Foster and John Cairns" - http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/150/3/1329 63.230.77.249 (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

...Ah. Maybe we were "talking past each other" there. I suspect the author of that section of the article meant something different by the phrase "adaptive mutation". Mutations can help an organism adapt to environmental conditions, but the phrase adaptive mutation also describes the more controversial view that some mutations may be non-random. However, current thinking is that while some parts of the genome are more mutation-prone than others, and microbes (at least) may be able to vary their overall mutation rates in response to changing conditions (though this could be something as mundane as preferential selection of "mutation-prone" individuals when a beneficial mutation has occurred in one), there isn't any evidence that the mutations themselves are "guided". But this is still "evolution". Perhaps the word "beneficial" should be substituted for "adaptive". --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As a slight aside, science is full of random things or things with random causes. All of quantum mechanics is random; things like the color of your street lamps are determined "randomly". Ever hear the Einstein phrase "God does not play dice with the universe"? That is what Einstein was talking about. So he set out to prove it was wrong. And instead, proved it was right (see Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen ). And now the US government is spending literally billions of dollars on projects associated with this; the fact that the universe is intrinsically "random".

All of thermodynamics? Random stuff is involved. All of hydrodynamics? Random stuff is involved. Quality control? Random stuff is involved. Weather forecasting? Random stuff is involved (ever hear "50% chance of rain"?). Brownian motion? Random stuff is involved. Radioactivity? Random stuff is involved. There is just stochasticity throughout science. And huffing and puffing about it being against God or something is sort of silly.

So is there randomness throughout the natural world. All our mainstream accepted theories rely on it, or at least have for well over 100 years. Lots of our technology depends on this. So, if there is randomness in biology too, is that somehow evil and atheistic? Come on be serious here...--Filll (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is still not a fact. Science says that a fact must be observable, and we have not observed the evolution of a species. Don't say that the fossil record is evidence because we still have not found a "missing link" anywhere. Saksjn (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of species has been observed. And there have been several transitional species that have been discovered, if that's what you mean by "missing link." See Speciation. All of the facts of evolution are available right here at the press of a wikilink.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled for plagiarism

See this letter from XVIVO (whose cell animation IDers have been using without permission for some time, which Expelled uses a very thinly disguised re-rendering of). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Any news of them actually acting on the demands. If the segment is still in the film on the 18'th, it could cause an interesting problem. Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching news since last night (google news) and I see no mention of it yet. I am not sure what might happen. Will they just ignore this as legal puffery and go ahead? Will they hope that this is just more good publicity? Will they reschedule? Will they just cut it out of the movie? Cutting it out and redistributing the film would be very expensive. A lawsuit could be even more expensive, both in money and prestige. --Filll (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could they really survive the skeletons that discovery would reveal in their closets? There's been a good deal of skullduggery that they've already been accused of that would be documented in their own words if this came to court, let alone stuff that hasn't made the light of day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the legal letter was sent at the last minute on purpose to cause disruption. However, PZ Myers only got a copy of the CD/DVD containing the movie's video animation when he was expelled from the theatre in late March. PZ then analyzed it and presented the results on his blog. So a couple weeks later or so, the legal letter was sent. However, it is so last minute that it will cause huge embarassment if they have to reschedule again. And it will be expensive to reshoot that part of the movie. And cause another huge delay (remember they wanted to release it on February 12, Darwin Day, originally). It will be interesting to see how they play this. Both the original Harvard video and the version in the movie contain the same errors and omissions, which is usually used by courts to enforce copyright. --Filll (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are diabolically clever, they will have a noncopyright violating version already in the finished film, and only in the preview versions did they show the copyright violation, hoping that they would be called out on it. And this would give them extra publicity.--Filll (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems unlikely -- according to The Inner Life of the Cell the original took "14 months to create for 8.5 minutes of animation" -- by some top professionals that actually knew what they were doing. Can you really see the Premise boys being capable of doing a valid clean room reproduction that would stand legal scrutiny, even assuming they had the time and equipment? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Northfox inserted the following in the article:

On their website, Expelled producers deny any wrongdoing and say that "Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film."

What the Expelled blog actually states is:[11]

Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.

The problem is they're not being aaccused of using the XVIVO animation, but a thinly disguised copy (technically a derivative work), as that they "created" it 'clean room' from scratch is highly unlikely. So it is not clear that the 'denial' actually means anything -- which is why I have reverted it until further discussion can be had on its meaning and significance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just was going to post the same thing. It appears that they will go ahead with the screening and take their chances with a potential lawsuit. I think we should include this, but I am not sure how and where. Comments?--Filll (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'denial' is short enough that it could be quoted verbatim. This would eliminate any accusation of WP:SYN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

David Bolinsky of XVIVO has given more details in this email, posted with his permission on Richard Dawkin's site. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why is the title of this section "Expelled for plagiarism" rather than say "Allegations of copyright infringement" or "XVIVO copyright infringement allegations"? The current title is kind of theatrical and not terribly accurate. Plagiarism appears mild, vague, and does not convey the legal issues.24.69.23.142 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American reviews

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As the scheduled release gets closer, we are getting more and more material. Of course, given the most recent news, I am not sure that we will actually see the movie released on time.--Filll (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at google news shows all kinds of articles of various kinds. Here is a fun one: Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release--Filll (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American had a conversation with Mathis after viewing the film to review it. MP3s (first & second parts) are available. Chris Heard, associate professor of Religion at Pepperdine University makes use of it (and provides extensive transcripts) in a blog post here asking the question: "Why Ken Miller isn’t in Expelled". The PT discusses this issue further here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Clips from the movie

here is Dembski and here is Berlinski and Schroeder etc. Lots of images of the plagiarized video material as well. Watch now before it disappears!--Filll (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee endorses the film

see here--Filll (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really useful here except the fact that a presidential candidate (dropped out) has endorsed it. I'll check to see if there is any info on the endorsement already in the article. If there isn't, I'll add some. Saksjn (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the family interview

here. This is amazing Stein talks about the organic cell and the "inorganic cell". Huh?--Filll (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the beauty of intelligent design. You don't have to know anything about biology or science to be a "design theorist". Angry Christian (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the broadcast, they offer to send you the Expelled Leaders Guide and a DVD, free. I might want to see those, but I am a bit nervous about being on a weird mailing list.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Expelled Leaders Guide is an amazing piece of glossy and flashy propaganda. Take a look here.--Filll (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Family is not an ID expert. They have no scientist working for them and as far as I know, have not claimed to be an expert on ID. Let not treat thier words like they are experts. Saksjn (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, neither is Stein nor Ruloff nor Mathis. In fact, I would include everyone associated with the Discovery Institute in that list as well.--Filll (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"reportedly"

In this edit, Mackan79 inserted the word "reportedly." AC reverted him, and I unreverted. Here's the beginning of the sentence:

"Hosted by Ben Stein, it reportedly claims that what the film calls “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and..."

I think the word "reportedly" is good there, because I've not seen documentation that the movie makes that precise claim. I've not seen no statement on the movie promo site that no dissent at all is allowed in Big Science.

The closest I've seen to that is this satirical page about a parody of a school, "Big Science Academy," where there is "no room for dissent" in science classes. But I don't think that is equivalent to saying that every "big science" institution (every university, every gov't research program, etc.) permits no dissent. NCdave (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not that opposed to a few weasel words like "reportedly" but too many and the writing starts to stink. Also, I think if you follow our sources and listen to the interviews and read the interviews and reviews, you will see that "reportedly" is not really that accurate here. --Filll (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article before you start editing it, NCDave. The article clearly states "it claims that what the film calls “Big Science" and does not state every university, every institution, etc. It states what the film calls "Big Science" Please read teh Expelled blog/site/promotional materials if you doubt this. Angry Christian (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NCDave feel free to add ben's quote on big science as an additional ref found here. Angry Christian (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to clarify, the reason I added it was mostly because the movie isn't out, which somewhat raises the question of how Wikipedia knows what is in it. Obviously there have been screenings etc., and Wikipedia is sort of a unique entity, but for instance if the New York Times were writing about a movie none of the writers had been able to see, I think it would have to qualify its reports about what's in it. I think it also insulates WP from looking like it's taking a stance -- the same reason I added the source to the first sentence -- but that was mainly it. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use reportedly you should say who reported it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hugh will be disappointed

In the context of claims that "Big Science" crushes dissent;

"In Reasons To Believe's interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.

Rarely do movie trailers provide an accurate picture of the full message a movie conveys . When "EXPELLED" arrives in theaters, our main concern will be whether it seeks to engage the scientific community in the scientific (as opposed to the political or legal) arena, or if it advocates attacking scientists' character. We would hope it's the former."[12]

It'll be interesting to read Hugh Ross's views when he gets a chance to see the film .. dave souza, talk 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Time review

Time (magazine) has a review here.

It comes across as a well-meaning, but not particularly well informed (the reviewer seems unaware of the baselessness of the accusations of persecution, the volumes of detailed scientific criticism of ID positions, or of the number of prominent theistic evolutionists on the pro-evolution side), criticism of the film . Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave Expelled

In case any of you haven't heard yet, NCdave has been blocked. The block is due to expire in one week. The edits he made just before being blocked were these: [13] and [14]. If any of you are interested in commenting one the issue, there is a thread at this noticeboard. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good bloody riddance! This means that we don't have to endure his tendentious and disruptive editing for a week. I was getting to the stage of wanting to strangle him whenever he repeated his fallacious Establishment Clause whine yet again. His constant broken-record WP:SOAPboxing added nothing worthwhile to the conversation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Thank you for your thoughts. But be careful. Saying that someone "added nothing worthwhile to the conversation" borders on violating some of the rules. I believe NCdave is a valuable contributor to the project. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read #Administrative action and NCdave & WP:SPADE. I believe that your contention that "NCdave is a valuable contributor to the project" is wholly unsupported by the facts. You were the one who brought up the subject of this thoroughly objectionable editor, so you should not be surprised when we tell you exactly what we think of his behaviour. The vast majority of opinion on WP:AN/I appears to support this view of his behaviour. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that NCdave has caused some problems, but, those edits were not worthy of a block. The second one is an edit that I almost made myself a couple times. Would I or anyone else have been blocked if we made those edits? I understand that he can be disruptive sometimes, but if he's going to get blocked, he should be blocked over something that actually violates the rules. Those edits didn't violate any rules at all. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was most probably for an ongoing pattern of disruptive behaviour, not just his last two edits (neither of which were particularly helpful). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

An enlightening quote -- "Consistent POV pushing, long talk page rants, and reverts"[15] -- reason given for blocking NCDave almost three years ago -- it would seem that little has changed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about NCdave's editing, but bringing up something from three years ago as evidence that he hasn't changed seems a bit suspect. Hard to get away from that, I guess? As far as the discussion linked above, I also didn't see anything particularly convincing. I've only watched this from the periphery, but when some editors are calling others worthless contributors, it's not much wonder to me that the discussions have some problems. Mackan79 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that "Consistent POV pushing, long talk page rants, and reverts" is exactly the disruptive behaviour that led to his most recent blocking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there another kind? :) I'm just pretty sure I've seen worse, and I question whether getting rid of the perspective helps the article. Mackan79 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that he did little more than repeat the same thing over and over again (and throw tantrums when it was excised as off-topic), I rather doubt if we're losing anything new, particularly as his "perspective" was consistently unpersuasive to the majority of editors. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79: if you can point to any valuable contribution NCDave has made, I'll concede that my criticism of him was unwarranted. Unless and until that happens, I stand by my comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, he'd probably have to offer that himself. But problems or not, I think it needs to be a little clearer so someone else can actually see what the problems are, which is honestly difficult here. Mackan79 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I would not consider his judgement to be reliable on the matter. And it is you who is defending the value of his contributions, so it is you who needs to substantiate your claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on Mackan79, give it a rest. If you cannot see the evidence of obstruction and tendentious argumentation from NCDave, then you are not looking very hard. He makes the same arguments over and over and over, after they are dismissed. He wants to use the talk page as a SOAPbox on which to lecture us about how his beliefs and only his beliefs are The TRUTH^TM. If you look above, there is instance after instance of similar nonsense out of him. I just gave up discussing things with him since it was clear he was not willing to listen to or engage in a reasonable rational dialogue. This appears to be someone who is unwilling or unable to abide by the principles of Wikipedia.

People, Wikipedia has to abide by NPOV. That does NOT mean neutral or positive. It means that if there are two ideas, A and B, both A and B get presented. A's criticism of B is presented, and B's criticism of A is presented. If A is much more mainstream in the relevant discipline (in this case, academic science) than B is, then more of A will be presented often. Does anyone here doubt what the dominant view in academic Biology departments is of this film and its claims? In spite of that we still include huge amounts of material from the point of view of crazed religious fanatics of various stripes (declaring such things as human reason is bad and we should only follow the bible etc). We include all the claims of the film, albeit with some allusion to the other side (as we are required to by NPOV). We include numerous long detailed discussions of interviews with the producers. Our article has more material in it from the viewpoint of the film than its critics (excluding the footnotes). We are far more "balanced" than an article in the New York Times, or an article published by Answers in Genesis, as we should be.

If someone wants an article that ONLY attacks the film, Wikipedia is not the place for it. If someone wants an article that ONLY praises the film, or presents its claims without the other side, Wikiipedia is not the place for it.

And NCDave does not seem to understand that point. So, after causing a huge amount of disruption, he was blocked to think about it for a while. And, if anyone else wants to try to the same tactics NCDave tried, they might consider what happened to NCDave.--Filll (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Substantively, of course I agree with you. My question was solely what he did, which I'm still not totally clear about. I also think people should avoid disparaging someone, whether they understand NPOV or not. But, it looks like that's being discussed elsewhere which seems fine with me. Mackan79 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A little over four days into my seven-day block, after many fruitless requests for the blocking admin (or anyone else) to identify the edits which supposedly violated Wikipedia policies, I've finally been unblocked. NCdave (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm making these comments as I scroll down, so if any of them seems inconsistent, look at them in the context of me learning more about the situation as I go. Guys, this is bordering on a witch hunt. I'm not familiar with NCdave's actions and whether or not his blocking was warranted, but I will say this: shame on you guys! When we have reached the point where dissenting opinions, true or not, are spat on and treated like street garbage, we may need to reevaluate our worldview. I'm a Christian, but I'm also very open minded and very open to new ideas. Now, just because I'm open to new ideas doesn't mean I accept all of them. Also, after coming this far from the top of the page, I think we may need to refresh ourselves on what Wikipedia is not. Raecoli (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

New resource, expelled's response to Dawkins at screening incident

Just thought it might be interesting to give expelled's side of the story. Here's an article to read. Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We do "give expelled's side of the story" -- particularly how their "side" keeps changing and never seems to match the facts. And what sort of egotistical moron titles a piece "Stein smart bombs Darwin"?

1. Stein is so scientifically illiterate that he couldn't find the Theory of Evolution with a book entitled Evolutionary Biology for Dumbies.
2. Darwin is dead. And his original theory has been modified and improved enormously since his time. "Stein smart bombs Darwin" is about as meaningful as "US defeats Mesopotamia" or "Tenth Armored Division defeats Russian cavalry". Anybody ranting about "Darwin" is almost certainly admitting "I'm a religious fanatic who lives in an 19th century la-la-land where the modern science that has accepted, modified and improved the Theory of Evolution doesn't exist for me".

Oh, and the "astonishing" 'concession' from Dawkins was merely him discussing a hypothetical "what if". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply thought that the dialogue between the producer (just went blank on his name) and Dawkins would be useful. And yes, the title is kinda dumb. Saksjn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read the article? Saksjn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have. There is nothing of use in it. In particular, there is no "description of a dialogue with Dawkins, just one sentence, apparently describing the movie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"American Society for Clinical Investigation"

It seems like the section that starts "American Society for Clinical Investigation" is original research. Should we be rebutting the film's arguments with references that have nothing to do with the film? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly properly sourced and attributed, not original research, and it's obviously relevant to the movie since the movie's premise is that academics who support ID are persecuted. Odd nature (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like if this were the ID page, then it would be applicable but isn't this page supposed to be about the movie and not just throwing in refs unrelated to it that disagree. Shouldn't we have to find a ref that disagrees with a statement in terms of the movie, not in terms of the general statement? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the reviews do discuss it, though not in as much detail as the cite quoted. We should probably add a second source next to it, to show that the concept has been connected to the film, but (if I were not 200 miles from home) I'm sure I could find one and do it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem with this paragraph is that the cited article does not appear to be an opinion of the American Society for Clinical Investigation but rather an article published in their journal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This week's New Scientist mentions (admittedly in less detail) the same point as taken from the ASCI paper in their review of Expelled. I left mine on a train, though. I'll get another tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Variety review: Thumbs down

Although clearly written by someone who is anti-evolution, the Variety review (to come out Monday I guess) is pretty negative.[16]--Filll (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An outsiders view of the POV of the article

After reading through it, I find that IMO, apart from some small issues of wording, the article is broadly neutral.

