This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Regarding the phrase that there is no controversy within the scientific community, reliance should be on scientific papers showing that there is no heated discussion or debate on some aspects of evolution. If there is, then sweeping statements such as "none" cannot be used. Citations from non scientific papers are irrelevant as one media organisation could say there is controversy and another media organisation could say there is no controversy depending on their bias.
https://www.nature.com/articles/514161aTheeFactChecker (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of controversies within the scientific community.
You don't get a way with using sweeping statements in any other piece of academic research like this one, and nor should you expect to find it on Wikipedia. TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Polls are not an indication of controversy. ID is about biology, and most scientists are not biologists but mostly clueless biological laypeople. Their opinions have no bearing on the status of ID in biology.
Even the opinions of biologists have no bearing on it: science is about results of research. Science explicitly uses methods that try to minimize the influence of scientists' opinions, e.g. double blinding. In science, opinions are just disturbing factors.
That's what I'm trying to do, painfully try and remove bias. Why is it so hard? And no, I don't get my scientific education from the Discovery Institute. I get it from scientific papers in which when I remove the evolution it still makes perfect scientific sense. Absolutely not necessary. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote Can you please get your basic science education somewhere else? I meant: I do not want to have to explain the basics to you all the time. That is not what this page is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hob, you don't need to talk down to me. You only argue by calling names or belittling people. You don't argue with facts or references.I knew what you meant by Disco Chute, but it was entertaining getting you to spell it out. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my fault you do not understand how science works and how Wikipedia works.
Since you have nothing to contribute to article improvement, can you please do your pseudoscience proselytizing (and trolling: asking questions you already know the answer to) somewhere else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has all been about improving the page. I'm not proselytizing. Simply removing bias and replacing it by fact. Simple. Anything you disagree with is "bullshit to you". You've provided no references. I've provided reliable sources which show the majority of scientists refute intelligent design which is fact. Science works by adhering to the scientific method. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which show the majority of scientists refute intelligent design No, they do not. Very few scientists are even concerned with ID. Most do not care; they are concerned with serious matters instead. But it does not matter how many scientists "refute" it. It does not even matter how many reject it. (For some reason, you seem to write "refute" when you mean "reject".) Science does not work by counting heads, and that is one reason why your claims are irrelevant for the article. Can we stop this now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, as I said before, the Nature article does not even mention the DI, therefore it cannot be used for this article. It also does not show that the majority of scientists refute intelligent design; it does not even mention majorities or refutations, and, although it does mention ID shortly, it does that only in the speculative half-sentence Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, as an aside that has very little to do with its subject, current developments of evolutionary theory. For what you are trying to use it for, that source is really shitty. People have been telling you again and again. But you will continue to not get it. You are not even trying to understand what people tell you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So wow! No scientific papers allowed as sources Musy be media organizations that mention the Discovery Institute or Disco Tute as you call it.. Scientific papers are shitty. I get it. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific papers are shitty. I get it.
That's not what Hob said, and you don't get it. Trying to shoehorn that Nature article into this discussion as attempted support for a claimed "controversy" among bona fide scientists is a shitty choice of sourcing. The article is fine. Trying to pretend it is relevant here is a forlorn hope. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be largely repeating material that is on other pages. Wedge Strategy, Teach the Controversy and the Center for Science and Culture have their own pages: why do they need half a dozen paragraphs on this one as well?
Proposed summary sentence replacing the existing second sentence of the article and the sections on Teach the Controversy, the Wedge Strategy, and the Center for Science and Culture:
"The Center for ... (link), part of the Discovery Institute, is a hub of the Intelligent Design/creationism movement, connected to most significant figures of the movement and was behind the Wedge strategy (link) and "Teach the Controversy" (link) campaign, as well as the Santorum Amendment (link?). Future Contributor (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are independent from each other. This one explains what the DI does. Another one explains what the Wedge Strategy is. Of course they will overlap. If we delete stuff from this article because it is in another article, we essentially force the readers to read every article connected with this one to get the whole picture. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The links are for those who want to find out more about those related subjects, not anything at all about those related subjects. Maybe you should gather a bit more experience about Wikipedia editing before declaring how it works? --Hob Gadling (talk)
For the last few years there have been relatively large amounts of edit wars, with both pro science (2a00:1f:ec81:6101:2121:b99f:60f7:56dd) and pro DI (billb4420) people making obviously biased edits, either to remove refferences to their claims being pseudoscientific, or to label their tactics as propaganda
While i fully agree its propaganda i feel like an edit protection should be added to avoid further edit warring extended by IP users. Mormissen (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
