Talk:Darwin's Black Box

Ridiculous

This is quite possibly the worst encyclopedia article I've ever read. Can we say "bias"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.245.154 (talk • contribs) 23:12, May 21, 2007

This article is yet another proof of how Wikipedia is not even comparable to a dollar-store encyclopedia. I'm no creationist or intelligent design-ist, and I am not a proponent of getting rid of teaching evolutionary theory in schools or any of that. I read this man's book out of a curiosity of what he had to say about evolution on a molecular level. In the very first chapter Behe states, "Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism ... Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it ... I think evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world." Behe guy was not out to start a creationism movement or to make Americans dumber, and yet this page treats him as the most disreputable quack of all history. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.171.93 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Eek, no hint of the fact that it is utter nonsense? I'll try to sort it out later... Dunc|☺ 17:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Controversial

Thanks for the callous revert without a word of explanation Duncharris. I explained why I changed the "controversial" in the opening. It is a well established way for people to delegitimize a work to label it as "controversial". I think we should concentrate on providing the information about the controversy without going out our way to slamthe label into readers' faces right away. We should show, rather than tell in this case. Also I think its fair to provide a neutral opening. Peregrine981 02:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. You have so far managed to try to POV whitewash Darwin's Black Box [1] [2], Michael Behe [3], and probably as 67.107.187.11 (talk · contribs) William A. Dembski [4], Michael Behe (again) and Center for Science and Culture [5]. Both FeloniousMonk and I have reverted you, so it isn't unilateral action by me. Is the book not controversial? We had a CFD on category:Controversial books a little while ago, it was kept. You are of course welcome to RFC if you like. Dunc|☺ 09:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Darwin's Black Box is highly controversial, but so are a large proportion of the authors and books listed on Wikipedia. I don't think that labelling the book "controversial" is the best way to open this article. Let me say explicitely, so there is no confusion, I am not opposed to the article saying he is controversial, and having a lengthy discussion of the controversy, but further on in the article.

In the introduction to Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Charles Darwin, George W. Bush, etc... it doesn't mention their controversy despite the fact that these figures are all hugely controversial. So, if we label this book controversial right off the bat, we should go through all of those articles and insert this little adjective there too. Otherwise it is certainly a violation of NPOV, since the standards applied here are quite different from those applied elsewhere in the same project, which gives the impression that this book is somehow especially controversial.

On a related note I have only made this edit on Michael Behe and here. I have no connection to 67.107.187.11 (talk · contribs). Peregrine981 11:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

That is an argument from weak analogy [6] (coincidentally a favourite one of Behe's chums). Bush, Hitler and Stalin are world leaders and thus almost by definition controversial - it is therefore not a notable fact that they are controversial. Darwin is only controversial because it contradicts the religious prejudices of Behe's antecedents, and the social effect of evolutionary theory is mentioned in an appropriate place in the lead, i.e. after describing what history has established his contribution to science. Try a stronger analogy - The Selfish Gene is somewhat controversial and is mentioned as such - randomly pick a few others from Category:Controversial books. Dunc|☺ 15:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (I accept in good faith your word that you are not 67.107.187.11 (talk · contribs))

Like all ID authors and Wedge cadre, this book and its author are both highly controversial. Their controversial nature is central to understanding either, and hence necessary to the article. Both stand at the center of what is termed by both sides as being "culture wars". Leading ID proponents, of which Behe is one, operating through the Discovery Institute, where Behe is a senior fellow, are conducting a simultaneous campaign on state boards of education, state and federal legislatures and on the print and broadcast media portraying (against all possible evidence) evolution as a "theory in crisis" and ID as a valid, viable alternative (same parenthetical clause applies). Their explicitly-stated goals are altering how science is done to allow for creationism to be taught as science, a necessary adjunct to their specific religious social and political vision and agenda. Instead of producing actual scientific data to support ID’s claims, the Discovery Institute has promoted ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers. The core of this manufactured controversy is really about power - who controls education and thus the minds of children, and who controls the policy that shapes American culture and public life. ID proponents share their religiously conservative constituency's dislike of secular education. They also share its theocratic vision for our country. Their most vocal supporters include powerful Religious Right leaders: James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye and D. James Kennedy. All of this adds up to one thing: controversy. A complete and factual article demands it be not merely mentioned, but featured. FeloniousMonk 16:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have browsed through a number of the titles in the controversial books category, and I find that only a minority define the book primarily by its status as controversial. For example, Stupid White Men, Guns, Germs, and Steel, The Feminine Mystique, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa do not. The The Satanic Verses (novel) does a better job in my opinion. It provides some rationale behind the controversial label and mentions exactly who is opposed to the book at the same time the label is applied. If you feel it is absolutely necessary to mention the controversy right away, it should be done similarly to the Satanic Verses. Also, it seems that if we do so, we should apply the same standard to all books in the controversial books category. We may view the controversy as being central to the character of this book, but so might many others regarding other books which have not been labelled as such. Peregrine981 02:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the opening. Please don't simply revert them. Alter them to address all of our conerns. It might be a good idea for somebody more familiar with this to attach some names to the criticisms, as examples of exactly who is making these criticisms. Peregrine981 03:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming here from the RfC page. IMHO the article is well-written (though it could be expanded with a mention of the Wedge strategy, since it has been publicly acknowledged) and it's a pity that one word causes so much trouble. Myself, I would remove "controversial" from the intro paragraph. The word should be used later in some form, since Behe is not proposing a theory, but arguing against one, i. e. calling for a controversy. If this is made clear enough (as it is already, mostly), then there's no need to get into an argument over the word. We had a problem somewhat like that in Elfen Lied recently, and I recommended the same: it's unnecessary to mention that an anime series "can be unpleasant to watch" if you mention the fact that it shows extreme violence, blood and gore, child abuse and torture. The description of those things makes it clear, and a proper description of the controversy will make it clear that DBB is controversial. --Pablo D. Flores 15:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It is clear that I am not completely isolated in my opinion here, and I would like to see some compromise from the other side. What will make you happy while respecting the opposing opinion here? Peregrine981 12:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

A Reducibly Complex Mousetrap?!!!

