Talk:Teach the Controversy

Archives
Up to 15 August 2006

Attribution

The Mooney and Dembski ref's in the intro do not actually say that IDM is trying to get ID taught in schools, and Nick Matzke's analysis is just his POV (not a "fact"). --Uncle Ed 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which number footnotes are you objecting to exactly? FeloniousMonk 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In this version, #6 and #7.

By the way, the following quote by Larry Taylor of Parents for Truth in Education specifically mentions the thing you said it "didn't support":

• "I was not for removing or de-emphasizing the subject of Darwinian evolution from the science classroom. However, in my remarks I did object to the dogmatic approach to science instruction which is propagated by organizations such as NCSE, an approach characterized by an intolerance of varying viewpoints, where any alternative viewpoints are censored, and where conformity to a blind acceptance of Darwinian evolution is demanded." [1]

So your rm source Ed added was not supportive/relevant of the passage edit summary doesn't make much sense. Don't you think you should make specific objections on talk before reverting another user's contributions? You seem to regard that as some sort of rule we all should follow. --Uncle Ed 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think changing the goal of the Teach the Controversy campaign from "intended to undermine the teaching of evolution while promoting intelligent design" to simply parroting the pro-ID viewpoint and Discovery Institute party line that TTC is "intended to counter a 'dogmatic approach' to classroom instruction about evolution" based on one cite from an insignificant source? No. The original passage was supported by no less than 6 supporting cites covering a wide range of significant primary and secondary sources. Your change deleted half of the cites, leaving 3, 2 of which ran counter to your changes in overall tone and another which quotes a genuine nobody in the movement. And then you wonder why you get reverted? Amazing.

Larry Taylor and his Parents for Truth in Education hardly is a definitive speaker for the TTC group, they're a small-potatoes, local pro-ID outfit in Georgia. He clearly has a stake in making such a claim considering his group is concerned more about furthering its own agenda of getting ID into public school science classrooms than it is about actual science, so let's not over emphasize the significant of his op-ed piece, especially when it's to replace or run counter to such excellent sources as the AAAS's, the world's largest scientific professional organization, policy statement, the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, an article in the The American Prospect, the statement from leading ID proponent William Dembski that "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity, and it is a scientific controversy." and a witness for the successful plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Compared to the significance of the long-standing sources, Larry Taylor's "Open Letter to the NCSE" is insignificant and marginally relevant, he's not central to the TTC campaign. In fact, he's not even I minor player. Your edits were totally unsupported by this cite, as is your use of the NPOV tag. Please become better read on the topic before raising a big stink again here, a lot of frustration and disruption could be avoided if you simply better understood the subject and checked your personal ideology at the door when you login. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is your view of "undermining the teaching of evolution". If you personally believe that the Theory of Evolution should be taught as the only possible scientific explanation for the emergence of new species (especially human beings), then YES any other idea would undermine this.

In that case, you should quote some published source who says this:

• Mr. X asserted that the TTC campaign will "undermine the teaching of evolution" by introducing non-material explanations to a topic that our group wants kept strictly on a materialistic basis. Science should and must only explore natural causes. Scientists must not use scientific techniques or reasoning to explore the non-material world. Not because we say it doesn't exist or that God doesn't exist, but because (his reason goes here). --Uncle Ed 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of any other scientific explanation? •Jim62sch• 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The best source I can direct you to, which isn't quite what you mean, is the wedge docuement, which suggests the purpose is to undermine the credibility of science. Which might be POV in the some people consider science inappropriate for a science class, but pushing the limit of reasonability there. Looking forward to your reply, i kan reed 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)/

Ikan, I couldn't get your link to work, so I skimmed another copy here. The word "undermine" does not appear.

They do, however, make it quite clear what they're up to. (This, by the way, is one reason I refuse to have anything to do with them. Listen closely, FM and both Joshuas.)

• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

I don't see this as "undermining science" (as an institution) or undermining its credibility, but it does strike me as devotedly Creationist. I can't discern any difference between this and Creation Science, unless it's merely a non-Young Earth variant which accepts the Fossil record.

Perhaps a point of confusion is that they tie materialism to aspects of culture they dislike:

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

I daresay they are not disinterested seekers of truth, but primarily oppose materialism because of the support it provides (as they think) for social destruction.