I can well understand why many ID supporters find the article biased, essentially for the same reason the film was made: they feel that ID/the movie is being unfairly treated by the establishment because of the massive amount of criticism, whereas in reality this criticism is well deserved for an absolutely retarded theory/awful film.

The article does appear to very heavily attack the film, but this is because it is reflecting the mass-criticism of the film, and I suspect that it is only said criticism which makes the film particularly notable.

So in brief, I think the page should not be tagged.

There are however, some worrying signs that if it were not for the very strong opposition from ID supporters the page would fast become POV biased....the insistence on the use of the suggestive word 'intrusion' is the most plain one I see, and though I have no plans to get involved in any major edits of this article, I will be watching it to ensure that the clarification 'what they view as' remains, although in reality I would much prefer it was simply changed to inclusion.

I don't suppose this will stop you guys arguing for a second, but thought I'd give my 2p, which with current exchange rates is worth about 4 cents :p Restepc (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Unfortunately, Restepc's necessary and proper edit has been reverted. I would like to directly ask the reverters why they think this Wikipedia policy is not applicable here:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Shouldn't all sides respect this policy?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster define "intrude" as "to thrust or force in or upon someone or something especially without permission, welcome, or fitness". The views in question have been repeatedly "thrust or forced" into classrooms (e.g. by the Dover board) where they are not welcome (e.g. by science teachers) do not have permission (e.g. of the courts, who have ruled against them) and do not (in the opinion of the vast majority of science education experts) have any fitness. If you want to have "intruded" 'qualified' by the long list of those declaring it to be a legal/pedagogical/scientific intrusion, then you're welcome to do it that way, but I do not think that omitting this word makes the statement a more accurate characterisation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems the new version could well be an acceptable compromise, although I think perhaps a specific number should be given in place of 'virtually all'...I seem to remember seeing 99.9% given somewhere with a citation....and I think one of those court rulings that been mentioned labelling it an 'intrusion' will do for the [citation needed] request Restepc (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Even a number of ID advocates have, at various times, admitted that ID is not yet "fit" for the classroom. This was part of the reason for the strategic retreat to the Teach the controversy position -- as it meant that they didn't have to front up with a substantive positive hypothesis of their own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

'Virtually all' gives undue weight to the claims of the producers. If 99.9% of scientists support evolution over ID (and there is a source for that) and zero scientific professional societies support ID, any phrasing that implies anything less than a monolithic opposition to ID and support of evolution in the scientific community misrepresents the extant to which ID is shunned and violates the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, there is a source, but it is just a number; actually it is 99.9%. It is neither published in a peer reviewed paper, nor serious research/polls behind it. Here is a quote from A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". Northfox (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And we have several other sources that state essentially the same thing. You think that somehow these sources are all incorrect, and maybe secretly there is a huge belief in creationism among biologists and geologists?--Filll (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hovind organization markets Expelled

See here.--Filll (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is opening in 11 theaters near me on Friday. NCdave (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled, Darwin and Antisemitism

It appears that, whilst making a big song and dance about the spurious link between Darwin and the Holocaust, Stein interviewed a ravingly antisemitic Creationist for Expelled. I had thought that the general idea for these sorts of media forays was to keep your more embarrassing membership under lock & key (figuratively speaking) for the duration -- not parade them centre stage. It's getting difficult to find room for all of their assorted pratfalls and unintentional ironies that this movie has generated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed this out repeatedly. The harshest antisemitic types (who use phrases like "Jesus killer" etc) have nothing to do with science and atheism and evolution etc, but are motivated by religion. Martin Luther's text On the Jews and Their Lies was far more of an inspiration for Mein Kampf than On the Origin of Species. Stalinism with its promotion of the antiDarwin Lysenko and its leadership all trained in Russian Orthodox seminaries (including Stalin and Molotov and those running the Gulag prison system and secret police) had more inspiration from religion than from Darwin. The worst racists in the US like the Klu Klux Klan use the bible as their motivation, not Darwin's work. Creationists like the Baptists and Pentecostals were in the lead to retain slavery and segregation in the US, not abolish these practices like the pro-evolution Quakers and Unitarians. Capitalism is far closer to surival of the fittest than communism is. That is why this movie is a huge load of nonsense.--Filll (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the same was true on the eugenics angle -- some of the biggest supporters of the movement during its heyday in the earlier 20th Century (which just happens to also have been the 'eclipse of Darwinism') were evangelicals. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have pointed this out repeatedly. The harshest antisemitic types (who use phrases like "Jesus killer" etc) have nothing to do with science and atheism and evolution etc, but are motivated by religion." -- or nationalism. See Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies Raul654 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin himself was a huge antislavery activist, and was sickened when he witnessed slavery auctions during the voyage of the Beagle. This entire thing is topsy-turvy and is characterized by the lies of the religious fundamentalist lunatics.

Even statements like "The United States is a Christian Nation" (in complete denial of the Treaty of Tripoli) and using things like the pledge of allegiance as evidence of this are stupid. The part of the pledge of allegiance that refers to God ("one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all") had the "under God" part inserted more than 50 years after it was written, in the 1950s, and is also evidence of the fierce racist instincts of the religious fundamentalists. The original phrasing was "with liberty and equality for all" but the Baptists and other religious fundamentalists were so opposed to the idea of "equality" that they forced the change to a more authoritarian and harsh "justice" phrasing, much to the author's dismay. --Filll (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, first of all, I am a Baptist, and (most of us) are not racists, or lunatics, nor even fundamentalists. I am a direct descendant of Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist church in America, and a famous champion of religious liberty. Please do not bash my religion; and

Secondly, I don't understand how your digression into the argument over America's Christian heritage is relevant to this article; and

Thirdly, the Pledge's "under God" phrase isn't particularly relevant to the argument over America's Christian heritage, since it doesn't mention Christ. Much more relevant are foundational documents such as the Treaty of Paris, which concluded the American Revolutionary War, and which begins, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," and the fact that when the nation was formed, and when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ratified, most of the States had established official State churches of varying Christian denominations. NCdave (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally would like to create a section of this article that deals with cases like Christine Comer and others who were persecuted by religious types for any hint that evolution needs to be considered. And discussion of the clearly antisemitic Giertych could go in there. However, I am afraid this might run afoul of WP:SYNTH rules. Comments?--Filll (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can tie them together. What would be the title? I've already suggested that a 'Creationist persecution of theistic evolutionists' article would probably be a starter (I'm not sure if Comer would fit in, given that I don't know her religious views). Antisemitism and creationism only really hold together because they're both views of the Christian right. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although Darwin (like pretty near every European in the 19th century) may be a racist by today's standards, by the standards of his day he was extremely progressive in his attitude to non-Europeans. The ironic thing is that the original pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist minister, whose secular wording was subverted because of anti-communist hysteria during the McCarthy era. Go figure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin was actually very non-racist, even by today's standards. However he regarded European civilisation as more advanced than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle he saw in Tierra del Fuego, and some nowadays might claim that was racist. Regarding the persecution of proponents of evolutionary science, some sources have made the point in reference to this film, but it's a question of notability. Going back to the Nazi issue, their list of books to be burned includes Darwin's and Häckel's works. This source makes the point in relation to the film, but it's not a RS. However Dawkins discussed the point in his review, and that's worth citing. .. dave souza, talk 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Ruse had an article Darwin and Hitler: a not-very-intelligent link at http://tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802060339 as of 6 Apr 2008, but it's giving a 404. However, G o o g l e's cache at http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:x0fejjkIR4IJ:tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D2008802060339+%22Tallahassee+Democrat%22+february+2008+Darwin+and+Hitler:+a+not-very-intelligent+link%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk gives the text. Mostly about the disco 'tute campaigning, haven't noticed Xpell'd yet, but will check. .. dave souza, talk 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, bit off topic and no advantage over Dawkins' statement. Re. book burning, Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 –

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).[17]

dave souza, talk 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Translation by Dr. Roland Richter is a vastly better source as it is an academic source by an expert on the subject. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Idea blog (unfortunately not a WP:RS, I would suspect) takes this one step further with this insightful point:

As Pieret points out, one of the primary complaints from creationists, especially in the film, is that evolution explains nature without reference to any teleology or external purposing or direction. This oft cited lack of purpose supposedly leads people to moral depravity (though, in reality, this critique merely confuses scientific description with moral proscription).

But this complaint is flatly incompatible with the insistence that evolution Holocaust, eugenics, and so on are all the logical end of accepting the evolutionary description of the natural world. For eugenics and Aryan racism alike are nothing if not deeply teleological. Hitler was not interested in human fitness as determined by the natural course of human technology and culture: he sought to impose his own very specific will on it. Eugenics, the same. The Holocaust was, in fact, the directed design of an “intelligent” agent: a depraved and malicious one.[18]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BEN STIEN IS A JEW. Enough said. (My apologies if I come across as angry. All the recent events have gotten me quite frustrated.) Saksjn (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You think Jews can't be misinformed or lie about The Holocaust? Sounds rather racist to me. .. dave souza, talk 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment please? Also, please don't accuse me of racism. Saksjn (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No accusation, simply that Stein's credibility or otherwise cannot be assumed from his racial or religious background. I would suspect that he is simply misinformed, and has as much expertise on that subject as he has on science. .. dave souza, talk 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Miller commentary

The following sentence was added, and then removed by me, and then re-added:

In a conversation with the editorial staff of Scientific American, Mathis questioned the intellectual honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic of prominent biologist Kenneth R. Miller because he accepts evolution.^{A Conversation with} Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis, Scientific American. Audio recording: part 1 and part 2. Partial transcript.

I don't think this is needed here. 1. The article is already pretty long, so to include a comment that does not deal with the film, but rather critiques a living person only tangentially related to the film, I think does a disservice. We don't need this article to be a dumping ground. 2. The comment is better suited for Miller's article. 3. (For this article) Why do we care what Mathis thinks about Miller? Catholicism does not dismiss evolution out-of-hand like many evangelicals do, so Mathis may be a bit off-base.

I won't re-delete the sentence at the moment, but would hope others can see why this article is not the right place for this comment. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Hrafn re-worded the sentence to include relevance. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It always seemed relevant to me, but is clearly so since Hrafn reworded it. Big improvement, and it took him only a few minutes of effort. I do wish you and some others here weren't to quick to delete content and would make an effort to fix content rather than just blow it away, particularly those bits that do not cast a sympathetic light on the film or ID, otherwise it might be mistaken for a campaign... FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

E kala mai, FeloniousMonk. Unlike you, I didn't see the relevance. However, it makes sense now that it has been reworded. As for fixing content... I have been desparately trying, but have been reverted multiple times on occasions of fixing typos, spellings, etc. by what might be mistaken as people trying to own the article. As for a "campaign", I do not know what you are referring to. Besides this Miller commentary, I haven't really removed much other than where there was redundancy. Maybe you're thinking of those "some others" you mentioned. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that, although unsurprised by the sentiment (fundamentalist Creationists accusing TEs of being heretics is nothing new), I'm flabbergasted that Mathis was so naive as to say it in pro-Science company. What sort of bubble do these people live in that would consider such attacks to be acceptable in mixed company? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive editing

Ali'i, this was your 3'rd rv of as many editors of this content in less than 30 minutes. Refusing to accept consensus and edit warring are by definition disruptive editing per WP:DE. Wikipedia has 2,331,217 other articles and I suggest you find one of them to edit quietly until you are able to play nicely here.

For the record Ali'i, a source other than the one provided there already isn't needed unless you are denying that the film uses digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells as its examples. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that is not the definition of disruptive editing, FeloniousMonk. Disruptive editing has little to do with refusing to accept consensus. It "concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." Plus, it is editing which also fails WP:V because it "fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research."

Edits which are not well-described by both of those tests are not disruptive. Ali'i's argument over the accuracy of a quote does not meet either of those tests. They certainly do not constitute "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies," and he did provide verifiable sourcing. Please be more careful with your accusations against fellow editors. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to help the article. We have to be accurate to the source. It's a quote. A quote. We can't just change people's word to have them saying something they don't say. It's a quote. Making it appear as if they are saying something they don't say is unheard of. Maybe I'm losing my mind here. They may indeed claim the unsourced claims (I have no idea), I only looked at the source provided, and they never said what you people are saying they said. Perhaps move that bit outside of the direct quotation? --Ali'i 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(N.B. Here is the cached page to check my quote: [19] Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

The trouble is that Google Cache is too transient to act as a source (it'll be replaced by what's currently in the page in a few days) -- and the page isn't in Wayback (I just checked). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wayback rarely has anything newer than 6mo old. It is part of their special deal with the Copyright Office. So the page might show up in Wayback in October or November, but we can't count on that. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and ignoring consensus is not helping, it's disruption. If your changes do gain consensus and are rejected in the article the correct next move is to make your case on talk, not reverting. +

We have to be accurate to the source. It's a quote. A quote."

No, we have to consistent with the source. The film uses supposed digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells as the evidence that supports the given quote. Mentioning the evidence they present with the quote is completely consistent with the source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Felonius, this is a direct quote. I am not familiar enough with wikipedia policies to know which one to link you with, but I'm sure that there is one somewher that says changing a direct sourced quote is a very very bad thing to do, as it essentially puts words into other peoples mouths. You can not make up or change direct quotes from people Restepc (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the film uses the examples Ali'i repeatedly removed as the evidence that supports the given quote. Mentioning the evidence they present with the quote is completely consistent with the source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the "such as the digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells" portion... just not within the quote. I tried a bit to re-include it outside the direct quotation. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's quoting who?

I did a Google search for the original 'digital code' version, as an explicit citation would be the simplest way of diffusing this. All I could come up with is this 2yo piece from the DI. If somebody can find where Expelled's website is found to be saying this, I'd appreciate it -- as it would provide another piece of stark evidence as to just how much the movie is parroting the DI line. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See my note above. It's cached. --Ali'i 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks right. The citation link isn't much use as it's a changing front page. Why are we giving priority to a primary source, anyway? The definition by an independent secondary source would be more useful – the NYT article had "a creationist idea" or "a cousin of creationism", have we a better source pointing to the film promoting intelligent design? ... dave souza, talk 18:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Dave -- if it keeps changing & no archive is kept, then it is completely useless as a source for verification (which leaves both versions of the quote out). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps not saying "the film producers state..." and just saying "Intelligent design is the belief... " (sourced, of course), we can avoid this whole issue. --Ali'i 19:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to have arisen from bending over backwards to be sympathetic to the film. The problem with citing the film's promoters is that it's taking a primary source without the context of third party independent assessment, giving problems of original research and of presenting the fringe point of view unmoderated by the majority expert viewpoint. A month ago,[20] care was taken to show this context as shown by reliable third party sources –

The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, a form of creationism. The Discovery Institute which is at the center of promoting intelligent design, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach, and not creationism.