In the fourth paragraph, in the "Overview" section, the following is said: "John McDonald, in response to this example, demonstrated "A reducibly complex mousetrap". The sentence then has a reference to http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html.

McDonald's site does not prove at all that the mousetrap Behe refers to in his book is "reducibly complex". Let's examine what Darwin himself said: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Notice the word modifications. Not additions - modifications. McDonald just takes a simple piece of metal, and then adds cheese, wood, staples, etc., etc., etc. Even Behe himself said The trap described ... is not the only system that can immobilize a mouse... one can use a box propped open with a stick that could be tripped... these are not physical precursors to the standard mousetrap, however, since they cannot be transformed, step by Darwinian step, into a trap with a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar.

The NPOV page states the following: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. Saying that McDonald... demonstrated "A reducibly complex mousetrap" is asserting that the truth is that the mousetrap is reducibly complex. This statement should be modified, as it is POV.

Ec 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice the quotation marks around the phrase "A reducibly complex mousetrap" ? These indicate that wikipedia is not asserting that the mousetrap is an example of reducible complexity, rather that it was presented as such by McDonald. In other words, the article presents both sides of the argument and lets the reader evaluatue them. This is the essence of NPOV.

As for your criticism of McDonald's arguments: they should be added to the article if and only if they can be attributed to a reliable source. SheffieldSteel 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 release of book with new afterward by Behe

I just finished reading this book and wanted to see if I got the same main points out of it as noted in Wikipedia. I've rarely read a worse summary of a book.

Behe is a biochemist who writes in great detail about complex biochemical processes. He asks, quite reasonably, what biochemical processes are proposed as evolutionary precursors to the processes he describes. Evolutionary theory proposes that currently known complex organic processes are derived from prior simpler processes through incremental improvements, and that each step in the increasing complexity provides a survival advantage to the organism. In the biochemical processes that he discusses, he points out that there is no scientific evidence for advantageous incremental improvements that would begin with a simple effective process and flow though to the current complex process with each step being an improvement AND a workable biochemical process. Darwin's theory of evolution predates biochemistry. Behe supports the theory of intelligent design because those who support evolutionary theory have provided no biochemical evidence that the current complex processes could be step-by-step evolved from simpler biochemical processes. Darwin's theory of evolution is based on incremental changes that improve the chances of organism survival. Behe is asking for scientific evidence for incremental biochemical steps from simple to complex biochemical processes.

This article just attacks Behe like he's a nut-case. Has anyone who's written here read his book? Editors here have obviously read what others say about his book, but have you read the book itself? A lot of the commentary here on the book is based on misreading the book or making it a political or cultural issue. Behe is a scientist, and he's asking those who support evolutionary theory to provide reasonable biochemical precursor processes to existing complex biochemical processes. Behe is not opposed to evolutionary theory, but he's pointing out that this theory -- created before cellular structure and biochemistry were investigated -- might not withstand the test of current knowledge.

I don't know Behe, but I'm an advocate of good science. What I see here in this article is political mudslinging.

Those who support evolutionary theory should be concentrating on researching and publishing incremental biochemical pathways to current biochemical complexity, not trying to shout Behe down. Wikipedia and the scientific community are looking like total fools in this article.

Sorry to be so negative, but this article was a great disappointment after reading the book. --65.78.212.239 03:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The summary of the book's Forward and first chapter I added tonight are intended to be a strict summary of what was written by Behe, not a commentary on what he wrote. If you feel compelled to edit that summary, please make it clear that you are adding commentary or correcting innaccuracies in the summary. Thank you! --65.78.212.215 02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncritical summaries

I would point out that recent attempts to add summaries of this book, that use language which states Behe's (long-discredited) assertions from this book as though they were undisputed facts, are in violation of WP:NPOV (and particularly WP:UNDUE) as well as WP:RS (as this book is most certainly not a reliable source for scientific facts). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A summary of a book is not supposed to be critical, it's supposed to summarize what the author said in the book. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. One section of a book article should be a synopsis or summary. You keep deleting the summary of this book on grounds that the book is written from a single point of view. Aren't all books?

I put a lot of effort into carefully reading Behe's book and trying my best to accurately summarize what he wrote. Now you're saying this summary can't be in this article about this book because the author wrote from his own perspective? I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. If my summary is inaccurate, I appreciate any and all corrections to the summary of what Behe wrote.

This article is currently an attack page against Behe's book. Any article in Wikipedia that exists primarily to attack its topic is subject to speedy-delete. Did you know that?

Please reconsider your recent edits to this article. Thank you. --64.181.89.92 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my response to you on my talkpage: "DBB is reliable only as a primary source: usable for statements such as those that start "Behe says ..." [or "This book says..."] -- not for anything that starts "Science has..." I recommend you read WP:PSTS." Your 'summary' was chock full of Behe's unreliable claims, stated as fact. As for your erroneous claim that this currently is an "attack article" -- it merely reflects the extremely low opinion that the scientific community (including Behe's own department) holds Behe's pseudoscientific claims in -- per WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't want any sort of summary of what Behe wote to appear in this Wikipedia article under a section heading clearly labelled "Summary", I think you'd better back off from editing this article. I don't go around deleting chunks of stuff in Wikipedia just because I or the "scientific community" or my neighbors don't agree with it. Why are you deleting a summary of a book that you and the scientific community don't agree with? If you don't want the book covered in Wikipedia, why don't you just Afd this article?