However, I think this article (and related ones in the ID series) should distinguish between:

• the ideas themselves (claims about the reasonableness or scientific viability of Intelligent Design)
• the motives and goals of ID promoters

ID asks people to consider non-materialist hypotheses; whereas the methodological naturalism of modern sciences refuses to consider such hypotheses

The IDM opposes materialism because they want to promote cultural and religious goals. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, Ed, biology is considered a science class. DI and the Dembskiites want to introduce religious-based "theories" (I use that word very loosely) into science class. Thus, science moves from the rational to the irrational. How precisely is that not undermining science?

Second, are you in any way familiar with the establishment clause, Ed? Let me guess, you think Jefferson fucked up when pushed the idea, right? Well, whatever your opinion of it, it is the law of the land. Deal with it. •Jim62sch• 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting the wedge document. I was stating that it established a purpose for ID(it was the discovery institute's little thing) was to break society away from science(they call it scientific materialism, which is not more than saying that ethics are tied to science which is a different issue) The beleif was if they could manipulate how science was defined, they could defeat the current version's importance to society. This is sort of what you're saying, but the modern definition of science simply does not include untestable hypotheses. Untestable but rational hypotheses are the basis of modern philosophy, not sceince. And you might indicate that the definition of science is also questionable, but between modus tollens and repeatability, you have the basis of most textbook defintions of science. the reason non-materialistic hypotheses are not scientific is repeatability. If they are not part of the natural function of things, then there is no way to set up a situation to cause it to happen(we call this experimentation). This doesn't make anything incorrect or wrong, just not within the subset of science. my point got lost somewhere in there. And i'm probably not saying anything you don't know. I'll just try to summarize: it's "undermining science" because it tries to get non-science recognized specifically as science, thus change the defintion of science. i kan reed 16:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"However, I think this article (and related ones in the ID series) should distinguish between: the ideas themselves and the motives and goals of ID promoters" Hmmm, that is exactly the POV of the Discovery Institute its movement have been promoting all along: [2] [3] (PDF) [4]. Their viewpoint is already covered here, promoting it is advocating for one pov. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in that case the article should say that:

• ID supporters want their ideas and motives given independent consideration
• ID opponents see the two as intertwined and insist that they be considered together

Let's not advocate "for" any particular side, but describe what the opposing sides are. --Uncle Ed 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added the viewpoints of both sides, a sourced example, and the relevant legal ruling to the overview section, which is where the topic of specific objections, particularly religous, is first introduced:

Along with the objection that there is no scientific controversy to teach, another common objection is that the Teach the Controversy campaign and intelligent design arise out of a Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic movement that calls for broad social, academic and political changes. Intelligent design proponents believe their concepts and motives should be given independent consideration. Those critical of intelligent design see the two as intertwined and inseparable, citing the foundational documents of the movement such as the "Wedge Document" and statements made by intelligent design constitutents to their supporters. The judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial considered testimony and evidence from both sides when he ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents and that "that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."

In the debate surrounding the linking of the motives of intelligent design proponents to their arguments, following the Kansas evolution hearings the chairman of the Kansas school board, Dr. Steve Abrams, cited in The New York Times as saying that though he's a creationist who believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago, said he was able to keep the two separate:

"In my personal faith, yes, I am a creationist," ... "But that doesn't have anything to do with science. I can separate them."

Abrams agreed that:

"my personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom."

Afterward, Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western Reserve University physicist and astronomer, in a New York Times essay said:

"A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams's religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be chairman of a state school board. ... As we work to improve the abysmal state of science education in our public schools, we will continue to do battle with those who feel that knowledge is a threat to religious faith ... we should remember that the battle is not against faith, but against ignorance."

This settles this objection. FeloniousMonk 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Background

Cut from beginning of article:

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." Both the intelligent design movement (IDM) and the Teach the Controversy campaign are largely directed and funded by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

All of nearly all of this is copied word for word from Intelligent Design's intro. --Uncle Ed 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reword it then, don't just delete it outright. A defintion of ID is necessary in this article because Teach the Controversy is the product of the intelligent design proponents and has sought to introduce ID into public school science classes. Not every reader of this article is going to follow a link to the ID article, and without an understanding of what ID, they will not understand the viewpoints of science education community and the scientific community in opposing Teach the Controversy. Using your own phrase, your deletion seems like viewpoint suppression. FeloniousMonk 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I agree! I moved it here specifically to negotiate just such a rewording. That's why I didn't delete it but used the Wikipedia:Text move technique.