This used sources directly related to the film[21][22][23] which were backed up by other more detailed sources, but they date to a period before showings and more recent sources would be preferable, with statements reflecting the newer sources. .. 20:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it looks like I'm being reverted for no reason

Well, the stated reason is WP:NPOV (the neutral point of view policy), however, I cannot see how maintaining all the pieces while ensuring that direct quotes remain direct quotes is not neutral. The revert. Nothing was removed, just moved. The quote is intact, and everyone should have been happy. I'm lost. What does neutrality have to do with keeping quotes quotes? --Ali'i 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked for some additional eyes. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for more eyes. Hopefully someone can explain the neutrality violations better. --Ali'i 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, everyone sees your personal attack and you get blocked. You are whitewashing the Creationists POV. Sorry dude. And spare me any replies on my talk page. Keep it here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries about going to your talk page. How is it whitewashing to have a direct quote be what they actually said? I didn't remove anything... I just moved the middle portion to outside the quotation marks. Creationists Point of View is that quotes should be quotes? Huh. And simply stating that altering quotations to misrepresent people could be considered vandalism is not close to a personal attack. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack? All I see is an editor asking for help on an atrociously POV article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. But knowing your POV on this topic, I don't expect or demand much sympathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not at all a personal attack. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any personal attacks by Ali'i here. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a POV on the topic? That's news to me, considering I've yet to edit this article. What magical psychic and forensic powers, pray tell, enabled you to determine what my point of view is?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While the edit was not a very good one and should not have been put in a quote, let's assume good faith and simply revert it. Let's not add another personal attack accusation to a talk page that is already full of crap. Saksjn (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A lesson for the future

I think the lesson here is that if we see the Expelled website saying anything juicy, we've got to throw it to WebCite or something similar -- because it may not be there tomorrow. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good policy everywhere, regardless of whether it is "juicy" or not. I couldn't get WebCite to grab the Google Cache page directly, so I saved a copy of the Google cached page which Ali'i cited onto my own web site, and then did a WebCite capture of that page, here. If a couple of folks here will look at it and verify that it is the same as the Google cached page, I think that establishes the needed verifiability, to prove that it is a bona fide copy of the Google cached page. NCdave (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Altogether, it looks to me like an unreliable source under unreliable editorial control, daunting because it seems to be the website for the film itself but maybe that speaks to the film too? Moreover, I'd be wary of lending too much credibility in the narrative to the overwhelmingly unscientific outlook of the producers. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Did we lose something? What got erased?--Filll (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside and only for a bit of context, I'm hearing lots of healthy skepticism from scientists these days about some of the fundamentals which have been assumed in biochemistry and sub-atomic structure but none of it stems from shallow notions such as intelligent design as put forth in films like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well evolutionary biology is and has been an area of active research. So of course things change and people are always looking to replace current theory with something better. That is just ths sign of an area that is actively being researched. Which the public is usually too stupid to understand.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While a well educated public is well capable of seeing the what's going on, unfortunately the film is part of a political push to "teach the controversy" and "academic freedom" aimed at promoting religious credulity rather than the proper scepticism which is thriving in science as it should. .. dave souza, talk 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Spot on what I was getting at, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller

I know this has been discusssed above, but I think one issue with the article may still be the treatment of Kitzmiller v. Dover. I just did a ctrl f search for "Kitzmiller", and wasn't able to find any of the sources that bring it into a discussion about the movie. More importantly, the first time it is raised here, we seem to be discussing the case in isolation, as opposed to presenting anything about what was said in the movie. The second time it is brought in to refute a statement by the Discovery Institute, but again I don't see any source that made this connection. I wouldn't always mind this kind of connection, but the way it is done here seems to create NPOV problems in the article. I think one solution would be just to reduce the discussion of Kitzmiller to possibly one or two sentences, unless we know more about what is said in the movie. Mackan79 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, here's the list of times Kitzmiller comes up:

• "...The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial..."
• "...[The film] went on to assert that "intelligent design also provides a robust positive case, and a serious scientific research approach", a claim that had been explicitly refuted in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area..."
• A link under See Also.

Which of these statements is it that you have issues with? Since the first case is the film talking about the case, I would think the mention is relevant. In the second case, I think the usage is quite NPOV, since it complies with WP:UNDUE. And I can't see an issue with have a See Also link. Could you please clarify which usage you think is in error? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's the first two that I described above, not the "See also." The problem with the first isn't mentioning it, but that following a mention it goes on to provide several statements from the case that aren't drawn into a discussion of the movie. The second is technically a problem of WP:SYNTH, in that it brings up the case to refute the DI without any source having done so. As I said, one could look beyond this, but the initial discussion in particular seems to go off the topic of jthe movie. Mackan79 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The first instance is perfectly fine since film explicitly singles out the Kitzmiller ruling for pointed criticism. By opening that topic it makes properly characterizing the scope and result of Kitzmiller not only fair game but necessary for a complete and accurate article, and fully within the bounds of WP:NPOV. Not properly characterizing Kitzmiller would actually violate NPOV in that it have the article present only one side of the debate, that of the producers (which is a tiny minority POV, BTW). The second instance has the same justification: If we are going to cover the public statements of the DI, who is largely directly responsible of much of the film, in support of the film, then NPOV requires that both sides of the debate around the very specific allegations made in their statement be covered; to do anything less is to favor one side. Particularly since the DI's views are a extreme minority view again. The article covers both the film and the response to it, I'm not seeing the issue here. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue is we literally don't have anything on what the film says about Kitzmiller, but instead offer four sentences from the case that contradict the thesis of the movie, without any obvious reason for why these were picked out. You could say this is necessary for balance, in order to provide critical views of the movie, but in that case we should be providing material that is critical of the movie, not critical generally about an argument in the movie. I think it's been discussed that this should be the test here, that material should only be brought in where sources do so to discuss the movie, no? My point is that shortening it, for instance removing the block quote, would improve how it reads. Mackan79 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the film's specific criticisms of Kitzmiller would be the right move then and should be easy enough given our resources here. Just on general principles, I think we can all agree that if the film's makers challenge a specific court ruling and majority viewpoint it supports then covering all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (including the ruling) is not only consistent with the NPOV policy but necessary, regardless of whether we detail the specifics of their attack on it or how covering it reads. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with the first part, if not fully second, in that I think we should only really criticize aspects to the extent they've been criticized by reliable sources. For that matter, it appears there's plenty to choose from. I'll look it up, though if anyone knows where this part of the film is discussed that would help. Mackan79 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a couple of sources that clearly describe its appearance in the film. For instance, in the round table discussion in the Scientific American articles about the film it is extensively discussed and criticized by Mark Mathis, associate producer of the film. But it appears in other sources as well.--Filll (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that we had this statement sourced back on March 26th or so. But what happens is that with the volume of people frantic to change the article, and the updated news, the article gets destroyed. So what you should be thinking is, this is just the natural result of this article being on a wiki. Editors like yourself are furious when they are prevented from editing or their edits are reverted because the article is guarded too closely. But when it is not so guarded, driveby editors ruin the article and its sourcing. So what you should be doing is patting yourself and your fellow editors on the back for helping to wreck the article. And instead of complaining, try to look back in the history to see if it was always like that and try to fix it. It is extremely taxing to try to manage the editing of an article like this before a film comes out. Hopefully when the film comes out, everyone will just go away so the article can be finally cleaned up a little. I have rewritten it top to bottom twice, and then new editors come in and crap all over and it and ruin it. I am not frantic to do it again while so many are coming here to immediately change whatever work I do. So...that is just how a wiki is. Do not complain. Deal with it. I do.--Filll (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just keep in mind all I've done is added a source, and the word "reportedly" due to the fact that the movie isn't out yet. I've certainly seen how articles can deteriorate. I'm not entirely sure about the sources, though; you added one, but I couldn't find mention of the case. From Google I do apparently find a podcast of the discussion with Mathis, is that what you mean? I see mention on the Panda's Thumb about his claim that it was written by the ACLU. If we were going to discuss that claim, though, I'm not sure it leads to extended quotes from the case. Unless there's something else, it seems this is still an issue with the article. Mackan79 (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Troublemakers, or as we like to refer to them at Big Science Academy, “The Expelled”…are seemingly everywhere these days. You know the type – they always want to “challenge” the established order and are always in a “questioning” mode. Especially when it comes to science.

The latest “rage” among these Free Speech types is the misguided notion of Intelligent Design, which holds that perhaps life on earth isn’t just an “accident,” and that new evidence is mounting, suggesting some sort of underlying order to the universe, an intelligent “design” and so on and so forth.

Crazy as it may seem, these “cranks” will start questioning atheism, next thing you know!

Fortunately, as you will see in the links listed below – our “graduates” in the nation’s schools, universities, judiciary and government institutions are making sure that these “Expelled” types are rightfully marginalized.

With the help of our friends in “Big Media” and the secularist courts – these self-styled Newtons and Einsteins are being denied tenure, ridiculed and in some cases fired, for their ridiculous beliefs and groundless suppositions.

Click on the links to the right to see for yourself! >

TROUBLEMAKERS:
Guillermo Gonzales

Richard Sternberg

Kitzmiller vs. Dover

Dr. Caroline Crocker[24]

Let's see:

1. The title of the movie is 'Expelled'
2. The movie's website explicitly equates these "expelled" with "troublemakers"
3. On the same page it explicitly states that one of these "troublemakers" is "Kitzmiller vs. Dover"

I therefore think we can safely say that this movie is, at least in part, about KvD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, why are you so obsessed with this film in particular, and defending the Theory of Evolution in general? 06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.144.63 (talk)

Please see WP:SOCK. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So you still maintain that the film has no mention of Kitzmiller v. Dover? Of course, I restored the Overview link, and the claim was made that it did not include information about the trial. Here it is explicitly, for those who are having trouble:

The Dover Trial The trial in Dover, PA is mentioned, but the film tries to spin the crushing defeat (Watch NOVA's piece on the trial here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ ). Stein says something like "I thought science was decided by evidence, not the courts."

As I said before, go to the large online set of articles that are associated with Scientific American. We have the link in the article, right? Or we sure used to. We have it above on the talk page. Go there and find the round table discussion with Mathis. And play it. And hear what he says explicitly about the Dover trial. And yes the Panda's Thumb discussion you found was commenting on at least part of what Mathis said in the round table to Scientific American. And Hrafn has pointed out that Kitzmiller appears in the marketing materials for the film and on the website. So Kitzmiller appears to be part of the promotion of the film and part of the film. Now I am not sure that our present treatment of Kitzmiller in this article is particularly encyclopedic or well written. Last I saw it was a hash. But this is what happens when an article is popular, and the entire world is allowed to edit it. It turns into a mess. As I have pointed out here repeatedly. We have to just try to manage it until the excitement dies down a bit, which it will after the film comes out. Then when things are quiet, this entire article will have to be drastically rewritten. I have done it twice, and it is a huge amount of work. And I am not anxious to do it again and see all my work undone in a few hours or days. Are you anxious to waste your time like that? So the best we can do is try to keep the article from deteriorating too badly before the movie comes out, and then wait until the fuss dies down.--Filll (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, I'd just like to find the material in order to improve what we have. I understand you're saying problems with it aren't anybody's fault. But, if there were something more focused on a discussion that's occurred I think that would be better than what we have. Otherwise a little background on the case would still be good, it just needs to be focused a little, which I may try after I look a little further. Mackan79 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Kitzmiller case is crucial to the film, as it established that ID is creationist anti-evolution with mentions of God or Creation removed to meet the requirements imposed by the Edwards v. Aguilard case. Their strategy of promoting intelligent design as a credible science was scuppered, and they've turned increasingly to promoting anti-evolution propaganda with the aim of "academic freedom" to teach religion in science classes, without school boards explicitly mandating it as happened at Dover. This infringes precedents set by earlier court cases, but the current legislative moves as in Florida could mean that court cases would be against individual teachers rather than school boards. The case summary is a valuable source for independent analysis of many aspects of intelligent design, and is cited accordingly. .. dave souza, talk 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan seems to have trouble accepting that. I agree it needs to stay, as do the other regulars. Let's move along to a more useful topic and leave this dead horse alone. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The case should be outlined, but not discussed in detail beyond what is found in reviews of the movie. That's why we have an article on the case, where people can go to read about it. I'm not sure to what extent others disagree with this, but if it is contested it's an important issue that should be discussed. Mackan79 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

DaveS, the Kitzmiller case did not "establish that ID is creationis[m]," it established only that that is one District Judge's opinion. I would hope that real scientists would be disturbed by attempts to settle scientific issues through law. NCdave (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell it to the judge :) . . dave souza, talk 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

146 footnotes for an unreleased film?

Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed - is a controversial documentary film and It is due to be released on April 18, 2008.

This page is 109 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

There are 146 footnotes and the film has not been released yet.

This article is barely encyclopedic, if at all.

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. The clique is afraid; very afraid. 06:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.144.63 (talk)

There ought to be no unsubstantiated claims of "consensus" that this article does not need work if it is to conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There are a number of opinions offered on this page, and elsewhere that this article is defective. For a start it is too long, and much material needs to be excised. The film hasn't been released yet, this is way too much information, and much of it is off-topic. --Newbyguesses (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The film has not yet been released to the general public, but the marketing strategy involves showing it to a large number of mostly friendly audiences pre-release. The buzz works both way - there are a lot of reliable sources about this movie already. This is no comment on the other issues - I've not had time to look into the article in much detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SIZE#No need for haste, before making hasty changes to the article. The article is currently only the 676th longest in wikipedia, so the need for reduction isn't exactly compelling. Part of the reason for the size is that it is a controversial topic, so has far more thorough citation than a less controversial article (per requirements of WP:V), adding to the byte-size but not the word-count (and thus not causing readability problems). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just fed the article into a word-processor and it comes out at 9,500 words (probably a bit of an over-estimate, as its count would include some footnote, 'edit', etc links as 'words'), which is within WP:SIZE's 6,000 to 10,000 word recommendation. Therefore there is no problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

--LATE reply to User Hrafn : [25] is fine with me. I will wait to see how long the article gets to once the movie is released. Who knows, maybe some sort of record can be set! I have not read all of it, but I am impressed by the level of detail, and particularly some of the headers and sub-headers. If the writing remains focussed and contextual, and some of it is entertaining and informs the general reader, there could be a candidacy for Featured Article in the offing. Cheers, and thanks for setting me straight. --

Two points - Could the 'word' Controv----l be avoided, if possible. If something is "controversial", describe what happened; is only a suggestion. - I would like to see no foot-notes required in the Lead Section, even if that means it is only twenty words, and the rest goes below the first section-header. That is only a suggestion, thanks, --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore and Micheal Moore's Movies are as equally controversial and they don't have a wall of excessive critism posted by those who personally dipise the thought and primises of them, as is done here by those who vehemently oppose Expelled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate that the proponentsists are dispised and rejected, as Händel said, the primises of this are rather more complex to describe, and more controversial if the ambitions of the wedge doc are anything to go by. .. dave souza, talk 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How many lawsuits about global warming took place in the last 75 years? How many fights over putting global warming in public schools have taken place? How many controversies were associated with Gore's film? How many scientists were tricked into appearing in Gore's film? To be honest, these two are not at all comparable. But thanks for your input.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re my recent edit to cut a large chunk from the article: Too much of this article is turning into the debate itself. Surely describing the film and what people say about it should be the aim, not describing the debate surrounding the topics raised in the film. I haven't yet touched the paragraphs about what ID is and what people say about it, but hardly any of that is necessary. Why isn't it enough to say: "the films supports ID, read more at "intelligent design" and let the argument over how to present ID rage over there. GDallimore (Talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be about the film, not ID. Refs that concern the film and ID are definitely apropo, but refs only about ID shouldn't be included in my opinion. I'm an atheist, so it isn't that I like ID or something, I just think this article should concentrate on the film and responses to it, not responses to ID in general. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry your arguments are not really particularly compelling. This film is about the intelligent design variety of creationism. It describes the Dover court case. It includes interviews with major proponents of intelligent design and excludes other creationists, much to their disappointment. It repeats common creationist arguments and the claim that evolution is associated with abortions and communism and Naziism and the Holocaust. For this article to make any sense, we have to describe the background a little. For NPOV, we have to present a tiny amount of the other side. If you do not understand these concepts, it is probably best that you do not edit Wikipedia articles until you can absorb some of the foundational principles involved. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote the applicable policies/guidelines that say we should reference unrelated sources about ID when discussing this film? Obviously the majority of editors at this page have a consensus that the positions of this film should be debunked, even if it takes an unrelated reference to do it. This is probably the correct position since even Raul654 seems to agree, but for some reason it seems fishy to me. I guess I would like the reasoning explained to me so that I can feel this article is meeting NPOV and I don't have to worry about it any more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this film is most certainly not "about the intelligent design variety of creationism," inasmuch as the folks that produced it disagree with your POV that intelligent design is a variety of creationism (as do many other folks, including the ASA, the Discovery Institute, and even preeminent ID critic Dr. Ronald Numbers, who wrote, "I think that both demographically and intellectually, [the charge that ID is a version of creationism] doesn't hold a lot of water... [ID leaders] are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism"[26]).