I get the impression you've never read this book. Have you read it? --65.78.215.156 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent my clearly stated position: it is not "any sort of summary of what Behe w[r]ote" that I am against, but rather a summary that presents Behe's widely discredited claims as though they were fact. As I have said, DBB is reliable as a primary source on what Behe thinks/says/claims, but not on what the scientific facts are. The article already includes a summary (the 'Overview', which carefully make clear that these are Behe's views, not scientific fact), so your accusations are clearly erroneous. I find it amusing that you are {{pov}}-ing the article, because I am preventing you from presenting Behe's (discredited) POV as fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have no intention whatsoever of AfDing this article -- while the book is unreliable as a source of scientific information, it is clearly notable, and thus worthy of an article. This means that we should write about it, but make clear that its contents have been analysed and rejected by the scientific community (frequently by people with far greater expertise in the fields involved than Behe has). Simply repeating Behe's claims at length is not WP:NPOV. And no, I have not read this book -- for two reasons: (1) I have seen nothing to indicate that any of Behe's writing is worth spending money on, and (2) my knowledge of Biology is even more limited than Behe's, so I am unlikely to be able to spot his deceptions -- so I leave criticism of him to the experts in the fields he mispreresents. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the section removed made the page look like a coatrack for Behe's IC/ID arguments, and was appropriately removed. Really, any summaries of his ideas and criticisms only tenuously belong here, and could probably be moved to the irreducible complexity page. The problem was more the tone (and length) than any summary of the content. For what it's worth, I'm having a look at the article as I type. WLU 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the following paragraph - the source isn't particularly reliable and I can't find a better one for it. Plus, I don't see it adding much. WLU 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Atkins of the University of Oxford in his review described Darwin's Black Box as well written but deceptive and error-filled, saying: "I learned a huge amount from it (I think), and it was only my wary eye that held me back from slipping along with the argument. Moreover, here we have a real, and very competent (but deeply misguided) scientist purveying some very good science and pointing up some very important omissions in our current understanding. Dr. Behe and his book must be as gold-dust among the dross of the general run of creationists and their so-called literature. The general reader will not know the limitations of his argument, or be aware of his misrepresentations of the facts, and will easily be seduced by his arguments. After all, it seems so very much easier, and certainly avoids a lot of intellectual effort, to accept that God did it all, even though we have to interpret the carefully coded allusions to this incompetent figment of impoverished imaginations."Darwin’s Black Box Reviewed Peter Atkins. Internet Infidels.

Re-write done

Re-write is done, sorry for it taking all day. Whew, this is exhausting. I've shortened the summary of the book itself, tried to summarize rather than quote reviews, integrated the ELs, added a see also section, and God knows what else. Feedback welcome. WLU 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can find positive reviews of the book in reliable sources, well, it doesn't have any. WLU 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Editors here seem to support having an article about this book without including a summary of this book, so I won't waste my time fighting Wikipedia editors' idea of a good article about a non-fiction book. But you might want to look at Systems biology for a little perspective on a related topic. --64.181.88.213 02:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have already noted, this article already has a summary -- it is the 'Overview' section. As both I and another editor have point out, your proposed summary was highly problematic and violates NPOV. On Systems biology, I would be highly surprised if Behe has published anything in this field, or if anybody major in this field has given Behe's claims any credence. It's relationship to Behe's claims of Irreducible complexity would appear to be roughly analogous to Astronomy's relationship to Astrology -- bearing certain superficial commonality in subject matter, but bearing no relationship in methodology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the NPOV comment, how is this section not a summary? There's a summary, but not an extensive one of his 'theory'; that would be all the links to the irreducible complexity page. Did you have any specific suggestions? General criticisms doesn't give anyone anything to improve upon. The purpose of the page is to discuss the book, and what has been said about it in reliable sources ,not the theory or evidence for or against it. Without further objections, there is absolutely no reason to place an NPOV tag on the page; doing so appears to be a POV push on the page itself. WLU 14:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the overview is a biased summary -- Behe "claims" this and Behe "claims" that, not to mention the suggestion that "irreducible complexity" is a theory. Irreducible complexity is a description of a system that performs a function -- it basically means you can't eliminate part of it and get a working system (as far as we know). Evolution is a theory that complex organisms such as mice and men have evolved over time from simpler organisms through random genetic mutation and natural selection (survival advantage of stronger organisms). I'm not convinced the theory is wrong, but this article denigrates science and scientists by echoing commentary that's personal, sensational and political, not scientific. Behe, Michael Denton, Jonathon Wells and others associated with the intelligent design movement are bringing up some very reasonable questions regarding evolutionary theory in light of post-Darwin cellular biology and molecular biology discoveries in the past century. There's a strong political opposition in the United States to anything that suggests that Darwin's theory of evolution is not supported by scientific evidence. There's also a strong opposition in the US to any signs that religion might be influencing public education. Frankly, I don't understand this opposition to religion in the United States -- the US was founded on freedom of religious belief. Religion isn't science any more than contemporary laws against murder are science. US laws are based on religious laws, not "natural laws". And those religious laws are Judeo-Christian.

I'm neither Jewish nor Christian, by faith, but most Americans are, and I accept this as a "given" in terms of my cultural environment. I don't understand why you oppose this cultural environment. Christian and Jewish religious laws oppose murder, adultery and lies. I assume you also oppose these. These are not "natural laws" in any Darwinian sense.