I'm open to any suggestions you have for rewording the moved text. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What's there to reword? It looks good to me. It's consistent with the other stuff we have to say about ID, which is good. --Cyde Weys 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde, there's no reason to reword it. Oh wait, let's try this:

Intelligent design: God did it;

Atheistic materialistic liberal Darwinism: You're pond scum.

Does that accurately capture DI's view? •Jim62sch• 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Duncharris reverted twice to FM's "neutral" version. I don't know why his version is any more neutral than mine. Perhaps he'll explain here. --Uncle Ed 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm guessing its because ID proponents have made a lot of statements and published a lot of documents/articles about what they're doing and the purpose, including the wedge document, and you seem to want to take all that out of the article and leave the misleading statement that all they want to do is oppose "dogmatism". This is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want any of that taken out. If I have removed anything like that, it was a mistake.

I do want added to the article the proponents' statement that they want to oppose dogmatism. If this needs to be balanced with a statement from opponents that the statement of proponents is misleading, then I'd L-O-V-E to see that put in. (Insert picture of dopy-looking St. Bernard with tongue hanging out and panting!) --Uncle Ed 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem this time Ed? What statement, which sources are you proposing we use to show that they say this and where do you want it to go in the article?FeloniousMonk 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This one:

Advocates of this campaign say they want to counter a "dogmatic approach" to classroom instruction about evolution

And right in the intro, where I had it before. --Uncle Ed 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that your source still doesn't support the passage for the same reasons given you before. As pointed out to you above, Taylor is merely a parent, a private citizen involved in a local county campaign; he is neither significant nor central to the ID/TTC movement. Taylor's statement cannot in any way be considered to be representative of the entire movement. You're going to have come up with a better supporting source than this: [5]. Provide a better source from Meyer, Dembski or another leading proponent. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken down the NPOV tag; there's been no further evidence of actual issues presented since the 17th, and no effort to provide a proper source for the proposed content. FeloniousMonk 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And I've put it right back up. The dispute is not resolved merely because you declare the matter settled. Moreover, I have made effort to provide a proper source, but it was reverted.

Strangely, my reverted addition was then used by JoshuaZ's as evidence of "POV pushing". I will add it again now. --Uncle Ed 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one making the assertions that the article is POV; the burden is yours to show that it is, something you've consistently failed to do here and elsewhere, which is what prompts people to allege you're misusing the NPOV tag and POV pushing, Ed. You've also failed to make the case here for your recent changes, so, I've rv'd them. Several looked pretty POV to me... FeloniousMonk 16:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement to "make the case" that an article is biased before putting up the tag. But there is a requirement not to remove it more than twice. I hope you'll abide by our community's agreed-upon guidelines and suggestions.

I assume when you use "POV" as an adjective you mean biased. Can you tell me in what direction you feel my latest round of edits has "biased" the article. I wonder if you even had time to review them yet. --Uncle Ed 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and your edits today [6] are largely the same as the ones you made last week [7], which were rejected by 4 different editors.

If you mean reverted without reason by 4 different editors, that's just what I'm talking about: you guys need to give reasons instead of just backing each other up. --Uncle Ed 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So the same objections made last week, above, apply today.

No, they don't. No reasons were given for them. Additions to an article that you disagree with shouldn't just be reverted, but improved.

Failing to make an effort to earnestly make a strong case for your changes, instead ignoring talk page discussion and repeatedly insisting on just reverting and edit warring to make your case is what landed you in hot water and does not make long-term contributors here more open to your opinions, Ed. FeloniousMonk 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good description of what you yourself have done. You have made no case at all for your reversions, let alone a strong one; you and 3 others simply banded together to enforce your preferences for no reason. --Uncle Ed 19:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I have no opinion on this matter whatsoever. This is not an opinion board like Everything2, but an encyclopedia. We should be reporting the ideas of others, supported by references, not giving our own opinions, Felonious. --Uncle Ed 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Views of both sides

This is my version. [8] Please refer to this when disputing the neutrality of the article. --Uncle Ed 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MoS --> avoid single sentence paragraphs. --ScienceApologist 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: The only one here disputing the neutrality of the article is Ed. Please make a case that the article is POV or the NPOV tag will have to come down. FeloniousMonk 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not amazingly familiar with this article, but to help out Ed, that second sentence about the undermining thing is coming from sources who, well, for whatever reason are against the Discovery Institute and their kind of thing for some reason, it doesn't seem that the "undermined" part is well-attributed to the sources inside the sentence. Homestarmy 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're only reading the last two cites, 5 and 6. Cites number 3 and 4 both specifically support the part of passage you mention "The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution..."