Also, Filll, please refrain from condescending remarks like, "If you do not understand these concepts, it is probably best that you do not edit Wikipedia articles until you can absorb some of the foundational principles involved." It seems to me that Peregrine_Fisher's understanding is just fine, but even if it were not you still should not insult him. NCdave (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron Numbers is using creationism there in the narrow sense of young Earth creationism, and I'm sure that everyone would agree that it's not necessarily YEC though it takes care to include that variation of creationism in the Big Tent. However, there is conclusive evidence that it's a form of creationism in the broader sense as used at Kitzmiller. Note that the use of the term to mean "anti-evolution for religious reasons" began with proponentsists of old Earth creationism. .. dave souza, talk 12:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

most turbulent time on this talk page ever

I can't wait till things get back to normal around here. Do the regulars suppose that things will calm down after the film comes out? Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been serious fights here before if you check the statistics. Yes people will get bored with this article once the film has closed. It is not clear that it will be a successful opening, since so many have panned it, even on the right. Most of those who have praised it have some sort of ideological axe to grind about this issue.

If one thinks about it, Ben Stein is not as popular as he was 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. And this topic is sort of boring; some academics that might have been in trouble for thinking about Darwinism but really werent. And some link to the Holocaust that is sort of weak. The average person has no idea what the Holocaust was so this is sort of worthless. Even the lawsuit threat has not made it into the regular media, so that is not going to stir up interest. The copyright lawsuit might never happen. Or it might be dismissed immediately. Or it might be so boring that it gets no coverage in the media.

So I think the interest in this article will collapse in a couple of days. It will calm down here, and then eventually the article will be stable enough to actually edit in a productive way and turn its horrendous writing into something readable.--Filll (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The POV ax grinders will wander off soon enough. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope so. NCdave (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is, who are the POV axe grinders? GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An easy way to find this out would be to take a look at the editors on each side here and add together all of their collective blocks in addition to looking at their contributions. Looks like the wind is blowing in a certain direction already. Baegis (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake Tribune

"Movies: Hiding 'Expelled' from critics a not-so-intelligent move - Salt Lake Tribune". Retrieved 2008-04-14. is a good summary of the situation from a critic excluded from seeing the film who starts with – "Every semi-knowledgeable moviegoer and reader of movie criticism knows what the words "not screened for critics" means: The movie is a dog." Nothing new as far as I can see. .. dave souza, talk 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while not new it's the second source I've seen to be critical of keeping this film away from the critics and instead using supporters as test audiences (the other is the New Scientist blog). Maybe this needs to be worked into the promotion section. GDallimore (Talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

However, "OVERCOMPENSATING: The Journal Comic With a Seething Disdain for Reality". Retrieved 2008-04-14. – best review yet! .. dave souza, talk 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page first... see I'm learning :-)

People in the past couple of days have been fighting over the "99.9%", "nearly all", "some", etc. wording of the sentence leading into the people in the film.

My question is, do we need a qualifier at all? The 99.9% number is not really supported in the given source. The source only states that 99.9% of scientists accept evolution ("Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported.), not that they view it as an intrusion (they might and probably do, but the 99.9 number is not Verifiable). The "nearly all" and "some" and "most" are weasel-ish and vague. So why don't we just say "scientists", instead of "nearly all scientists", etc.? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More: Okay, so while I was typing this, Mackan went a step further and removed the whole bit. Is this okay? --Ali'i 18:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right; the reason I removed it, as I said, was simply because the topic of the sentence isn't what scientists believe in general, but rather the fact that scientists are presented in the movie arguing against ID in science class. The problem is also that the article loses credibility if it keeps inserting this where it isn't necessary. Mackan79 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mckan and Ali'i. I'm the person who inserted the "99.9%" figure into this article to begin with, and I only did it because it seemed to be the only way to persuade other editors that we must not take a stand as encyclopedia writers that the minority view is wrong. They agreed to stop taking a stand, if the 99.9% figure was inserted.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The 99.9 percent figure can be sourced to an NIH journal. A 99.85 percent figure is described in a Newsweek article. This is inline with analyses using the Discovery Institute A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition. It squares with the declarations of the AAAS and literally dozens of other scientific societies representing millions upon millions of scientists. It is not in conflict with other petitions like Project Steve or A Scientific Support for Darwinism. If you look at the previous versions of this article, 99.9 percent was in the article with appropriate references. Of course, with many driveby editors coming in here to destroy the article, it was lost. But it was in there.--Filll (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind a figure, but I think you have to admit the placement there was getting close to satirical. Actually in truth I'm not this is the right article for that figure, unless someone mentions it in relation to the film, but the third paragraph of this section is probably the best fit currently. Mackan79 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree it was satirical, I feel FM made some good points. And now I see it is out of the article altogether now. I'm re-adding it as a new mention making the points FM cited. Odd nature (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it is not really worth a lot of effort to try to get the details and wording perfect, because any work you put in will just get swept away quickly. Better to try to aim for getting the broad outlines roughly correct, and not worry about the details now. We can fiddle with cleaning up the horrible language and other problems after this film comes out and the excitement dies down. In the meantime, just relax and enjoy the ride.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an assumption here that accepting evolution and accepting ID are contradictory. That's not correct. I accept both. I think just about everybody in relevant fields at least accepts the evolutionary explanation that natural selection causes changes in wild species, just as artificial selection obviously does in domesticated species. Perhaps a few young earth creationists do not accept at least that, but probably even most of them do.

So it does not follow from that fact that nearly all scientists say they accept evolution, that nearly all scientists also reject ID. In fact, I'd wager that most of the members of the American Scientific Affiliation would say that they accept both evolution and ID. Many might also call themselves "creationists," but if so they would not mean young earth creationists. NCdave (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your wager is worthless without a reliable source, and since intelligent design is essentially anti-evolution in drag your argument lacks credibility. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We have long lists of scientific organizations that explicitly reject ID; dozens of major scientific organizations, representing millions of scientists, have issued statements to that effect. We even had links to these in the article before, but thanks to edit warring driveby editors like yourself, they were removed. People wonder why we put so many references in our articles; well, this is why. Because when we let them get removed, then assorted yahoos and jokers show up to spew all kinds of nonsense. Although I might believe in some aspects of "intelligent design" I think that the program being pushed by the Discovery Institute which has co-opted the name for their own purposes is just pure nonsense and not science at all.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's your reliable source, Dave Souza.

As a matter of common principle, the ASA states, "we believe in creation." But the ASA also advocates the teaching of evolution as science.

About ten years ago the ASA's Commission on Creation produced this interesting report, summarizing the varying positions of the ASA's members. It consists of a "General Statement on Creation" with which all the Commission's members agreed, plus four separate (non-exclusive) position statements for positions held by subsets of the ASA's membership: Young Earth Creation View, Old Earth Creation View, Theistic Evolution View, and Intelligent Design View. It asserts that "ID is logically consistent both with theistic evolution and with special creation in its various forms."

Note that the Young Earth Creation View is a distinctly minority view in the ASA.[27]

This interesting paper by the ASA's Keith B. Miller presents one of the range of positions taken by members of that organization, and here's a relevant quote: "Genesis describes the origin of humankind in precisely the same manner as that of all other living things (Gen 2:7,9,19). The origin of our physical nature is not different from that of other creatures -- we are made of the same stuff. If God used and providentially controlled evolutionary mechanisms in the creation of plants and animals, I see no reason to reject an evolutionary origin for humankind. In fact, the testimony of both scripture and nature is that we share a oneness with the rest of creation. Our physical natures are inseparably connected to the rest of life on Earth.

While Genesis roots our physical origin in the stuff of the Earth, it also places us firmly in a unique position before God and creation. The error is to attribute unique status to our physical nature, as though our exalted position is founded on something other than God's grace. I believe that it is our relationship to God more than anything else which distinguishes us. From the dust of the Earth God had raised up a creature and imparted to it a spiritually conscious soul. By this act of grace God elevated humanity to a special position of conscious and willing fellowship with Himself."

Filll, I hope you don't mind that I indented your comment. NCdave (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not like this progressive indentation. But sure indent me if you like. However, if one looks at the books and other publications associated with the intelligent design movement, they are all anti-evolution. All the pronouncements about materialism and naturalism from proponents of intelligent design are distinctly anti-evolution and even anti-science. And I would not take the ASA as necessarily a very good source for much in this regard. Just like I would be cautious about the declarations of the Discovery Institute. One has to be very very careful to see what the real substance of the concept known as "intelligent design" is. These organizations rely on obfuscation and misrepresentation and even lying as important tools, so they make a lot of confusing statements.--Filll (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an outrageous and unsupportable accusation, Filll. The ASA most certainly does not "rely on obfuscation and misrepresentation and even lying as important tools." NCdave (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The ASA were founded by Creationists, but the organisation moved fairly quickly in the direction of theistic evolution (with a fair number getting off at the progressive creationism station enroute). My impression is that the leadership was (and maybe still is) more conservative than the rank and file. Morris helped form the CRS and later formed the ICR at least partially in reaction to the ASA's perceived apostasy. This is all documented in exhaustive detail in The Creationists. As far as I know it currently includes all sorts from TEs to the likes of Dembski. If Keith B. Miller is the guy I think he is, he's on the board of Kansas Citizens for Science and a fairly vocal anti-creationist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would however point out that TE is generally held to be incompatible with Creationism, including ID, (by both TEs and Creationists) and that whilst TE scientists accept the theology of Creation ('God did it') they reject the claims of Creationism ('God left discernable toolmarks on the universe'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it and will strongly object and any further removals. The fact that a very respected and reputable scientific periodical has published an article stating 99.9% of scientists accept evolution over creationism is highly relevent to an article covering a film whose premise is that the scientific community is trying to hide evidence that creationism is widely accepted by many scientists and that its persecuting those who do. I can't think of a single number other than the release date that could be more relevant to this article. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the number should be mentioned, but Mackan has a point that perhaps where it is now isn't the best place for it Restepc (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The version that ReloniousMonk reverted it to says:

"In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what 99.9% of scientists, science educators and judicial precedent view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."

That has several defects:

• Most obviously, it is grammatically garbled. What are 99.9% of judicial precedent?
• Even if we drop "and judicial precedent" from the sentence, to make it make sense, it is not true. There is no source or evidence for the claim that 99.9% of scientists and science educators view ID as an intrusion in science classes.
• It conflates two distinctly different groups of people: those who advocate the teaching of evolution, and those who view ID as an intrusion in science classes.

Mackan's version is much better, and has none of those defects:

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what they view as the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes."

So I've (un)reverted it back to Mackan's version. NCdave (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about NCdaves points, his argument is pretty much bulletproof, and I think the 'some' version should stay. Though it's still probably be worth mentioning elsewhere in the article, for undue weight reasons, that Evolution is universally accepted by scientists, but NCdave again has a point that this doesn't necessarily mean that all those scientists are dead against ID. Restepc (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

His argument is very much original research, using primary sources and placing an interpretation and weight on them without a reliable third party source as a basis. He doesn't mention the distinction the ASA seem to draw between "intelligent design" which for them includes theistic evolution, and "Intelligent Design" which they use to mean intelligent design as promoted by this film. Their official position is confused and dates back a number of years, but the idea that a significant proportion of the membership support the DI's version is pure speculation. As always, the interpretation of the percentage of scientists supporting evolution should be based on reliable secondary sources. .. dave souza, talk 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call that OR as such, true he hasn't actually presented a source for it, but probably one could be found, I have tried completely rephrasing that line, partly to get around the 99.9% argument, and partly to make it clearer and more grammatically straight forward. I'm happy with it....but I wrote it so I'm biased, what do you lot think? Restepc (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the same problem as I had with view/views really, I happy with saying the supreme court has determined it to be unconstitutional (possibly some small arguments over whether 'intrusion' is also 'determined' but that's just arguing for the sake of it)....but, scientists didn't 'determine' it, they described it. What about.....and this seems ambitious even to me....

"what scientists [science education expert?] have described as and supreme court rulings have determined to be the "unconstitutional intrusion" of blah de blah"? Restepc (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay ignore the above, Hrafn saw it himself, hopefully this is that sentence sorted now Restepc (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The more complex this becomes, the more clear that the one word "intrusion" is the most accurate characterisation of the various determinations of a wide range of experts: 'not good science' by scientists; 'confusing/misrepresenting science' by science education experts; 'not following the methodologies of science' by philosophers of science; and 'not constitutional' by SCOTUS (and lesser courts) -- i.e. it is "without permission, welcome, or fitness" (per definition of "intrude" above). The more we attempt to qualify the word, the more trouble we run into, because the more ways we find that it is an "intrusion" that isn't allowed for by those qualifications we've placed upon it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people are being too sensitive about this, and other things in the article. The problem with "intrusion" is straight forward, that it's subjective whether this is an intrusion. Thus unless some better wording is found, "what they regard as an intrusion" is the simple solution, in that everyone knows "intrusion" is negative and thus that you can't state it as fact. People seem to have come to expect that in every such situation we'll then hammer in how much support there is for this, but this is what is mucking up the article. If you said "what they regard as bad science" we might have a problem, but to say "what they regard as an intrusion" is certainly fair. Otherwise we'd need to reword the whole sentence. Mackan79 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with naming the people interviewed (in that 2nd sentence). But this first sentence is both bad prose and inaccurate:

"In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what scientists, science education experts and Supreme Court (and lesser court) rulings have determined to be the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.

• The Supreme Court has said nothing at all about ID.
• The use of the plural form "rulings" is wrong, since just one district court judge has weighed in, and he only ordered that science teachers not be required to teach about ID, he didn't forbid them from teaching about ID.
• Using the word "determined" to express one POV in a two-sided argument is POV.
• Calling ID a "religious doctrine" is POV.

Mackan79's version has none of those problems. NCdave (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ID a religious doctrine. Read Thomas Aquinas. Correctly identifying a spade as a spade is not stating a viewpoint. Odd nature (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The "problem with 'intrusion'" is not straight forward, as it is not "subjective". Objectively an "intrusion" is thrusting something in that doesn't belong. Objectively, creationism meets few or none of the hallmarks of science (depending on exactly what form of creationism you're discussing and exactly how you define these hallmarks). Therefore objectively creationism does not belong in science, and objectively attempting to insert it into a science class is an "intrusion".
2. In any case the "subjective" argument is a complete red herring -- articles use subjective adjectives on a regular basis -- "prominent", "controversial", etc, etc. That they are subjective is not problematical, it is only a problem if the substantiation for them is missing or ambiguous. However, even were "intrusion" subjective, the substantiation for it among the experts is unambiguous and unequivocal.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are sources available that show the scientific community views ID as an intrusion, I suggest using them. Odd nature (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intrusion/exclusion

We've reworded the sentence to the point of incoherence, trying to bow to the minority viewpoint that religious teaching is appropriate in a science classroom. As now:

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to what scientists, science education experts and Supreme Court (and lesser court) rulings have determined to be the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.[40] These include biologists PZ Myers, William Provine and Richard Dawkins, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, historian of science Michael Shermer and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[3]

My preference would be;

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of intelligent design, creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes.[40] These include biologists PZ Myers, William Provine and Richard Dawkins, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, historian of science Michael Shermer and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[3]

That's clear about what they're opposed to, it's others who argue that religious doctrings should be included. .. dave souza, talk 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Omigosh pleeeease. Enough already. --Ali'i 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, and I'd certainly prefer the simple "intrusion" to what's there currently. However, it does have the same problem of suddenly focusing intently on the critics, as opposed to focusing on the movie or the initial topic of a paragraph (in this case, what's shown in the movie). I think that's why it is catching people's attention. Mackan79 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think the best thing is simply to put 'what they view as the' before intrusion, but I'm going with the current version in the spirit of compromise, I would strongly object to having just 'the intrusion', as it sounds distinctly anti-ID, which wikipedia obviously can't do. Restepc (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, to clarify, I think both those versions have that same problem, in switching sharply and unnecessarily to the critical perspective. This is why I prefered "they perceive as." Otherwise "inclusion" means the same thing as "intrusion" minus the judgment, and is actually probably the most correct. However, it might be that we still need a third option. Mackan79 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why editing with a large group, many of who have a distinct agenda, is very difficult. They want to include all kinds of extraneous details. They want to slant the text. They want to introduce weasel words. Of course, simple and direct is better. After all, someone has to read this thing. I get tired of this nonsense. Can people understand why experienced pro-rational editors sometimes get tired and just blast the hell out of assorted malcontents and people pushing narrow points of view or people with agendas? Goodness gracious.--Filll (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean people like me and Ali'i? Restepc (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Restepc, you're objecting to a "distinctly anti-ID" sounding term in a section that presents the views of oponents of ID. If you really want the pro-ID view presented, it would be clearer to add a sentence AFTER the names sentence, saying that "Supporters of intelligent design want it to be included in public school science classes, but this is opposed by the overwhelming majority of scientists and has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts." ... dave souza, talk 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am objecting to the article sounding anti-ID. The article should sound neutral. Articles can say what other peoples views are, but they shouldn't have a view of their own, no matter how 'correct' the view may be Restepc (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and so have others "intrusion" is a very strong word, its fine to atribute it to some one ie the scientists say its an intrusion into the classroom but WIKIPEDIA can't speak with with that sort language. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. Presenting opposing views doesn't mean being sympathetic to minority views, or giving "equal validity" to pseudoscience. .. dave souza, talk 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

giving "equal validity" to pseudoscience - Surely classifying intelligent design as "pseudoscience", and as a form of religious doctrine, is a POV in itself? Hypnosadist is correct; Wikipedia should not make such a judgment. It is not for us to decide what is science and what is religion. We can, and should, say that the majority of scientists view intelligent design as a form of religious creationism and as pseudoscience; we should also say that ID advocates dispute this, and claim that it is a scientific viewpoint distinct from creationism. That is, IMO, the appropriate NPOV approach.