Do I want to fix this article in Wikipedia to explain all this? No, I don't. Wikipedia is constrained by copyright laws and short-term cultural trends. You're dropping off my radar, but I wish you luck! --65.78.214.2 02:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

These are merely Behe's claims, which have no scientific acceptance, so there exists no basis for stating them as being anything other than Behe's claims. Irreducible complexity is not a theory, and the section doesn't suggest that it is one. Behe has long ceased to be a scientist (having not done any serious scientific research in over a decade). Denton appears to have backed off from his previous attacks on evolution and support for ID. Wells never was a scientist, he is a Unification Church theologian who did a biology PhD for the express purpose of "destroying Darwinism". Their "questions" have long since been comprehensively rebutted. As you have failed to any cite reliable sourcess for the acceptance of Behe's claims, it is well that you are dropping this matter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above comments, I see no reason to either change the page, or add an NPOV tag. WLU 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia's inherent biases, I see no reason to either change the page nor add an NPOV tag. --65.78.214.151 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that's settled then. WLU 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pax vobiscum (peace be with you) --65.78.212.36 05:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Robison review

Overwhelming consensus that this is not an issue and not a problem for this article. Let's just drop it and move on, eh? Baegis (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Relata refero is objecting to this review on the erroneous basis that it is sourced to usenet. It is not, it is sourced to TalkOrigins Archive, which is widely accepted on wikipedia as a WP:RS. The fact that part of the material had previously been posted by its author on usenet is irrelevant -- usenet does not in some way taint material, it is merely unreliable as a source for that material given the uncertainty over authorship etc. The review in question was written by one Keith Robison, of the Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Harvard University, who a couple of years before DBB was the principal author of this article in Nature (journal). I think he is qualified to write such a review. HrafnTalkStalk 11:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC) See WP:RS/N for further discussion about reliability. Robison, a grad student at the time, was posting on usenet. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) According to WP:SPS, certain notables are themselves WP:RS, even in their own blogs. But TalkOrigins is widely viewed as a WP:RS on its own and used in college courses etc.--Filll (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC) And you haven't read WP:BLP too well, as the (hastily-archived) conversation on User talk:Hrafn rather effectively demonstrated - self-published sources aren't acceptable as sources about living people. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I read the review. I see no BLP problems.--Filll (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Even if WP was responsible for the "BLP problems" in a source (which we are not), I challenge anyone to show me a phrase or statement in that review that violates BLP.--Filll (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I ask again, please give me a specific quote from the Robinson review that you believe violates WP:BLP. No more dancing around the issue. Let's see it.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC) As I said, I don't dance. The quote used in the article was "...an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance and that within it systems were labelled 'irreducibly complex' if Behe was not able to envision a simpler system that still worked." That discusses Behe. Frankly, its a rather petty summation of what appears to have been a largely neutral review. Please frame your replies in the context of WP:BLP as written and practiced. If you want to put in some time reading WP:BLP/N to get up to speed on that, it wouldn't hurt. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) A book review that calls the book "an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance" is not a violation of BLP. For one, the review refers to the content of the book, not the personal character of its author. FCYTravis (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Are you seriously claiming that this isn't supposed to be snide comment on the author, and would not be read as such by any objective reader? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I don't know what you think it's supposed to be. The review calls the book "an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance." That's plain language, strongly criticizing the book as being scientifically flawed. Someone who writes a book and publishes it, opens him/herself up to that sort of criticism. This is an article on the book, and as this is an extremely controversial book, harsh criticism is to be expected. FCYTravis (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I should certainly hope so! Harsh scientific criticism! From some of the many reviews in unimpeachable sources, all extremely critical! Of which we pick those from the best sources, and those that meet our standards of commenting on the book and are encyclopaedic! Not crappy one-liners edited to sound like a comment on the author! Where are our standards? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) You're making my head spin with this argument. "Our standards" do not prohibit inclusion of harsh, but legitimate, criticism of a discredited, pseudoscientific theory and its proponents. There is nothing defamatory about that phrase. Nor is it vulgar or otherwise inappropriate. In short, it's not a BLP violation. If you want it removed, develop a consensus that it doesn't belong. FCYTravis (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Which I'm trying to do here. It would be helpful if you repeat again for my deaf ears how criticism of an author's intellect from a self-published source is "legitimate" by our standards even if the author is a propagandist for pseudoscience. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I am afraid you have not been very compelling so far. I count at least 3 editors who disagree vehemently with one or more of your positions in this matter. Let's try for more shall we?--Filll (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Even if the review referred to the subject and not the article it wouldn't be a BLP issue. It is a highly notable and relevant review. This is a borderline tendentious interpretation of BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Four with me, five with JoshuaZ Filll, I haven't commented 'til now. Reliability comes from demonstrated expertise showing that responses are vetted to represent an opinion that is comprehensive and informed by expertise. TO has done so. Also, parity of sources applies - DBB is a book promoting intelligent design, which has been rejected as religious POV-pushing, unsupported nonsense. Were this a debate between different types of anti-viral medications in the journal AIDS, TO would totally be out. But since it's a debate about an illegitimate non-theory, the demonstrated expertise of TO is adequate to review and comment. Put another way, if a grad student posts a journal article on a usenet page, then publishes it in Nature, would you reject it because 'it's just a usenet post'? Publication on random or personal webpages would indeed fail RS, but if a major website on the issue discussed picks up and re-prints as an accurate summary or criticism, then the major website is the apporpriate overseeing body. Talk.origins is an award-winning website with specialized expertise on the subject of the defence of evolution in the face of creationism in all versions, including intelligent design and it's latest bastard stepchild 'irreducible complexity'. That makes it a reliable source for reviews of the latest salvo of creationist bastard stepchildren. WLU (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) So you're arguing that even if the website archives usenet posts, the choices it makes on which posts to archive acts as a form of editorial oversight? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Exactly. A couple dozen bio phds with an interest in the scientific (in)validity of intelligent design have done an excellent job of posting responses that address the factual, data and evidentiary inadequacies of the IC theory. What is editorial oversight except a selection of the best from a much larger pool? Nature must get hundreds of articles sent in each month, and it only posts a tiny fraction thereof because they've selected the best. That would be the definition of editorial oversight I think, in addition to minor adjustments of spelling, grammar, formatting, etc. And again, WP:PARITY applies, and specifically mentions creation science. WLU (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I mention WP:PARITY below. About the choice argument you make, its a good one, and one to which I personally am sympathetic. I do foresee one or two possible problems, but I'll take it to RS/N and see if people agree. (Though I would prefer editors uninvolved in this so far also weigh in.) --Relata refero (disp.) 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Adding Foo and dave souza from the intelligent design talk page on this same issue, the count looks like 7 editors against, and only one holding this position associated with what appears to be a set of incredibly confused views. Not so favorable. Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC) In addition, we have to include Stephan Schulz and Baegis from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. So there are at least 9 editors against your position, and not a single other editor who you have convinced to push your agenda. Interesting how you seem to be fairly outnumbered, but still making borderline tendentious claims and vague threats and allusions to unCIVIL actions of other editors, with no DIFFs of course. Seems like an abusive set of behaviors and disruption that is not looking very positive, doesnt it?