Cite number 3, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement[9] (PDF file) says specifically " by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community." That clearly supports "The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution..."

Cite number 4, the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [10] says "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." This also clearly supports "The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution..."

Neither cite 3 nor 4, the AAAS and the ruling of the Dover trial, mention the Discovery Institute or are opposed to it in any meaningful way. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The AAAS cite supports my version, which says that some TTC opponents regard the campaign as "intended to undermine the teaching of evolution". Unless someone considers it OR to go from:

• Some bills seek to discredit evolution; to,
• The campaign is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution

But if there are no objections on that account, I move that we go ahead and restore my version (or the part that says this).

How about this wording:

• Some opponents of the campaign, like the AAAS, say that proponents clearly intend to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

The ref can be the American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement [11] (PDF file). Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 19:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely object. Ed, you're once again ignoring half the evidence - the ruling of the Dover trial who's cite already supports the passage in the article.

Your suggested wording here would imply that that Dover trial judge is "some opponent of the campaign." The ruling of the Dover trial that TTC is a campaign intended to undermine the teaching of evolution [12] [13] means that presenting it as just opposed by "some opponents" violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. This is exactly the sort of willful attempt to spin or weaken the scientific community's viewpoint that has has earned you your RFAr.

The passage is accurate and extremely well-supported as it is if anyone bothers to read the cites. "The American Association for the Advancement of Science say that proponents seek to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools while promoting intelligent design, a view that was confirmed by the ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial." would be accurate as well while being supported by cites 3, 4, 5, and 6. FeloniousMonk 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this version. Will you put it in, or shall I? --Uncle Ed 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The version as it was before you mucked about with it was fine (which, I think, was FM's point). What version are you agreeing with? Certainly not yours I hope. •Jim62sch• 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better in FM's version for the court thing to say "view that was supported", because in this day and age, since when does a single court case confirm, well, anything? Homestarmy 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That court case confirms and supports a long history of separation of church and state. Pasado 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a bit of difference between "support" and "confirm". I mean think about it, if a court case "confirms" a history, that pretty much means all history departments everywhere are wastes of space, since law type professions could just "confirm" history in decisions to make it so, and I just don't see how that possibly works out right. Homestarmy 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is it?

Okay, not to be a POV, but who's "winning?" Who has the upper hand? Just a question, a simple NPOV answer will be fine. I think that we need to at least mention who is gaining the upper hand currently. Upper hand is a fact, not a POV. Which one is right is a POV, but this is not. Thanks. --DeadGuy 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether you measure winning as who is currently "in the lead" or who is gaining more ground in relation to the other. Homestarmy 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Both. I just want to know which side is more likely to win in the courts.--DeadGuy 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, the evolution side has been winning before, and it doesn't appear that the Discover Institute has much chance to win anything now :/. As for who's gaining more ground in relation to the other, that depends on many factors that aren't so easy to verify, such as just how wide a net of influence each side has among the population. Homestarmy 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See-also churn

There seem to be an awful lot of edits to the "See also" section going on, all of them (wrongly, I think) marked as "minor", and -- as it seems to me -- mostly driven not by consideration of what's relevant and what isn't but by a desire to make TtC look more or less respectable by adding or removing links like "Scientific revolution" (yay!) or "Junk science" (boo!). Could the parties concerned, namely User:Portillo and User:Struct, please either desist or justify their activities here? I'm about to revert the page to the state it was in before their edits. Gareth McCaughan 13:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