All too often, Wikipedia articles are presenting evolution as the rational scientific viewpoint, and ID as irrational pseudoscience. I don't know whether that's true or not; but, true or not, Wikipedia should not make that judgment.

To Filll: I do not have an agenda, except for making Wikipedia as unbiased as possible. I have no interest in promoting intelligent design. I just don't think we should decide, of our own accord, what is and isn't "science", and write articles accordingly. Walton^One 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make a judgment as to whether ID is pseudoscience, editors have to find verifiable sources showing the overwhelming scientific consensus, which has been done and is demonstrated by sources cited in this article. On the basis of that consensus, NPOV: Pseudoscience has particular relevance to the application of NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions means that we don't have to thrash it out on every article where NPOV: Giving "equal validity" comes into action. Less formally, it's a bit of a hint when Fox News describes ID as "junk science". .. dave souza, talk 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as the view that ID is pseudoscience is verifiable and reliable sources are available for that, it is completely within the bounds of WP:NPOV to include it in the article. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Odd nature (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section from Wikipedia's official policy:

The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:

• Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
• Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

NCdave (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article

The problem with this article is that most of the criticism isn't about the film at all. I'm not going to get embroiled in the whole controversy over how we should present intelligent design vs. evolution in science articles; I'm not a scientist and I'm not qualified to make that judgment. But this article is not a science article; it's an article about a film. Therefore, it is original research for Wikipedia editors to use scientific sources, which are not about the film, to criticise the film - and this is what most of the article currently consists of. Most of the sources cited have nothing to do with Expelled; they are about intelligent design in general. The article is therefore mostly OR by synthesis. Basically, it's constructed in this way:

The film makes claims X and Y about intelligent design.[cites source] However, this is not consistent with the view held by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[cites various scientific journal articles which do not mention the film]

Certainly, the article should contain criticism. But it should be criticism of the film, not intelligent design in general. Thus, it should be like this:

The film makes claims X and Y about intelligent design.[cites source] However, this has been challenged by critics A and B, who have reviewed the film and argued that these claims are unscientific and false.[cites reviews of the film by A and B]

Basically, we should not be taking sources which criticise intelligent design in general and using them to write our own critique of the film. This is a textbook case of OR. The criticism cited should be from sources about the film. Walton^One 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). We're working on it, providing backup for the statements made by reviewers of the film as appropriate. Do please help. .. dave souza, talk 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me, I have been a Wikipedian for more than two years and know perfectly well how to edit a page. The reason I did not do so is because when I tried cleaning this article up a few months ago, all my changes got reverted, and I was denounced on this talk page by a number of editors. I will work on the article when I can, but I wanted to explain in advance what I will be doing and why, in the (possibly deluded) hope that I might actually not be reverted. Personally I think all our articles on evolution vs. intelligent design display a worrying amount of bias towards the evolutionary viewpoint, but I'm not a scientist (and hence not qualified to deal with the issues knowledgeably), and even if I were, I have no interest in waging a one-man battle. Walton^One 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please don't patronise us when we're working hard with a complex situation to achieve just what you're helpfully advising us to do. Your personal thoughts suggest that you may not be up to speed with the NPOV requirements relating to science and pseudoscience, please be assured that we're doing our best to achieve the required balance. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, my apologies for patronising you, and I do understand that it's a work in progress. I'd also be the first to admit that science isn't my field and I haven't made a habit of editing science articles, so I may well not be up to date with the current consensus on this issue. (As a side note, I should mention that I have also contributed to the corresponding article at Conservapedia, in the hope of creating a more balanced article, but I've predictably been outgunned there by the young-earth creationist crowd; here is the article when I wrote it, and here is the incredibly pro-ID current version, after other Conservapedians finished with it. I mention this just to show that I'm not trying to promote a creationist agenda; rather, I seem to have a habit of inadvertently pissing off both sides.) Walton^One 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Walton One's suggestions make perfect sense. This is what I've been trying to communicate for almost 3 months now. Saksjn (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll both be delighted to read about the new detailed resource shown below. Time to get to work! . . dave souza, talk 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I* think the article is too long. I've helpfully shortened it a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to mention that the film blames evolution for the holocaust. I'm going to revert this, but be free to make changes to it. Actually, please make changes to it. It needs a re-write. Saksjn (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. My version starts The film portrays Darwin's theory of evolution as having been responsible for the Holocaust... what could be more explicit? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version is pretty good. Whoever came in after you did a good job. Sorry, I think I might have misread your's, I just saw a deletion of the section. Saksjn (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave Souza and I seeem to be having fun reverting each other. You may need to have another look. Regardless, all versions contain the text you wanted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd only reverted you once when you wrote that, you were edit warring with someone else. However, I've looked over your changes carefully and find that you'd removed significant information specific to the film, so I have again undone your changes. I'm all in favour of trimming what's there carefully, and of course incorporating the reliable info now available, but more care is needed. Will make a start on it shortly .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, you've joined the edit war now. Please be a bit clearer about which vital bits I've removed, I can't see what it is. And, since you're in favour of trimming, how about cautiously adding back in what was vital rather than re-inserting all the spam? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled Exposed

The NCSE has now produced a resource setting out the claims made in the film, and giving a detailed response. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth "Expelled Exposed � The Truth behind the Fiction"]. Retrieved 2008-04-15. {{cite web}}: replacement character in |title= at position 18 (help) forms a sound basis for citing the scientific view. ... dave souza, talk 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we really use this as an unbiased source though? I mean, it's very obvious where the writers of these articles stand. Saksjn (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable secondary source. Primary, self-published sources can be used to document where the publishing organization or individual itself stands, but are not reliable sources for criticism about other organizations or individuals. NCdave (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

why "unbiased"? Criticism isn't unbiased. We are neutral. They are critical. dab (𒁳) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we could quote the article saying 'The NCSE says that' if we really needed to, but I'm equally sure that there must be a great many other sources out there that would show the scientific view of ID and it's supporting arguments Restepc (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

that's not the topic. This isn't about "the scientific view of ID", it's about the claim that ID supporters have not been given a fair hearing (to put it mildly; in fact, the claim is closer to "scientists are Nazis"). --dab (𒁳) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Now, now. The NPOV and NPOV requirements have been shown above for the benefit of anyone unaware of them. The NCSE is a reputable source for the majority view of science and science educators. That gives a good secondary context for the anti-science view of the film's promoters, which will be shown as appropriate. The resource also gives a secondary source for the claims made in the film, which can augment the sources we have already. Of course our academic freedom lovin' friends have been trying to hide the film and expel any independent reviewers, but we'll do what we can. .. dave souza, talk 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

God help us when NCDave quotes policy. Seriously, he's now suggesting that NPOV means ignoring criticism from Reliable sources? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So if lets say, Sean Hannity, for example, just for example, starts a website criticizing and "exposing" Barrack Obama, we should consider it a reliable source? I mean he is an expert on politics. This is just an example to make you think about what a reliable source is... I'm not actually suggesting it. Saksjn (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cordelia Dean's anti-ID POV comes first.

"Overview" opens with Dean's point of view that ID = creationism. To any reader with any knowledge of the controversy, it is the tipoff that the rest of article reflects an anti-ID bias. Shouldn't the "overview" at least present the producers view of the controversy before presenting the anti-ID Dean etal. view. patsw (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

how is ID not creationism? Of course Wikipedia gives more weight to the "anti-ID view": the reason being that ID is bogus (WP:DUE). dab (𒁳) 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Due doesn't say that. However, it is more or less irrelevant, since the majority viewpoint is quite clear (and it isn't even just a majority but a vast majority. See for example Kitzmiller v. Dover). Wikipedia cares about verifiability not truth. In this case, the verifiable reliable sources are quite explicit. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who are such frantic editors and want a nice "clean" article, this is what happens when you remove background and contextural sources. We had of course 10 or 20 sources in the article at one time that showed overwhelming support for this statement of Cornelia Dean. But assorted driveby editors, frantic to make the article only about the film and not about ID, or make it less cluttered or remove footnotes, or reduce the amount of COATRACKing, took this material out. And over and over and over, experience shows that this leads to the kind of ridiculous statement as we see above. So, just try to learn a bit.--Filll (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What does support (make that "overwhelming support") for Dean's anti-ID advocacy by an anti-ID editing cabal have to do with making a good Wikipedia article on the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Why does Dean's POV come first in the "Overview"? patsw (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not an answer to my question. What does support (make that "overwhelming support") for Dean's anti-ID advocacy by an anti-ID editing cabal have to do with making a good Wikipedia article on the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Why does Dean's POV come first in the "Overview"? patsw (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It comes first because of the principles of WP:NPOV under which Wikipedia operates.--Filll (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to assert that the neutral point of view on intelligent design (as Dean claims) is that it is the same as creationism, as principle of the Wikipedia, then I did not get the memo. Also, So, just try to learn a bit is incivil, condescending, and bullying.

What does support (make that "overwhelming support") for Dean's anti-ID advocacy by an anti-ID editing cabal have to do with making a good Wikipedia article on the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Why does Dean's POV come first in the "Overview"? patsw (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting from WP:VPP, but I think you're misreading what is meant by "overwhelming support"; it's not the overwhelming support of Wikipedia editors, but rather of the scientific community. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who want to join a meta-discussion on whether equating intelligent design with creationism is a point of view or a principle, I have started one on WP:VPP.

The unwarranted abuse of WP:CIVIL that is in this phrase "So, just try to learn a bit is incivil, condescending, and bullying" is decidedly inappropriate and continued similar argumentation might be subject to administrative sanction.--Filll (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's not an abuse, because it was incivil, condescending and bullying for you to have written "So, just try to learn a bit", at least as I understand those words. I think it was appropriate for me to point it out in order to assist you in avoiding your own administrative sanction. I don't see an upside for you in bringing it up again, even defending "So, just try to learn a bit" as civil, collaborative, and friendly in the best Wikipedia spirit, rather than just moving on; I have no interest in a feud or answering a threat with a threat.
• If your intent in writing "So, just try to learn a bit" was to to be civil, collaborative, and friendly in the best Wikipedia spirit, please accept my sincere apology as it was a misunderstanding, even though I have close to 3,000 edits since 2004, I'm sure I have much to learn. patsw (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see evidence of some confusion here. But you are welcome to continue to argue that the New York Times does not constitute a reliable source. I have had enough. Cheers! --Filll (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe what used to be in the lead of this section was the explicit definition of intelligent design as defined on the Expelled website. It went something like:

"The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes. On their website they define intelligent design as "blah blah blah"

And a souce was given. Note they use the Discovery Institute's definition. Anyhow, THEN the article weighed in on the science, educational and legal opinions. It was very NPOV and educational for that matter. It informed the reader. Why did we remove that? Angry Christian (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That earlier version is here, AC. I agree it's significantly better, though it would still be improved by taking entirely from sources about the movie. But certainly it's a step back to something better. Mackan79 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote that I consider the New York Times to be an unreliable source. I have often used it in my own edits. I only question why Cordelia Dean's anti-ID POV comes first in the "Overview" discussing the context of the film. I have learned a bit and know why the normal Wikipedia editing policies don't apply in articles where editors are advocates for something such as Darwinism that currently has achieved scientific consensus. patsw (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiight. Not particularly compelling frankly, and I think I have been properly put on notice that it is unproductive to engage with you in dialogue. Thanks for your input. --Filll (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it is not encyclopedic to criticize something that is never even defined. The article (this section is no exception) should provide details on what Ben Stein is promoting and then give voice to others. In this case Ben has a specific definition of ID and that should be in the lead of this section. And THEN have members from education, science, law, etc weigh in on what Ben's peddling. This is an intelligent design movie so it makes good sense to shed some light on their take on intelligent design. Angry Christian (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph of this section does not even have a single quote or cite from Ben and company and instead launches into the discovery institute. The way it reads now the intro simply alleges Ben and Co. are promoting ID. Can anyone justify why Ben's definition of ID is not appropriate for the section that makes a case he's promoting ID? If you cannot then I'll add that back into the article, or someone else can. Angry Christian (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is Ben's definition of ID? Since he's a primary source, ideally we need a secondary source commenting on his definition. As I recall, he complains about ID proponentsists being persecuted without ever saying what ID means. See the Scientific American review, iirc. Of course it's stated above that something resembling the DI's "definition" appeared fleetingly on the Exposed main page, but we don't have a reliable source for that, and the "definition" is a masterpiece of incoherent spin. Find a good source and we can put it in the context of the majority scientific view of what it means.. dave souza, talk 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave you'll find the previous version with the expelled definition here (as well as the source) And yes, I think we should provide Expelled's definition and then have secondary sources comment on it. I have no idea why this was removed in the first place. Angry Christian (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I just checked the link and they have moved some stuff on that page, their definition is no longer there. As you can see in the previous version it is verbatim the DI's definition except they add a qualifier. Odd since I'm the one who found it in the first place. Damn this means I have to go dipsy dumpster diving at the expelled site to find it again. I'd rather have a root canal. Angry Christian (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I did a google search of their site and it appears they have deleted the definition of ID they previously published. So all bets are off on including their definition. That said we should still quote as best we can what exactly been is calling ID before we criticize him for doing so. The lead sentence to me is dreadfully POV since ben doesn't offer anything in the entire first paragraph. Angry Christian (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE page on ID in the film describes various contradictory or inconsistent definitions being used, depending on who's talking. Needs a bit more consideration, perhaps we can condense something out of that. Filll refers below to some possible sources, but care has to be taken with primary sources as they seem to be going out of their way to avoid being pinned down on a definition. .. dave souza, talk 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I believe Stein and/or the film company give their definition in several of the dozens of interviews we have, and in the blog on the subject and in assorted promotional material. Definitions are also provided in some of the reviews of the film, because just as we should, they want to provide context so that the reader can understand the topic.--Filll (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent paragraphs

“ The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, a form of creationism,[6] which has been described as junk science.[7][8] Scientific American editor John Rennie summarises intelligent design as "a notion which firmly states that at one or more unspecified times in the past, an unidentified designer who might or might not be God somehow created whole organisms, or maybe just cells, or maybe just certain parts of cells—they're still deciding and will get back to you on that."[9] The Discovery Institute, which is at the center of promoting intelligent design, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach and not creationism.[10][11]

The producers claim that those opposing intelligent design "don't like the very idea of an intelligent cause because they don't like the idea of allowing even the possibility of the existence of an intelligent 'designer.' That might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D." They also claim that the scientific community has "conveniently dismissed [intelligent design] as religious 'creationism,'" and assert that those who oppose intelligent design "are simply wrong."[12]

This is in contrast with the consensus of the scientific community that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[17] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community with one source stating "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution."[19]