--Filll (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC) What agenda? I've never edited ID/Evolution articles before. Why make the assumption I have one? Name one borderline tendentious claim. I questioned whether or not TOA was a self-published source, in that they themselves claim so on their website. That isn't particularly tendentious, especially given the fact that I haven't made any edits in this area either before I raised the question or since discussion commenced. I have specified what is uncivil. The fact that you are imputing to me an agenda; that instead of quiet discussion on the article talkpage or at RS/N you ramped up the drama with multiple posts to different article talkpages and noticeboards; and that you continue to make statements like the above, which are guaranteed to drive away editors. This is, again, not the place to discuss your behaviour, but, given my only personal experience of your editing previously was at the 9/11 ArbCom workshop, where I completely agreed with your statements about fringe theory and the availability of reliable sources, I confess myself disappointed. It should have been obvious that I was not trying to push any agenda; even if not obvious, I would like to think that editors are at least offered a few hours of grace before bad faith is assumed. I hope that's clear enough for you. And about whether my thinking is "unclear", here's the flowchart: If TOA is not a self-published-source ---> OK to use everywhere, game over; if not, TOA is a self-published source ---->OK to use everywhere except for information about living persons, continue; if the quote from the TOA review is substantially about the author rather than the book --> BLP violation, remove; otherwise, OK, retain. That isn't particularly complex, though it requires discussion at three points, which could be achieved without all this drama. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Now Coppertwig on the BLP Noticeboard has also weighed in to state this is not a BLP issue. That makes 10 editors who disagree, and not a single editor who agrees. Does not look good. --Filll (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, terrible. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC) This talk summary is clearly a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:TE, particularly when coupled with similar statements associated with this affair. I would suggest you mind your Ps and Qs to avoid administrative sanctions. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) This is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I am suggesting strongly, for about the 5th or 6th time, that you correct your behavior which is violating all precepts of the new politically correct requirements which have been placed on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Take it to my talkpage. I am amused strongly by the suggestion that "OMG DRAMAZ" is uncivil. If not my talkpage, WP:DRAMA is also available, unless you want to nominate the redirect for deletion as uncivil. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Refero, referring to WP:PARITY again, the intelligent design/irreducible complexity/creation science claims themselves are not actually peer reviewed (see here for example). And again, this isn't a BLP issue, it's a RS issue, and TOA is reliable enough to criticize Behe's work. WLU (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, I'm not arguing at all that TOA is too poor a source for most articles on this subject. On the contrary. What I am saying - as I try to make clear, once again, in my little attempt at a flowchart above - is that if sections of it qualify as a self-published source, we shouldn't use those sections to discuss living persons. I firmly subscribe to WP:PARITY and use it often, and believe it applies to TOA in most contexts in creationism-related articles. (Though I would prefer it not be used in the main articles on evolution - where it is, once or twice, in easily replaceable contexts, such as a reference for the unnecessariness of a linkage between theories of abiogenesis and evolution.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) From what I can see, the referenced part of the review that mentions Behe doesn't make an ad hominen attack on him. All it says is that the selection criteria is based on Behe's inability to imagine a simpler system. It doesn't say that this is because Behe is stupid, or that he's delving out of his expertise. If a similar situation comes up in the future, I think it's better to decide based on the idiosyncracies of the situation rather than trying to come up with a rule for all. There's no deprecation of Behe that I can see, so I don't see a reason to object. As has been said before, the page is about a book, the review is about a book, the review mentions the author and not in a derogatory way. So I see no issue. WLU (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I see a violation of WP:CON, among other things.--Filll (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) A violation of WP:CON takes place when one or more editors that are clearly in a minority refuse to accept any solution but theirs. That is not happening here; I am perfectly happy to accept solutions that emerge in discussion, even if I am unhappy with it. What WP:CON does suggest that "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical." If you are unwilling or unable to participate in a conversation with someone you disagree with (without losing your temper) you might want to leave this to the several other editors who, as you point out, share most aspects of your view on the disagreement. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I did think that it clearly implied that Behe's stupid/delving out of his expertise, because of the linking of the "ignorance" and the "Behe's failure" clauses (in a manner unrelated to the actual text of the review). Perhaps if we quote more directly from the review, the problem will be solved. I do think that editorial consensus on article talkpages should be taken into account: I simply want to remind everyone that "material about a living person" shouldn't be sourced to an SPS, unless there are the very best possible reasons. If we can reword it so that Behe is not directly mentioned, that would be perfect as far as I am concerned. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Looks like a violation of WP:DE and WP:TE. If we are required to remove all mention of the authors of criticized books from articles about the books, we would not be much of an encyclopedia. And it is even more unreasonable to expect us to use only reviews which do not mention the authors at all, or only positive reviews. --Filll (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC) WP:BLP exists to protect Wikipedia (and Wikipedians, where traceable) from lawsuits. It's not as if we have an unsubstantiated claim that Behe is a paedophile or whatever (that would be a classic BLP violation). In this case, Behe is attempting an Argument from ignorance, a formal logical fallacy: therefore it's entirely appropriate for a notable source to comment on his "ignorance". In this context, it isn't even an insult (much)... --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC) With the addition of Robert Stevens, that puts the count at 11 to 1. Care to try for more?--Filll (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC) It very clearly states that Behe is delving outside of his area of expertise and is ignorant regards a great many topics discussed in the book. But since it's a discussion of a purportedly scholarly book, this is perfectly valid. It doesn't say that Behe is a lying liar, deliberately deceptive, or a jingoist toeing the creationist line, which would be defamatory. Ignorance is not pejorative statement, though stupid and deceptive are. Fortunately the review uses neither. The review demonstrates faults in the arguments used by Behe, not in his character. The horse is dead, perhaps we should all stop beating it. At this point we're close to violating WP:NOT#FORUM. WLU (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC) WP:NOT#FORUM does not extend to civilised discussion about sources. We are close to settling this, so can we please just do so? You accept that the quote as in the article currently clearly implies that Behe is delving outside his areas of expertise. This is correct, of course, and we should certainly have as many sources as possible in the article stating as much. That being said, what makes you say that that is not pejorative? If it is -and even if you agree with Robert Stevens above, it is an insult, if mild - and the review, (while perfectly acceptable as a source on the many major problems with Behe's arguments in a particular section) is an WP:SPS, why do you think an exception to clear BLP rules is warranted? (Particularly when I can easily find three or four alternatives published by academic presses, clearly allowable by our policies, that clearly spell out the fact that this is an argument for ignorance; and that Behe himself is going beyond what he is competent to do. For heavens sake, even Ruse says so!) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I suggest further posts on this issue by Relata refero be summarily userfied and/or archived from the talk page.--Filll (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) And I humbly request you to be a little less impulsive in your replies. You appear to be a useful editor, and if you edit while angry or impulsive or with the assumption of bad faith, some of that usefulness to the project dissipates. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Seriously, can we drop this now? It is what, 11-1 on this issue? Nothing more can be accomplished from this. Nothing. Drop it Relata. And thanks for the cheery message as you archived the RS thread. Simply superb. Baegis (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I'm probably going to get myself into a major storm by diving into this, but this is opinion: How can you claim NPOV and balance in this article when you have a long section on his criticizers, and one sentence saying "Behe has responded to some of these criticisms". What is that? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUE is how. If we gave details on his responses, we'd also have to give details of the genuine experts' (in the fields that Behe is pontificating upon) demolition of these responses ... and so it would go on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUE says "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". I understand the problem of saying "A said, B replied, A responded, B retorted" and so on. However, just saying "he has responded" just does not seem complete enough.

