Talk:Darwin's Black Box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Creationism Portal This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)