The film presents evidence claimed to show that scientists do not have the freedom to work within the framework of believing there is a God,[10] alleging that there is widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, and a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.[3][4] It also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.[20] Kitzmiller was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. The court ruling noted that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"[21] and that it was "not science" and, indeed, "fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science."[22][23][24] The court rejected the Discovery Institute's claims that intelligent design was not religiously motivated,[10][25] and rebuffed the attempt to introduce it into public school science classes as a constitutional violation.[9][26]

”

The first three paragraphs have a lot of jaunts off into repetition land, and into random-information-ville. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you had the same perception as me. I'm sure someone won't like all of what I did, but I think it's a much better section, much more focused on the movie, and much more useful to the reader. I hope others will consider it or something similar. Mackan79 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit better, but still kind of poorly organised, and the scientific American quote is poorly worked in (And shouldn't we say that it's in a review of the film?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the quote was useful, to the extent it keeps a brief discussion of what this whole thing is all about. I think others are more intent on that than me, but I thought it seemed fine. As to it being in a review, that's what I added; did you mean to suggest that was unnecessary? Mackan79 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's useful, but think it could be integrated better. Sorry, though, I overdid it this weekend so might not be entirely coherent myself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I agree it wasn't perfect. You can see the older section linked below, which has better aspects as well. Either way, I think focusing on the film should be a higher priority. Mackan79 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see them being that incoherent. First keep in mind that in questions of science, and ID is alleged to be science, the view of the scientific community is the majority view and that of ID proponents is a tiny minority view in comparison. So devoting real estate to cover the view of the majority, the scientific community, is required by Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. As far as being coherent, the first paragraph sets the stage with the premise of the film, that intelligent design is allegedly a scientific theory. The second paragraph details the alleged treatment of those who promote intelligent design as science by the scientific community. And the third paragraph covers the actual level of acceptance of intelligent design by the scientific community and the level of support for the theory that ID is meant to challenge: evolution. This arrangement follows the typical 'what and who' formula followed by the customary paragraph on how it was received (by the scientific community). There's no particular problem with this, and any removal of these verifiable and notable views explicitly violates our core content policy and will not go unchallenged. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FM, the issue among other things is WP:SYN, stating "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The view of NPOV you are suggesting conflicts with this part of the WP:NOR policy, which suggests the view should be reconsidered. I think what a pretty steady stream of people here have been saying is that the balance in terms of NPOV should be support and criticism for the movie, or specific arguments in the movie, not broader issues that the movie is decided to relate to. The current organization is also strange, as Shoemaker pointed out. These are the things I'm looking to improve.[28] Mackan79 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Covering the majority view

Deleting the majority view is simply not going to fly, Mackan. Stop trying to whitewash the article. Odd nature (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that was the intent - that section is a confusing mismash of criticism, and needs to be teased out ijnto coherent paragraphs. A trim down, followed by a more structureds re-expasnsion might not be a bad idea, if done with reasonable rapidity. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see my comments in the section above, ON, about why I removed what I removed. I just looked back at older versions of the article and see the material made more sense previously such as here, but it's still much better to focus on the film than on intelligent design, which is fully discussed in that article. If there's any other way to improve this, please suggest. Mackan79 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's relevant to this article. I agree with odd nature restorating the section and would have done it myself had I seen it first. Futhermore, it seems clear to me that you've been working to remove this section, either piecemeal or in one swipe, all along in conflict to the clause of WP:NPOV which requires all notable and verifiable views be covered and despite your assurances to the contrary. Your stock has fallen in my eyes and I see I need to keep a closer eye on this situation. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Per above, the issue with saying it's relevant is that much of it violates WP:SYN. As far as my aims, I'd like to reduce some of this to material that directly addresses the movie, since we have other articles to discuss other topics. Of course, there is plenty of critical material on the movie as well. If you have a concern with these edits, please address them directly, but please also consider whether we could do so without negative statements about each other, as I don't think these will help improve the page. Mackan79 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a SYN problem, though we can and should provide more explicit referencing to reviews and Expelled Exposed sites related to the film. What we actually have is a problem of piss-poor writing, causing the section to seem much more random and less connected to the claims in the film than it is. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere. How about proposed rewording covering the same point, as drafts on this talk page? .. dave souza, talk 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree; certainly I'm not saying the article shouldn't say anything on ID. However, when a paragraph relies entirely on sources not about the movie, then it's not being done in the right way. I think the context is actually useful for two reasons: the "majority opinion" as FM terms it, but also as background on what the movie is about. The older version I linked here handles it better, but I still think something that focuses more on the movie (while still informing about ID) should be the goal, as I attempted here. Mackan79 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This was my version:

“ The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, which has been described as junk science. The producers claim that those opposing intelligent design "don't like the very idea of an intelligent cause because they don't like the idea of allowing even the possibility of the existence of an intelligent 'designer.' That might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D." They also claim that the scientific community has "conveniently dismissed [intelligent design] as religious 'creationism,'" and assert that those who oppose intelligent design "are simply wrong."

In his review of the movie, Scientific American editor John Rennie summarises intelligent design as "a notion which firmly states that at one or more unspecified times in the past, an unidentified designer who might or might not be God somehow created whole organisms, or maybe just cells, or maybe just certain parts of cells—they're still deciding and will get back to you on that." The Discovery Institute, which is at the center of promoting intelligent design, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach and not creationism.

The film presents evidence claimed to show that scientists do not have the freedom to work within the framework of believing there is a God, alleging that there is widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, and a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. It also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Kitzmiller was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. The court ruling noted that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and that it was not science. The court rejected the Discovery Institute's claims that intelligent design was not religiously motivated, and rebuffed the attempt to introduce it into public school science classes as a constitutional violation.

”

I think a sentence could be added in the middle of the second paragraph about the predominant scientific view on this; if it were found in a review of the movie all the better. But, I thought this got the points across while staying more on topic. Mackan79 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating that nifty {{cquote|...}} template, Mackan79. I like it! NCdave (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More constructive trimming

What is the purpose of having both a "Critical reaction" section and a "Reviews" section. Most of the material is simply summarized in "Critical reaction" and detailed more thoroughly in "Reviews". With a quick glance I see the repitition of Limbaugh, Bethell, Holocaust imagery being distasteful, the preaching to the choir bits. Can we try to eliminate the "Critical reaction" section by working whatever relevant references (that are not already there into the "Reviews" section? What do you you think? --Ali'i 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging the sections may be acceptable; simply deleting one or the other is surely not. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cancelings"

I removed the quotes, and they were later put back on. Putting quotes around them is very obvious bias. If we want to meet NPOV, we can't have the quotes. Saksjn (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was meant to indicate it was a quote? Anyway, I've tried something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It comes across as wikipedia taking the stance that the cancellations were not really cancellations, but ways to keep critics out, which has been suggested by several editors. Saksjn (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

good edit, it sounds better. Saksjn (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The "cancellations" are not "oddities", they are outright falsehoods. I have editing the section title to reflect this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you say they are outright falsehoods without taking a POV. I could say evolution is crap, and list several sources saying so, but it wouldn't be fair would it? The same thing applies here too. Saksjn (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They were reported as falsehoods ("There you go. Lying. Plain and simple and there is no way they can spin that."), not oddities, anomalies, or whatever, so it should be entitled "Reports of false cancellation notices". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Who reported it? I'm not trying to cause trouble; I just want to know so that we can word it right. Saksjn (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you actually read this article before editing it. To quote the relavant section "The Seed science blogger John M. Lynch (of "Stranger Fruit") has reported receiving an email (to him and several others) stating that the screening he was to attend had been moved one hour earlier.[143] He later received an email (to him and five others)[144] stating that the RSVP screening he was set to attend had been canceled." Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume that it wasn't canceled? Saksjn (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to read the article every time something changes. I've resorted to skimming. Saksjn (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear - So yesterday., when you removed the (accurate) quotation marks from that section header, you simply skipped over the next paragraph explaining why it was there (that they weren't actually canceled - it was a trick to prevent critics from seeing advanced screenings). Then when reverted you came here to the talk page to claim it is biased, you did so again(!) without reading the adjacent explanatory paragraph. Then, you changed the section header, again (!!) without reading it. Hrm, it's not difficult to see what the problem is. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I found it. Thanks! Saksjn (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Institute sarcastic slam of Shermer's review

[29]--Filll (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That review insists that this film documents firings of educators and scientists who expressed belief in ID or creation by a God - a clear violation of the right of freedom of speech. If it turns out to really be a creationism propoganda film supporting those who have tried to promote religious creation fables as science - then they deserved to be fired and this film deserves to be exposed as a fraud. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For starters, Crocker was "teaching demonstrably false creationist material", in one example telling students that "macroevolution" was disproved as "No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.” – No evolutionary biologist ever proposed that “dogs turn into cats in a laboratory”, and ironically, this would be disproof of evolution! Such rapid changes are exactly contrary to any expectation of evolutionary processes. Dogs and cats do share a common ancestor, but can no more turn into one another than you can transform into your cousins. If Crocker doesn’t understand that, she is stunningly ignorant of basic evolutionary theory, and she has no right to force her ignorance on students.[30] . . dave souza, talk 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind none of the "victims" in exposed were fired. That tidbit somehow was left out of the "movie". You don't have to be an investigative reporter to figure out most every single claim made in the movie is demonstrably false. I think the only honest claim made in the "movie" is that ID is a religious viewpoint. Angry Christian (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like a turd in the U-bend

Nature editor says that intelligent design is "like a turd in the u-bend, it just won't go away" [31].--Filll (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Must we discuss every new review? Saksjn (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's face it, we cannot describe more than a tiny fraction of the reviews and articles out there. And we have room for even less material for that in our article. But this one I thought was particularly notable and somewhat humorous. --Filll (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Humorous, yes, notable, why? Saksjn (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This review does nothing but trash the premise of the film. It doesn't talk about the content of the film at all. Saksjn (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The content and premise are different. Huh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Premise was a bad word. A better description would have been to say the film trashes the events surrounding the film. The review still doesn't even mention anything in the film. I wonder if the writer even saw the film. Saksjn (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this is a reliable source. He has written a scathing review. So...--Filll (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NCSE expelled exposed site links Christine Comer case

The NCSE site has linked Expelled to Christine Comer and included a video: [32]. Do we mention this? Sounds appropriate to me.--Filll (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it is of her teaching, a concise summary would be useful, as a contrast to Expelled's claims about her 'persecution'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Caroline Crocker?Filll (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eep -- so I was. Comer is a more delicate issue, as the point is that she (and people in a similar situation to her) are not in the film. We really need a WP:RS to explicitly state that -- the fact that a video of her is on an NCSE site entitled 'Expelled Exposed' isn't really enough of a connection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A video based on Expelled's trailer? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we need a WP:RS to state that it is based upon (and presumably is thus a parody and/or rebuttal of) the trailer (a Scienceblogs would probably do for this very minor point -- it doesn't have to be the NYT). Otherwise the WP:SYNTH-police will almost certainly nab us. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So if Comer isn't even in expelled, why do we need to mention this? Saksjn (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate because (1) reliable sources connect the two (2) it is a real provable documented example of discrimination and consequences associated with ID, just the opposite case than the film wants to make instead of the spurious madeup cases presented in the film, where the filmmakers are lying.--Filll (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DI Campaigns

Why do the DI campaigns need to be mentioned. If you have a good reason I'll likely agree. Saksjn (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's another attempt by DI to push ID? And I don't think we have to convince you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the DI several times without ever explicitly mentioning their role. This seems a rather important omission. What role, if any, did they play in the making of this movie? Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the filming company and the DI are complementary but not too closely related:

• Discovery Institute fellows appear in the movie; no regular creationists appear

• Filming was done at the Discover Institute for the film

• The Discovery Institute has interviewed the producers repeatedly since at least last August if not before, over and over and then posted the interviews

• The Discovery Institute has written article after article promoting the movie.

Claims that the Discovery Institute is funding this movie appear to be completely nonsensical.--Filll (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an original research issue here. I don't see any direct connection between them and no reliable secondary source has made a strong connection between the two. There might be cause to mention the DI's reactions and responses since it is the hub of the ID movement, but we should be careful. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are sourcing issues here, but nothing that I've seen described as presented in the film to date has not been lifted straight out of the DI playbook. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still no reliable secondary source that proves that expelled is a DI campaign. Simply assuming that it is because of similar strategies is original research in its fullest extent. Saksjn (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Soapbox

This article is being used as a soapbox by people who want to push an anti ID POV. It is confused, and focuses on the ID movement constantly. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me what continues to be overlooked is the extent this needs to be seen as an article about a movie, not about ID. In this context, WP:SYN is clear that any discussion in the article needs to be specifically about the film. I'd like to think of an exception, but I don't think there are any; if content relies on a source that is not about the film, then it shouldn't be here, end of story. If that were fixed, I think the steady stream of disgruntled readers would stop coming through, at least at the current rate. Mackan79 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008

(UTC)

I beg to differ. After 1.5 years of experience on articles similar to this such as intelligent design and creationism and irreducible complexity and Discovery Institute, the only way that this article would not be constantly attacked by anti-science zealots as we tried to build it would be if it were a religious recruiting tract telling all readers they would go to hell if they did not believe in Jesus. At least that is my impression.--Filll (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've edited in a lot of contentious areas as well, Filll, for a similar period of time. I've also seen the "if we didn't" argument, and disagree that it's the right way to go about things. This was argued forcefully by one editor on Cult, that the article had to start with 17 dictionary definitions or else someone would come and insert something incorrect about what is or isn't a cult. Is this a way to write an article? I think there are more than enough science-minded editors here to keep others from coming in and rewriting the article to support ID, without having to resort to general sources. Criticism of the movie, specifically, should be the focus, not other types, and with so much of it I don't know why we don't simply rely on it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah in your four thousand some odd edits in over 2 years time? I see. You are free to try to lecture the rest of us. But somehow your arguments are not really informed by much experience and are not really particularly compelling. But thanks anyway.--Filll (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please pardon if I won't compete with you over experience. The issue is WP:SYN, which is one part of a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I think it would be helpful if people discussed this issue, as it is currently a significant problem with the article. Mackan79 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiiiight. The issue is, this has been repeatedly addressed and dismissed. I do not believe you have consensus. But feel free to continue. I do not find it particularly compelling.--Filll (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'all mean the film isn't about ID? Reliable source for that? .. dave souza, talk 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the film is about ID, or at least focuses on it primarily. However, this article is about the film, just as Sicko is about that film and not about the health care industry. To include independent paragraphs and commentary in that article on the health care industry would be the same problem. This comes directly from WP:SYN: "...if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." People have been disregarding it here, but I think there is wide agreement for this across Wikipedia, and that this is why so many people are arriving to complain. If it would be settled, I think the article would be improved a great deal. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"if content relies on a source that is not about the film, then it shouldn't be here, end of story." WRONG! Per WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Shoemaker's_Holiday. Here's the relevant section from Wikipedia's official policy:

The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:

• Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
• Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

It is thus incorrect to characterize ID as pseudoscience in Wikipedia articles, and incorrect to apply policies that are based on such a characterization. We all know that ID has a following within the scientific community. It matters not whether that following is tiny or large, for the purpose of Wikipedia's definition of "pseudoscience." The fact that ID has a following in the scientific community means that means it is not pseudoscience. NCdave (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that is nonsense. ID is not an "alternative theoretical formulation", and it does not have "a following within the scientific community", nuch less "a substantial following". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The following for ID in the scientific community is vanishingly small. And mainly these people are producing complete nonsense and their claims are easily refuted as garbage. --Filll (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, assuming I were a new reader to this page, I wouldn't know who was telling the truth because none of you provide foundation for your claims. NCdave, is there evidence to show ID has a following in the scientific community? Filll and Stephan Shulz, do you have the vice versa? Personally I don't know either way, but it would be helpful if half the claims that were made on this talk page had some sort of foundational backing. The way it is, all I've seen are a lot of blatantly vague generalities. Raecoli (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Raecoli, you know, we had dozens of sources for that in this article. And guess what? People like yourself showed up, and complained bitterly that it makes the article ugly or whatever and declare that they have to "clean it up" and cut it down blah blah blah. And soon we have no sources. And then people come and say, well you have no sources and then spew more nonsense because they doubt everything that has no source (especially if they have some sort of ideological axe to grind).