naturalism

This article refers sveral times to "naturalism", but does not seem to define it. There are several WP articles on naturalism, but none of them seem to be in the same sense as the use here, so linking to them wouldnt be a good way. It should either be defined prominently or a new article, say Naturalism(theology) be written. DGG 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody can give a definition, perhaps the section should be deleted. it would appear to be a relatively minor point in the overall strategy of teaching this subject--it relates more to the different creationist theories and should probably be discussed on a more appropriate page.DGG 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. Naturalism, per the OED has four distinct yet related definitions. As with any English word with multiple senses/definitions, it is up to the reader to determne the sense based on context -- id est, the reader must use standard reading comprehension skills as taught in school and as teated from grade-school through SAT/ACT testing. Of those, the following two definitions should meet your needs: 1. Ethics. Action arising from or based on natural instincts, without spiritual guidance; a system of morality or religion derived only from human reason and having no basis in revelation. 2. Philos. The idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Also: the idea that moral concepts can be analysed in terms of concepts applicable to natural phenomena. •Jim62sch• 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Jim, it is up to the writer to make sure the reader gets the correct decision. it is really futile for a person to say that they wrote it clearly, and the other person is misreading. Effective writing means writing so that the reader can not misread. For example, which of the actually four quite different definitions you quote do you think is the appropriate one for the uses of this word here? Assuming the reader has a lesser education than oneself is a very poor tactic, even if true. DGG 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hide the evidence campaign

It's a little off topic but but it looks like the next step in the ongoing creationist campaign against biology includes hiding fossil evidence. Seriously. I wonder if the creationists here in the US will adopt this new strategy? It's pretty dang funny and they're a bit more direct and open about their motives than their US counterparts Kenya: Evangelicals Wage Anti-Evolution War. Mr Christopher 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me. After all, the motto of the scared and clueless appears to be "when the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts". •Jim62sch• 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in the Kenya material you found, but this is not the place for it. Have you a suggestion? The title "Hide the Fossils" seems rather POV, but if this is the title the movement is using and it can be shown from another source, we could use it. So what title do they use? Even if the title is POV, we must use the organizations or movement's name in an article about it. DGG 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Right Wing?

In the Shift in Stragtegy: section there is a sentence - 'All four topics are widely accepted by the majority of the scientific community as legitimate science and all four are areas of science where the right wing thinks science is wrong.' Seems to me that is equating Right Wing views with Conservative Christian views.

Now, I'm not from the US and things are a wee bit different over here but I'm not certain that sort of argument can hold water. Surely there can be non Conservative Christian Right Wingers? I know I should be bold, but I didn't want to edit and this and dive headlong into a controversy.

NatashaUK 15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant

I believe Pat Robertson's comments following the Dover trial are irrelevant to this article. They are interesting, but the quote of one man judging people for who they voted for is either off-topic or pushing it. Full disclosure: I am a young-Earth Creationist. I am a conservative Christian. I am not right-wing. I do not agree with Pat Robertson and I think this comment hurt the general perception of my faith.

Af1218 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could find and cite a source that states your position - your response to Robertson's comments - I believe it would make a great addition to this article (or if not, to another related article). SheffieldSteel 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Attacking?

In an attempt to prevent an edit war, please use this talk page to discuss if the article should say "attacking" or not. Malc82 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits in question are [14]. Malc82 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that "attacking" is correct, since insisting that the belief of the Christian conservatives in question has to be treated as equal to a scientific consensus qualifies as an attack. Also, the section is specifically about the shift in strategy, which basically is an attack plan. Malc82 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got my support. Teach the controversy along with the Wedge document were created to attack science in general, and Evolution specifically. I'll revert changes where necessary. Orangemarlin 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we came up with a verbiage that wasn't as POV as "attacking" but not as weasel-worded as " to assert opinions contrary to". Good for consensus. Orangemarlin 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did it do?

By reading the first paragraph of this article, It shows me that this article is as far away from the NPOV as it can get...Infraredeclipse 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you mean by "as far away from the NPOV as it can get" that it lacks verifiable references and citations, that it gives undue weight to minority POV, that it does not allow the facts to speak for themselves, and that it is a POV fork from an NPOV article. But, the article has numerous verifiable references, it does not give undue weight to a minority POV, it lets the facts speak for themselves, and it is not a POV fork. So it must be that your concern is focused on the fact numerous court cases and very intelligent individuals have uncovered the Discovery Institute's duplicitous and unconstitutional attempts to trick Boards of Education into trying to force our children from learning some Christian Creationist propaganda. Of course, also causing these foolish boards to pay untold millions of dollars in defending losing cases in Federal court, instead of spending that money on something useful like education. So, I guess all of those facts, followed with verified references, must violate DI's NPOV, because it doesn't violate Wiki's. Orangemarlin 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)