Well, that's my random opinion. I would try to remedy a solution myself, but I would be going way over my head then. So I'm just giving my opinion from a Wikipolicy point-of-view. Cheers, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If his responses are not considered by the scientific community to be credible, then it is WP:UNDUE weight, regardless of the article topic, to present them unrebutted. This policy cannot be read as allowing the minority view the last word. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW talk about a biased article!

That the author opening the article is in sympathy with the evolutionary cause is most apparent. Clearly unable to balance the information in a way needed to be a true article.

Note, just the use of the word "notion" instead of "concept" shows bias. The word "notion" implies the idea is merely whimsical personal inclination of Mr. Behe. The concept of ID set off a firestorm so I would say ID is hardly merely a "notion."

Lets just state WHAT THE BOOK IS! Keep the arguments for/against whatever you are for out of the article. Wikipedia isn't a place for a debate or propaganda on ID. We should be able agree on that. Alright?

MY SUGGESTION IS TO OPEN THE ARTICLE LIKE THIS AND ELIMINATE THE REST OF THE OPENING PARAGRAPHS:

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996, first edition; 2006, second edition) is a book written by biochemist Michael J. Behe and published by Free Press. The book introduces the concept of Irreducible Complexity. Mr. Behe proposes that Charles Darwin's theory of life's evolution via natural selection and random mutation cannot account for the origin of complex biomolecular systems."

To open with all the controversy surrounding the book only serves to make the article a debating talking point, apparently for those that are against the book. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. I think we can agree on that.