You cannot have it both ways; you cannot demand sources and demand that the sources be removed at the same time. I have noted this several times here on this talk page. And I get VERY tired of driveby editors essentially destroying the article, then complaining that the article is a mess after they have destroyed it. I have rewritten it top to bottom twice; I have edited the article twice as much as anyone else. I am the one responsible for its high google ranking. And I do not feel like trying to clean it up again so you guys can ruin it again in a few hours. I will wait until things have died down and then maybe I will consider it. But frankly, this sort of complaint gets extremely annoying.--Filll (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I'm trying to get along here, but the way you keep making these comments makes me wonder how familiar you are with policies and guidelines such as WP:NOR, WP:CIV, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN. I think you may underestimate a. other editors and b. the extent of Wikipedia culture that has grown up over several years. You've clearly done a lot for this article and others, and are clearly trying to keep it in shape, but one can only go it alone for so long on a Wiki without listening to others, not all of whom are partisans or going to ruin the article. Mackan79 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Filll, you're way out of line. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's compare editing records, shall we GusChiggins21? And what pray tell am I out of line on? On insisting that we follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR by stating what is in our sources? Interesting...--Filll (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's compare penis size! Your misuse of NPOV to push an atheist POV doesn't mean youre right. NEUTRAL point of view, not MAJORITY point of view. Furthermore your premise for misusing NPOV, namely that the majority agrees with you, is totally off base. Almost no one who isn't a scientist or atheist supports the "NPOV" you're pushing. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a good source, and there's a few polls floating around - one's linked in the article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we define pseudoscience -- I have no problem calling ID pseudoscience or not science at all -- but the real issue is that this is an article about a film, not about ID. It can't possibly be meant that any time a film mentions something that is regarded as pseudoscience, Wikipedia steps in and informs the public as much. The point is that an article about ID itself, or some aspect of it, should always give appropriate weight to the predominant view. Applying this to a movie requires us to include criticism of the movie, including to the extent it criticizes any argument in the movie, but can't require or allow us to go beyond that without violating NOR. Mackan79 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that as appropriate when discussing a propoganda piece, where every review we have is mainly discussing the science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but then why are we relying on external sources? What this should mean is that we rely on those sources and report what they say. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

why are we relying on external sources? This is what Wikipedia does. It relies on external sources. What this should mean is that we rely on those sources and report what they say. And that is what we do. So?--Filll (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the vagueness, the question is why use sources not about the movie, when sources that discuss the movie fully cover the controversy. I admit this is more my defense of the NOR policy than anything else, which I provide so I won't look like the "synth police," and because I think it's a matter of article quality as much as it is policy. With respect, I think this also derives somewhat from science editors working on a movie article, which needs a different approach to make a good article. Mackan79 (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the premise of the film is about science. Try as you might, you can't really separate one from the other, can you now. Odd nature (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The requirement for defining pseudoscience for our purposes is set out in NPOV: Pseudoscience, and as for calling it pseudoscience in the article, we need a reliable source using that term. Of course we can just call it junk science thanks to Fox...... dave souza, talk 23:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And why is this even a point of discussion. The movie is about Intelligent design. Period. Case closed. The fat lady has already sung and is now drinking a beer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Until you demonstrate that you've read the WP:NPOV policy and understand [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight|the clause] that requires that articles should represent all significant published viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each and are not requried togive minority views as much or as detailed a description as majority views, there's little in your comment here for us to consider. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is arguing around and around the mulberry bush with the same issues over and over in slightly different guises. It is like a bad example of WP:BAIT. And tedious with all kinds of spurious accusations being bandied about of supposed violations of this or that. Really it is not nice to do that. And frankly, it is inadvisable to try to game the system. --Filll (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful in my view if either of you would address the issue of WP:NOR. As I've tried to explain, the problem with this view on WP:NPOV is that it forgets what this article is actually about. In terms of the system, my understanding is that WP:NOR is "non-negotiable," which means that at some point we need to figure out how to make this article comply with the policy, and in which case I believe we'll also have a better article and people will stop complaining. I imagine it looks like I'm baiting, because I'm trying to respond civilly about this issue even when people are throwing insults this way and that, but the problem is if we're all just throwing insults at each other, nothing gets done. My question in any case is how we can get the article in compliance with WP:NOR, and make a better article that also complies with WP:NPOV. If it keeps dragging out we can try again to seek outside input, but since it seems entirely clear to me that this will help and make a better article, I don't know why people don't just make a little effort to consider the problem that person after person keeps raising. Mackan79 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you have failed to quote the relevant section from Wikipedia's official policy. Here it is:

Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

ID is analogous to astrology, according to ID proponent Michael Behe in the Kitzmiller trial. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to get involved here but I must point out an error in Orangemarlin's comment. The film is not about ID, it's about incidents in which several scientists have been discriminated against for their belief in it. It is also about the alleged societal ills caused by evolution.Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the film is about the very thin premise of discrimination against ID among academia, it is about ID, it is about linking evolution with abortion and euthanasia and the Holocaust and Nazis and Communism and atheism, it is about free speech and so on. In fact, if the controversies continue, I suspect we are almost ready for a fork.--Filll (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow we'll get to see what exactly is in the film. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really hilarious the justifications that are being used for using this article as a soapbox. So, because scientists have some level of consensus about ID, that means we can rail against it in an article about a documentary? Even though we don't evaluate the content of other documentaries in their articles? And even though almost no one outside of scientists and atheists DOESN'T believe in a design theory? Grow some intellectual integrity, guys. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image?

I know this article is pretty long, but would the following image be useful under the "Promotion" heading: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmechtley/2393138401/sizes/l/? I linked the large size, but the original is still higher res. I just think it might add a little to the article. Thoughts? --Ali'i 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

License CC by SA, so that's ok. What does it portend? Does "rent-a-fence" refer to those chaps who sell on stolen goods? ... dave souza, talk 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking of a caption like, "A promotional poster for the film". I know, creative, eh? I just think this article is a little bare. You know, give it some flava. I'd say add the picture of Ben Stein from his article page, but it is slightly blurry. --Ali'i 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A word of caution. You know how sensitive these folks are about copyright, and if we use the photo as a picture of the poster then it becomes a derivative work, hence subject to their copyright. However it's ok if it's a picture of a fence which incidentally has the poster on it. Perhaps a caption about security arrangements? .. dave souza, talk 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we simply add the jpg image that expelled has available on its website. It's not replaceable, so we could you that as reasoning to use it. Saksjn (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given how dangerous and litigious these people are, I would strongly advise against using any image associated with them whatsoever.--Filll (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Filll on this, if a free image of Stien is available then us that but nothing thats not Free. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ted Haggard

Ted Haggard is introducing Ben Stein in the preview clip ? confused Apelike (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

When? Where?--Filll (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

noticed him in the preview - introducing Ben Stein during a lecture Apelike (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Some sections need re-writes...

Ok, the "Promotion of..." section is like a cut and paste of the Itellegent Design article. The section, and other sections within the page, should discuss the documentary and the sections mentioned, NOT a seperate topic. For instance, the "Promotion of..." section should be discussing that the movie promotes Intellegent design, not what scientists or whatnot believe in relation to the topic of discussion, that belongs on the article about Intellegent design. Think of it this way: talk about the movie and it's impact/controversy/acclaim or whatever, not the subject itself. This is not the article on Intellegent Design, but it sure does read like it. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have to admit it is a bit hard to follow and a bit incoherent, and basically does not make any sense. I beg to differ with your gratuitous claims in this instance. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks IronCrow, you should know Filll's view isn't universally held, and actually we're discussing this above under the "soapbox" heading. Your comments would be welcome, though I think we're pretty much aware of the issues. Mackan79 (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy which governs content is WP:NPOV. It requires articles to cover all notable and verifiable viewpoints fairly and proportionately. The scientific community's response to ID is relevant, notable and verifiable. And since ID is a minority viewpoint, the "undue weight" clause is particularly relevant to this article: It states "article(s) should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." This article is about a film that makes specific claims about science and the scientific community while promoting a notion, ID, held a very, very small minority in that community. As you can read, the above policy requires that the view of the scientific community be covered, and in the proportion to which it is held. Which means that this article is actually giving the ID more coverage than they warrant... FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FM, the problem is you're ignoring WP:NOR and specifically WP:SYN. Per that policy, this article compares views about the film. It shouldn't compare views about topics discussed in the film, other than to the extent these comprise views about the film. Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FM's right that the majority expert views have to be properly represented, and propertly sourced explanatory material about these views is appropriate. Trying to divorce the film from its use, content and context fails ridiculously. More reliable source material is now available, and such references should be added. .. dave souza, talk 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If we follow WP:NOR, our article will be exactly as divorced and ridiculous as the reliable sources that discuss the movie -- which is of course as you've said, not bad at all. What I'm disagreeing with is the attempt to go well beyond this. Again, I think this would be of very clear benefit the article, if people would be a little more open to outside advice. Mackan79 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I am afraid that comment belies a lack of appreciation for what Wikipedia is and how it operates. If things are in reliable sources, we can and should put them in the article, as long as they satisfy NPOV. And by far the overwhelming mainstream view is that this article is awful. In many ways. And that it is an attempt to press intelligent design, even less thinly disguised than normal as creationism. Our sources state that. So we do. To do OTHER than that is OR.--Filll (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the other half, Filll, which says, "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." You have the two words there, "directly," and "subject." The reason we have this is exactly so someone won't decide, for instance, that the movie is about persecution, and then add a paragraph about that taken from sources having nothing to do with the movie. Without WP:SYN, there's extremely little limit on what we could decide to write.

Anyway, the issue here is writing a good article. I started by saying we should focus more on reviews of the movie. If this went up for good article review or something similar, I'm sure we'd hear the same thing. People weren't interested, so I pointed out the relevant policy. As long as people are aware that this is an issue, I'm hoping they'll be a little more open to specific suggestions about how to improve this without harming (and I think actually improving) NPOV. Mackan79 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. For starters, the NCSE resource provides detailed reviews and background on various aspects. .. dave souza, talk 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Filmmakers now in trouble for unauthorized use of John Lennon song.

[33]--Filll (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. Stein must be delighted at the free publicity – I doubt if even he dreamed that the film would be featured in the Wall Street Journal on the eve of release, and a google for "expelled" has news in 4th place, featuring that article. .. dave souza, talk 07:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Though come to think of it, applying the Schrödinger Occam® suggests it might have been deliberate! Baldrick would have been proud. .. dave souza, talk 10:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last comment because it was nothing but soap-boxing. Saksjn (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears the producers believe they have some sort of legal justification to use John Lennon's song without the owner's approval. This could get interesting. 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talk • contribs)

In the Wall Street Journal article they claim fair use since they only use 25 seconds. They've apparently not gotten permission to use music from The Killers. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the controversies continue

If the controversies around this film continue, as I expect them to, we might have to fork off a piece. For example, if these lawsuits amount to much, particularly if things happen with Yoko Ono, then we need a fork. Comment?--Filll (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a safe assumption the controversies will not cease anytime soon. And I think there are several sections that could stand on their own. The Florida legislature promotion comes to mind. It's significant in size, they have made similar appeals to legislators in other states (Missouri come to mind). It's pretty obvious this is in line with the teach the controversy scheme to get ID in the classrooms. You could also literally do an entire article just on the drama concerning PZ Myers and Dawkins. Stein and company seem to have a pathological obsession with both. Angry Christian (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The film is apparently associated with the legislation in Florida, in Louisiana, in Missouri and Texas. I suspect we are going to need a fork or two for controversies.--Filll (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a relevant quote from a review:

At an April 15 press conference for bloggers held at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., the movie's producers said that they plan to use the movie as part of a campaign to roll out legislation in states—so-called "freedom bills"—that would forbid anyone from "punishing" teachers and professors who question "Darwinism." Walt Ruloff noted that the science standards of about 26 states are currently in play and that Florida was likely to pass such a "freedom bill."

From [34]--Filll (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

typo

typo in the section "Claims that acceptance of evolution leads to Nazism", second sentence, first word 91.11.64.75 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...Fixed it. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Length and POV

Much of the controversy should be resolvable by cutting the article down to about 1/4 of its current length. Because the article spends so much time analyzing/describing/supporting/dissecting the claims in the film, it makes managing the POV nearly impossible. I propose the article should follow an outline similar to this: (1) Describe the production/background of the film, as is common practice for other articles; (2) describe why the film was made (according to its producers, and Mr. Stein); (3) dryly and objectively set forth the major claims made in the film; (4) include some sort of "controversy" section, and briefly describe the major criticisms of the film's claims and production. I imagine this could be done in seven paragraphs. The rest of this is entirely unnecessary and gives people a lot of ammo to say the whole thing is POV. A shortened version would also make this much more encyclopedic. Judicata (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to describe an art movie. You seem to have missed the whole point of this controversial film. .. dave souza, talk 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dave, perhaps you should consider the point of an encyclopedia. I had no clue what the movie was about before coming to the Wikipedia page (I didn't even know it billed itself as a documentary). Because a quick scan of Google didn't provide any apparently neutral reviews (i.e. "this is what the film is about, and this is what people are criticizing it for") I came to Wikipedia. I had to dig through a bunch of back-and-forth to find this. I understand that people have a reflexive reaction when they feel a film either (1) expresses and idea that they feel has been neglected, or (2) strongly criticizes a strongly-held belief. An encyclopedic article, however, should only "care" (allow me to personify) about the point of the movie to the extent that is required to make an enyclopedic record of it and its notable criticisms. Here, we have some strong arguments made in the movie, and some strong notable critcisms. Those should be quickly described and referenced. The article can then reference the articles about evolution, creationism, intelligent design, or articles about criticisms of those topics (if those articles exist). And if I "missed the point" of the film, perhaps it is because this article doesn't set it out in a sufficiently clear and succinct manner. Judicata (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is "encyclopedic" is for us to give verifable factual information ie this "Documentary" Lies from start to finish, it lies about Nazi doctrine being connected to Darwen, its producers lied to make it, lied durring the marketing and stole copyrighted material from Harvard and Yoko Ono to lie about Evolution. Now naturally with a "documentary" with so many factual errors, outright lies and blatent religously motivated hate speach it take a while to show what Notable and Reliable Sources say. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. That's original research, and a circular argument. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Untrue" No read the article.

"That's original research" No its all sourced.

"and a circular argument" Please enlighten me. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Judicata, perhaps you might want to acquaint yourself with the intelligent design movement and assorted campaigns by the Discovery Institute. This is not just a film. It is a beachhead in an effort to change legislation and educational systems and eventually the culture (up to even possibly installing a theocracy) in the United States.--Filll (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that Judicata, what you are advocating is in direct contravention of the principles of Wikipedia like WP:NPOV. You might be happier at a wiki that does not have NPOV like Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To your first point: actually, this is a film. Are you suggesting we should cut and paste the entire intelligent design article into this page? Because the film and movement are so related, there should clearly be a reference and link to it in the article, but movements/organizations have pages of their own. To your second point - please elaborate on your assertion that my change would be POV. I'm advocating making this article about "Expelled" about a film. You are advocating making the article about an entire movement (even when those pages already exist). We can discuss our positions on evolution/science/creationism or whatever elsewhere - but, you have grossly mischaracterized my own beliefs, which I have not disclosed here or anywhere else. Judicata (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No I am not advocating that and you might want to review the policies of Wikipedia and my comments accordingly. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you're advocating. Your edits betray your intent to use this article as a soapbox. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? I am advocating that we stick with things like WP:CON and WP:NPOV. Is that a problem?--Filll (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please stop dismissing new editors with this type of political commentary. Judicata's comments have been expressed by a number of editors and a steady stream of readers; they should discuss improvements to the article, not go elsewhere. Mackan79 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it is a "new" editor? Judicata, like many previous "new" editors, repeats the same arguments using the same wording as those before him over and over and over. "New" editors who magically know all the acronyms and procedures of Wikipedia pop up, repeat the identical arguments using identical wording. Interesting, isn't it?--Filll (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is not political commentary. I take severe umbrage at that characterization. I am advocating that we actually follow the principles of Wikipedia. Do you have a problem with that?--Filll (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about editors on this page; however, the relevant guideline for this is WP:AGF, and it's certainly not a reason for telling someone to go to conservapedia. At least to me it's not surprising that people keep raising the same issue either, as it's a very clear problem with the article. If you inserted an independent paragraph about the health care industry into Sicko, you'd have the same stream of editors. I would be surprised if new editors don't continue arriving until we make some real effort to improve this. Mackan79 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the only relevant guideline here is not WP:AGF. We have some others that are important as wel, such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and so on. Perhaps you have heard of them? And where did I not WP:AGF? And for those who are unable or unwilling to abide by WP policies like WP:NPOV, Conservapedia or Wikinfo or any one of hundreds of other wikis are suitable environments. And many have left Wikipedia and gone to these other wikis and become very productive and successful there. Is that a problem?--Filll (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That was in response to your comment that we don't know who is a new user. That's what I said requires AGF, and shouldn't lead to a suggestion that someone leave for a partisan site. Mackan79 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. And I give GF to those who deserve it. I will assume someone is an inexperienced user if they behave as such, and be less certain otherwise. Do you believe there is a policy against that? Please provide a link to a policy page asserting that. I would be most interested to read that. And all sites are partisan; of course Wikipedia is partisan itself because it has WP:NPOV. And you believe there is something wrong with suggesting that someone who is unable or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policies might be more happy and productive at a sight which is partisan in a different way?--Filll (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing NPOV, so quit making your dishonest straw man argument; this is yet another incidence of your intellectual dishonesty. If I were in charge, I'd have your removed from wikipedia for a pattern of disruptive, untruthful comments about other editors that are designed to obfuscate the underlying issues, and allow you to push a POV shared by less then 10% of the population. NPOV does not, and has not ever stated that you may use the majority of the article space to evaluate the content of a film in an exclusively negative fashion. Your whole argument is in shambles. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"allow you to push a POV shared by less then 10% of the population" What position is that?

"evaluate the content of a film in an exclusively negative fashion." WP:NPOV <--- Read this! We use Notable and reliable sources to make up this encyclopedia. That means when Notable Scientific sources rip the lies of this film apart, piece by piece, we do the same. ID is at best Anti-science, and this is an encyclopedia not a bible study group so the words of scientists call infinitely more weight here than a religously motivated "think tank". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, you have violated WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA with your charges of intellectual dishonesty and other assorted slurs here. I am afraid you are quite confused about what WP:NPOV means. But thanks for your input.--Filll (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata we are are not dealing with the Whole ID movement just the lies put forward by this film, which just so happen to be the stantard lies used by DI et al about Evolution and ID, so there is a lot of cross-over. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gang I'd like to offer a few observations. The film promotes ID as a legitimate scientific, it also promotes ID is a legitimate subject for public science class, and Darwin lead to Hitler, and it portrays several IDists as victims of "Big Science" and claims the science community, educational systems are out to victimize IDists, and they also engage in efforts to change oublic policy - Ben is on recoerd saying he wants to see a change in public policy. So this is not some moview review, we're an encyclopedia and should cover all of these claims. So ID is a central theme that needs to be discussed as are all the other issues. As far as I can tell we're doing that. Angry Christian (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian and Hypnosadist - please understand that I never advocated removing the criticisms of this film. They are notable and documented, and should certainly be included (please refer to my proposed rough outline). But the article should be about the film only. It seems that you both have strong beliefs regarding this film and want to expose lies and other false claims. Because these beliefs are widespread and documented, they should certainly be included in the article. But both of you openly advocate altering the focus of the article away from the film itself. The title of this article is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It only follows that it should be an article about the film. I understand your belief that the film perpetuates lies and misinformation, etc., and I am not disagreeing with you. These views can be summarized in a fair and encyclopedic way without making this article a platform for one view or the other. Judicata (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's always good to find ways to make article more manageable, on-topic, and accessible to readers who are new to the subject. Judicata does have a point about the article being rather unwieldy for readers who are simply wondering what this film's deal is. That doesn't always mean that the article needs to be shorter, it might just benefit from reorganization and more summaries near the top (for visitors who don't want to read to the end, but still want the whole story in brief). This article dives right in to the ID controversy, without much preamble about what's in the movie and why this movie itself is controversial. At the same time, keep in mind that this is a non-fiction documentary. More to the point, it's a documentary with a clear bias, and it makes assertions and accusations that are notably controversial. As such, Dave souza is correct in saying that this article shouldn't be held to the standards of an "art movie" article. This documentary asserts itself to be non-fiction, so its claims can be laid out, clear factual errors can be noted (with sources), and significant viewpoints can be included. And we mustn't forget that the controversy is a major cause of this movie's notability. -Eisnel (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eisnel, your points are well-taken. My whole proposition is about summarizing the article to simplify it, make it more accessible, and mitigate POV arguments. I agree that, because the film has a clear bias (and I doubt many people disagree with this point), it should certainly be noted. I think pointing out factual errors as such would border on original research. But this is easily remedied by noting that reputable/notable sources have pointed out factual errors. The article already does this (at least as far as I could tell) so this doesn't seem to be at issue. I think you and I disagree only on the depth of treatment of the controversial statements and ideas (and their criticisms). I believe they should be treated briefly, clearly, and succinctly. If they merit deeper analysis, perhaps they should have their own page (as others, I believe, have suggested), in addition to being summarized in the main article. That being said, I think your suggestion of a better preamble/summary before jumping right in to the controversy would greatly improve the article as it stands. Judicata (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Above when I said "mitigate POV arguments" I meant that it would prevent people from arguing that the article is POV. When I re-read my statement I realized that I wasn't clear. Judicata (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we seem to differ on the extent to which the controversy should be covered. I think the article is too quick to jump into the detailed background story of the ID controversy. I think it should first give a summary of the movie's plot and allegations, as well as a summary of the substantial criticisms of those allegations. In other words: I think that any summary should include a summary of the controversy. With that said, I'm not sure how best it should be organized. I just think that any Wikipedia article should allow those with a short attention span to get the gist of the article's information, and then that can be followed with details for those who want the long read. -Eisnel (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata, you said "But both of you openly advocate altering the focus of the article away from the film itself." if you look at my history of edits to this article I think you'll find you're mistaken. Angry Christian (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata, you appear to be badly confused. I might also note for those who think a new reader will have trouble understanding what the film is about with such a long article is that there is a WP:LEAD. And as stated here in another section, we are probably headed for a WP:FORK.--Filll (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position a little. Just look at the article and ask "Does this read like an exposé?" From what I've read, it seems that this film has inaccuracies, to say the least. The major/notable inaccuracies/criticisms should be succinctly and clearly summarized to the extent other sources can be cited (again, the article already seems to avoid original research just fine). Since my comments are still on the page, for the record, I don't know why I have to repeat, ad infinitum, that I do not advocate removing the criticisms of the film. To do so would be counter to Wikipedia policy. I am advocating summarizing it, as to not make this article a point-by-point deconstruction of the film. That is not what encyclopedias are for. You can easily say something like "The film suggests that, Professor (or Professors) X, were terminated for their view on intelligent design. But others have suggested that there were other, legitimate, reasons for her termination. For example, Professor Foo from Univ. of Bar, has stated that 9 of the 12 professors were cut that year due to funding, and it had nothing to do with..." [I'm just making the facts up here to give you the idea, although the professors may not be the best example]. My point is that something that currently occupies several subsections can be summarized in 5 sentences or less, and have some footnotes. This gets the notable information out there without making the whole article read like a critical analysis. (By "critical analysis" I don't mean it in the lay "negative" sense, but in the "judgment" or literary sense - see dictionary.com). Critical analyses have their place. A Wikipedia article is not one of them. Judicata (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata, you have spoken in general terms and suggested we effectively removed 3/4 of the article. It's not surprising that those ideas have not been received well. Could you provide some examples of what/how you suggest we modify the article. Take a piece and rewrite it here for us to see? I think that approach will at least get the subject rolling and less accusations back and forth. You probably have some good specific suggestions but it's difficult to see that when you're speaking in such general terms. Make sense? We all agree the article is long, show us how/where you could shorten it without removing important content. Angry Christian (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Of course I didn't want to make such extensive edits outright, without discussing them here first. I should have time later to work on a section and post it here. I also appreciate that people have worked hard on this article, and would feel slighted having sections reduced. My suggestions, I believe, would result in paragraphs being reduced to sentences, rather than being cut out entirely, which I guess may help a little. Unfortunately, that is the nature of writing -- especially collaborative writing. Judicata (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what either of you, Eisnel, or others think of the version of the first section I proposed at the bottom of the section here. This isn't how I would write it myself, but I think it is an improvement, by stating the view of those in the movie first, quickly covering some background of what ID is, and then providing some information on Kitzmiller. Potentially by shortening, this would also allow a little more about the film's content. Of course things will change when the film comes out, but a basic structure may help. I placed this in the article here. Mackan79 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judatica, I am afraid you have not absorbed much here I am afraid. I said and I will repeat, that we will probably WP:FORK this article. That will take care of the length. So do not keep whining about the length. It will be taken care of, ok? Also, this is not a regular encyclopedia. It is not a neutral encyclopedia, whatever that is. It is not unbiased, whatever that is. It is not nonpartisan. It is WP:NPOV. Learn that and you will not have such problems here.--Filll (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, almost the entirety of the article is currently about claims made in the film, or about reviews of the film (it's the reviews section that is getting long, but all of those are directly about the film). I don't see how the article could be significantly cut without removing relevant material. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, Let's keep this civil. I won't insult your intelligence, if you refrain from insulting mine (more specifically, my capacity for "absorption."). Read the first sentence of WP:NPOV. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I'm the first to admit that it is impossible to completely eliminate bias. That is just the nature of culture, language, background, and humanity. But, as suggested by the policy, we strive to avoid bias as much as possible. In other words, to the extent there can be a neutral encyclopedia, this is one. Please substantiate your assertion that my suggested revision would insert a POV. If you feel I've been too ambiguous or unclear, feel free to wait for my sample edit (pursuant to Angry Christian's request), and analyze my position then. Judicata (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So Judicata will accuse me of violating WP:CIVIL for observing that someone who repeats the same argument and statements over and over and over and over and over and over and over and displays lots of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by using the word "absorption"? That is close to WP:GAME and abuse of CIVIL, and is itself a sanctionable offense. Please do take care or suffer the consequences. It does appear to me that you do not know what WP:NPOV is, or the purposes and foundational principles of WP are, for whatever reason. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, your tone sounds to me quite unusual; I wonder if we should consider the possibility of a miscommunication. As far as I can see Judicata's comments have been more than reasonable. AC below seems to agree. I don't think there's a need for confrontation here. Mackan79 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of violating any policies. I'm not familiar enough with WP:CIVIL to determine that one way or the other. I was, however, implying you sounded a bit abraisive in your prior comment (and I note that this aggression on your part is apparently escalating). I think you need to read my comments and yours again very carefully. But, by all means, if you think that I am violating any policies, I encourage you to report it. Also, you have neglected, once again, to back up your assertions. Namely, if you feel that I misunderstand NPOV policy, I invite you to point out exactly where I have expressed that misunderstanding. Judicata (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If Judicata is recommending that sections be reworded in order to tighten them up, without changing their content, then I don't see anything wrong with that. This article might be too verbose in many places. In fact, Judicata, if you see a section that could benefit from being condensed, without having its substance altered, then you can probably be bold and tighten it up without consent from other editors. If somebody thinks that such an edit removes valuable info, they can revert and ask that it be discussed. I think there has been a miscommunication here, probably resulting from the original suggestion that the article be 1/4 of the size, which was likely an exaggeration. -Eisnel (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly why I asked Judicata to show us some specific examples. The fact neither you nor I can figure out a way to do it does not mean no one else can. Angry Christian (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I've rearranged things in the first couple sections for coherency. I solemnly swear that nothing has been deleted except one quote that, with the rearrangement, pretty much duplicated the content of the prose that came before it. A few things were moved out of references and into the text, and one quote was copied from a later section for neutrality reasons. [It's the one about academic backbiting - we should probably replace it with another in the "People presented in the film" section, but the description was really POV without it for balance.] Obviously, there's been some moving between the two sections. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure: I found a much, much better source for Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Claims_that_intelligent_design_advocates_are_persecuted and have replaced some less-coherent material there with a quote from the New Scientist review. You may want to replace some of the references that got removed in this diff as secondary sources, but I think you'll agree that the New Scientist quote gets much more quickly and directly to the heart of the matter, and avoids the appearance of Synth and the over-quoting of the expelled blog. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You've lost some significant points from the first section, it was due to be reviewed and updated and there are new reviews to be considered and incorporated so this can form a new basis for development . .. dave souza, talk 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved several points to the second section - for instance, the first paragraph of the second section as it now stands is largely taken from the first section. Though some trivial points might then have gotten removed in the rewrites to add the New Scientist review. In any case, incoherency is not our friend, so there's no point leaving in dangling thoughts, then expanding them in situ, leaving even more incoherent paragraphs.

I don't think this edit is a good one. It is not needed in the lede. Please consider moving the statement to a more appropriate place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning, since there have been disputes about it, that it's considered a propoganda piece as well as a documentary. I agree it doesn't need to be there, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree it does not belong in the lead. Angry Christian (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am moving that sentence here and when/if someone finds a better home for it feel free to copy it there but it does not belong in the lead.

described as "pure propoganda" by one review,

Angry Christian (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it largely ended up there as I couldn't find a better place for it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

satirical

The lead states the film is a controversial satirical documentary. "Satirical" is the term given in the Expelled press release and it's the ONLY place I have ever seen it described like that. I am not suggesting we not use the term but I do think we should use quotes around the term to make it obvious Wiki is not describing it that way but the producers are. Again, NO ONE on planet earth is calling it "satirical" but the press release so I think we should be cautious about adopting the view that is promoted via the press release. Quotes to me will accomplish that. Anyone have an opinion on it? Angry Christian (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just throwing quotes around it seem a bit like scare quotes... but here are a couple of other instances I just found: [35], [36]. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the word "satirical", and didn't understand how it applied to this movie. Is this a satire? From what I've heard, the movie states its assertions directly. I think perhaps the preview with Stein in a classroom could be considered satire, but is the whole movie like that? -Eisnel (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know why they filmmakers want to call it a satire. But they do. So...--Filll (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "satire" in our article comes from the official press release. Yeah I know it makes no sense, that's why I brought it here. We're inadvertantly misleading the readers (IMO) but using that term without qualifying it somehow. I would not have a problem not using the term satirical at all. Angry Christian (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

remove it from the lead sentance and perhaps include a broader discussion elsewhere in the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I just removed it and I have no idea where it should go or if it even belongs. I'll let others decide that. Frankly it's obviously not a comedy so I'm not sure what the producers are up to. Angry Christian (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe how biased this page is!

Just a few examples of the overkill:

"The film ignores the many scientists who are religious and do not bring God in as part of their theories as testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God, so scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable, regardless of the religious views of the scientists."

"Stein tries to dismiss the outcome of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial"

"Stein presses the message of evolution being responsible without acknowledging more direct causes such as the economic ruin of Germany after the World War I and the racism and anti-semitism dating back over seven centuries before Charles Darwin, particularly Martin Luther's book On the Jews and Their Lies."

"The Expelled roadshow portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination and the Discovery Institute campaign asserts that his intelligent design writings should not have been considered in the review, a view that was contradicted by Gonzalez himself, when he listed The Privileged Planet as part of his tenure review file."

"Paul Zachary Myers is an Associate Professor of biology at University of Minnesota, Morris,[55] and the author of the science blog Pharyngula. In the film he is portrayed as a member of "Big Science"."

And every single statement the article details that the movie has made is refuted by a quote from another source (resulting in the aforementioned enormous reference list). The article thoroughly goes through scientist by scientist to discredit the claims the film made about them and is incredibly attentive to detailing the controversies that have surrounded it.

Frankly, to say that this amount of discussion for a film that hasn't even been released points to a serious problem. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, explaining things like the film's main premise, interesting events surrounding it, and its reception. Debunking each film's assertions point by point is acceptable on basically any other website, but is not useful here. As a person who came to Wikipedia to just see what the movie was about, I was completely overwhelmed by the amount of information that is presented and the level of bias that would never be admissible in any other informational medium! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.163.12 (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This article is long for a movie yet to come out. I would like to point out some problems. The movie is a documentary accusing mainstream scientists. Therefore mainstream scientists are very bias in their opinion. Relying on reviews from them to describe it is not good. reviews should be sources for opinions about the movie. this is not about ID versus Evolution, this is a movie about it. Most of the sources are either Pro-Evolutionist. The descriptions of the view points of the author by these people is suspect, as they tend to interpret them with mean different things. really one option is just to delete most this stuff till the movie comes out. Rds865 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)