This article on Darwin's Black Box is not neutral at all, it is Behe Rebuttal Page. Ex. : In the links you present almost all are anti-Behe, mean that the writer of the article deliberatelly refused to read any pro-Behe text

Rodall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikearion (talk • contribs) 01:48, September 20, 2008

The purpose of the page is not to give a summary of Behe's book, it is to demonstrate what the book is and its impact on the real world, and in keeping with the opinions and perception within the mainstream scholarly community. The mainstream scholarly community's opinion is that Behe's work is terrible, fundamentally flawed, another piece of valueless axe-grinding creationist rhetoric, and does not contribute substantially to the scientific advancement of our understanding of biology, as well as being an attempt to provide a veneer of scientific respectability to a completely baseless, scientifically unrespectable and religiously-motivated topic. It would be undue weight to present the idea that Behe's books had any respect or was taken seriously by any serious biologist. The page should reflect the arguments for and against the book so long as they are documented in reliable sources. Uncritical views of the book should be placed on conservapedia or a creationist wiki, which panders to the blinkered, uninformed and science-fearing creationist crowd. Here, we must reflect just how badly the book has performed in actual scientific circles. Also note that we do not write "true" articles, we write verifiable, neutral ones. The page should be a Behe rebuttal page since that is how it is perceived in the mainstream. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins Critique

The critique from Richard Dawkins needs to be redone. The NYT article that is referenced focuses on Behe's later work, not D's BB. Further, the chronology is off. D's BB was published *before* the Kitzmiller trial, while the wording of this paragraph seems to assume that it was published after. Besides--I'm sure someoone can find something legit that Dawkins has said directly about D's BB. I seem to recall that he made mention of it in his The God Delusion. (I'd check myself, but I read a library copy and don't actually have one handy.)

Aasmith (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Dawkins is talking about DBB at that point in the NYT article. Guettarda (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How About The Rest Of The Story

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a biased critique. If you're going to go on and on and on with all of the detractors and people who disagree with Michael Behe's book, then to be fair, how about providing a little balance by discussing all the acclaim for his work? Just because certain scientists acknowledge intelligent design does not mean that they're not reputable or not reliable sources of validation for a scholarly work. Mr. Behe did a formidable job, one that can't be pooh-poohed as ignorant clap-trap. His work at least deserves a balanced hearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddserveto (talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1. New threads go at the bottom of the page.
2. There has been very little (if any) "acclaim" for Behe's work from legitimate experts. See WP:DUE & WP:FRINGE.
3. Just because certain theologians, philosophers, engineers & scientists in unrelated fields agree with Behe, generally for religious reasons, is no reason to give them credibility.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

National Review ' Non-Fiction 100'

A few points:

• Outside its target audience of American conservatives, the National Review is hardly "prominent" (in fact I would doubt if many outside the US have even heard of it).
• The NR's criteria would appear to be ideological rather than scientific -- making it a fairly irrelevant endorsement for a book purporting to make scientific claims.
• DBB was chosen by a panel including DI co-founder George Gilder.
• The DBB entry (at only #92) includes this absurd endorsement from Gilder: "Overthrows Darwin at the end of the 20th century in the same way that quantum theory overthrew Newton at the beginning." Amusing that creationists are still obsessing over Darwin himself, over a century after his death -- rather than focusing on the modern science of evolutionary biology which, despite repeated creationist obituaries, goes from strength to strength in the scientific community.

So what does all this add up to? That the DI has influence in American conservative circles -- hardly news. And to state the NR's endorsement without mentioning (i) the NR's ideological bent & (ii) Gilder's involvement in its selection, is an inaccurate representation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

the introductory paragraphs of the NR make it clear that Hrafn's claim no. 3 and 4 have no basis. Claim no. 1 is purely subjective and lacks substantiation. Claim no. 2 is invalid, too, since DBB is aimed at the general reader. Northfox (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

here is a quote from the NR article, in reference to Hrafn's claim 2 and 3: But-certainly beyond, say, the first 40 books-the fact of the books' presence on the list is far more important than their rankings. We offer a comment from a panelist after many of the books; but the panel overall, not the individual quoted, is responsible for the ranking.Northfox (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Northfox's "purely subjective" counter-argument is nonsensical as:
   1. Beyond brute numbers (and the NR is not one of the top 100 newspapers in the United States by circulation -- I think that counts as 'substantiation'), any analysis of 'prominence' is necessarily "subjective".
      • Just realised that it's a magazine, not a newspaper, so it wouldn't be included in the newspaper list. But its circulation of 155,000 means that even The Advocate (at 175,000) is larger, and it is a dwarfed by (for example) Time & Newsweek. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
   2. Northfox's original claim of prominence is itself both subjective and unsubstantiated.
2. That "DBB is aimed at the general reader" does not alter that it purports to make scientific claims, claims that the NR panel have no relevant expertise to evaluate, which combined with their ideological focus (an ideology that many have noted to be often at war with science) renders them an unreliable source on the topic.
3. Northfox would have us believe that Gilder's presence on the panel (and the fact that the NR list includes a delusionally positive endorsement from Gilder) had nothing to do with its choice. That Gilder had to convince a few of his ideological fellow travellers to go along with this does not really add any prestige to the NR endorsement.

I would conclude that the NR neither has the scientific nor the literary competence (or prominence), nor the independence (given Gilder's presence on the reviewing panel) to give it any reliability as a source for reviewing a book. It's inclusion is merely an exercise in ideological axe-grinding and/or back-scratching, and therefore shouldn't be included. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I would point out that Northfox's implicit demand for objective criteria for prominence, his claim that the NR is prominent, and the fact that The Advocate has a larger circulation, would mean, if we accepted Northfox's arguments, that The Advocate is even more prominent, and we should be liberally including their opinions on things … like their opinions of assorted conservative American figures. Think of the possibilities! >:) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of National Review ranking

I added a short sentence that DBB was included in a Top 100 list of books by the National Review. My addition was reverted two times by user:Hrafn, who finally tagged it. The NR is a notable source and the selection criteria for the inclusion of DBB in the list are made clear on the NR website. See here </ref>. So, the information should stay in the article. Northfox (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Northfox has provided no evidence that the NR is a prominent source (prominence, not notability, is the standard, per WP:DUE). And I have provided evidence to the contrary (see magazine size analysis above).
2. Northfox has provided no evidence that the NR is a reliable source for reviewing DBB. And I have provided evidence to the contrary. NR lacks any scientific or literary standing. It also lacks objectivity, due to the presence of Gilder (co-founder of the pro-ID Discovery Institute of which Behe is a Fellow, the views of which institute DBB promotes) on the selection panel, and due to its explicitly conservative ideology (an ideology with a heavy overlap with support for ID).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• RfC comment. Basically, I agree with Hrafn. Looking at the edit in question, it appears to claim that the book can be considered as among the Top 100 by an objective source, and Hrafn has shown convincingly that the source is not objective. Worded that way, it is better to leave it out. Alternatively, it may be possible to write something about reaction to the book in conservative circles and present the information there, but not simply as a mainstream Top 100. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A clarification of what I said above, after reading the comments below by Arxiloxos and JoshuaZ. I actually do not much disagree with them. My objection would be to having the mention without the kind of context to which JoshuaZ refers. But as I said, it would be reasonable to include the information, so long as it is specifically in the context of the book's reception in conservative circles. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I see this rather differently. I don't see this as an WP:RS question; in my mind, it's closer to a WP:FRINGE issue: what's the right way to cover a notable, controversial point of view that is outside the mainstream of scientific thought? National Review is certainly not a scientific publication, but it has been an important journal of conservative thought for decades. Its inclusion of this book on its Top 100 is not evidence that the book is any better or truer, but it is evidence that the book is considered an important one within a specific paradigm. I certainly don't think there's anything WP:UNDUE about the one-sentence mention of the Top 100 list that's in this article now. I wouldn't object to an addition noting the self-admitted conservative politics of the National Review, although that's easily found by following the link to National Review. Please let me note that, in my own view, since this book has been shown to be pseudosience by the great majority of the scientific community, the NR's praise reflects badly on the NR panel, but that's not the point--a significant journal of long standing put this book on what they clearly meant to be an important list, and I do think that fact is worthy of inclusion in the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ariloxos said more or less what I was going to say but said so much better than I would have. Some mention is warranted. It might not be a bad idea to make clear where NR is coming from and maybe explicitly note their political leaning. However, some mention at minimum seems warranted. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion How about moving the sentence out of the overview section, where it is now, and placing it at the end of the reception section that follows? What I mean is to put it just after what is now the last sentence of that section ("Behe has responded to some of these criticisms.[11]"), and say something like: "In contrast to the response of the scientific community, the book has been well-received in some conservative circles. For example, [then the disputed text]." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this may be a good proposal. In any event, I think it needs to be clear what the top 100 inclusion signifies. It signifies popularity amongst US conservatives. As long as that context is given, then I don't see any problem. --FormerIP (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Support suggestion basically the book is in the top 100 most popular amongst people who generally support its content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I support Tryptofish's suggestion. It seems like the reasonable thing to do. Also, there should be no section such as 'overview', as the lead is supposed to function as overview. Since the lead is the overview, having an overview section is redundant. The article should be reogranised, the overview section should be renamed (to something like 'description') and then edited accordingly, and the parts that don't fit should be merged and incorporated into the lead and rest of the article. LK (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I made an edit doing what I suggested, but not removing the tag about the source. Nothing etched in stone; let's just see what we think about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Tryptofish's suggestion. I agree that if the fact is included, it must be within the context of its reception in conservative circles. Its placement within the "reception" section also helps. I don't think I've ever edited this article, but I edited Uncommon Dissent for a couple of weeks a couple of years ago. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Hrafn's comment above, if a Discovery Institute member was on the selection committee for choosing those 100 books, that needs to be mentioned. The presence of a member of the Discovery Institute on the panel certainly skews the selection considerably and looks like a large conflict of interest to me. The summary should also avoid presenting it as part of a trend - one conservative publication, with one highly biased member on the selection board, said good things about it. That's as far as I'd go (and edited accordingly). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Garbled paragraph

Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People (1993), which closely resembles a chapter in Darwin's Black Box; his claims on blood clotting have been criticized.[9] Behe later defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial.

This short paragraph throws together a number of unrelated issues. Criticism of blood-clotting is better either (i) as part of the Russell Doolittle piece (where it is already) or (ii) expanded & cited directly to Kenneth Miller (cited in passing by the PT citation). The relationship between clotting in DBB vs OP&P needs to be more clearly delineated if it is to remain. No relevance to Dover is established.

Does anybody care enough about the issues raised in this little 'dog's breakfast' to care to clarify them? Or should we simply remove? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this page, but that paragraph has looked strange to me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also new to this page, but about a week ago i noticed that this page was heavily biased and made an account to edit this(I have been using wikipedia for 4 years now and spend at least some time of my day on it but never edited it). It seemed like this page was heavily against Behe and in the content section had rebuttles to Behe's claims... which should be in a debate not here. I'll watch this page and other Behe pages for bias. -Nickles0n

Please read WP:DUE. Wikipedia articles are required to give due weight to all viewpoints, according to their prominence -- and there are many prominent criticism's of this book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've deleted the paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

At Dover, Behe agreed that they were essentially the same argument, using the same text and the same figures. Since there's not a historical development section, I've added the information with sources to the lead. Note that Nick Matzke pointed this out in an article dated a year before the Dover trial, somewhat modified in the online edition. . dave souza, talk 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes much better sense to me. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Darwin's Black Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100304170456/http://old.nationalreview.com:80/100best/100_books.html to http://old.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630185235/http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html to http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509084837/http://pharyngula.org:80/index/weblog/comments/behe_pwnage/ to http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/behe_pwnage/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Darwin's Black Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050116082211/http://www.simonsays.com:80/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=407734 to http://www.simonsays.com/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=407734
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041022082811/http://www.cbs.dtu.dk:80/staff/dave/Behe.html to http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)