Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Intelligent design

2008-06-26T18:06:23Z

Miles: /* Expelled */

{{protect|DanH}}

== Uneditable?? ==
I understand the need to monitor this "conservi" because of arguments, but there should be a way to get new ideas into a topic. So I commented that there is no evidence for intelligent design (at least in the section called "evidence"). It's a proposition or a belief, not a conveyance of facts. Show me a fact and I'll concede to "evidence," but that's not what is here. Opinions are here (see Evidence --> Support below). It's ok to believe in ID over evolution, but don't confuse your readers by calling a belief "fact." You're sending them backwards a step in their thinking; misleading them. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 18:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::I came here to say the same thing. There is no evidence to support the conjecture of intelligent design under the "evidence" section of this article. In fact, that section spends more time talking about evolution than intelligent design. You don't prove a conjecture by disproving a theory. What I would do if I could is delete everything under the "evidence" section of this page for this reason.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)

:::There is a dispute in the academic community over whether there is evidence for intelligent design. Your opinions don't count, if neither of you is an academic.

:::Specifically at issue is what sort of evidence can be accepted to prove or disprove ID's thesis - or for that matter, the naturalistic theory of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::::But would you say that anything under the "Evidence" section of this article qualifies as evidence? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 20:40, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== Evidence --> Support ==
This section contains no evidence and properly belongs under "support." The statement "...that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer" is not supported by the book quote. The book quote paraphrases 'as humans we can't experience evolution in molecular biology, so we don't ~know~ that it is true.' Ok, that's fine and it is the same statement of doubt placed on all science. Science doesn't prove anything, it just finds evidence to support hypotheses.

However, refuting proof of molecular evolution provides no evidence for intelligent design, it just leaves room for another explanation. This is the classic [[argument from ignorance]] and offers (at best) support. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That's completely irrelevant, the fact is molecular evolution has proof and ID does not making it a [[god of gaps]] scenerio. --[[User:CartoonDiablo|CartoonDiablo]] 15:51, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Arguments ==

"obfuscate?!!" I had to look it up. Anybody else pick up the irony in that statement? Education is not a bad thing. In academia, you're allowed to say just about anything you want... but you have to support it with an argument if you want people to listen.--[[User:Propro|Propro]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I find this "Bible argument" Hillarious. ID is simply idetifying in matter that an intelligent entity influenced it's existsnce. DNA and Natural law as well as the constant sad picture of mosaics show that Intelligent Design is simply identifying that the matter was created by something intelligent. There are Buddhists, Daoists, New Age, Hidnu, Moslem and Jewish people who publically support it in college. What a sad croc for evolutionsits to say it has to do with the Bible. --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is? I thought the scientific community was against it. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:19, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't say that they're liars. Just don't go down this road. There are many evolutionsits who have lied about their findings of "missing links" on the human evolutionary chain. There ahs been a lot of "hand waiving" on evolution by atheists, deists, liberals and neo-marxists for years.

We have seen this with "peer review" fraud by "denying articles on the basis of lack of peer review" for the Creation-Evolution Magazine for several years. THAT was fraud and Discovery Institute finally "broke" the peer review bubble troubling all of our "honest" evolutionists as shown in the movie: "Flock of Dodos." [[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

ID is bad science. It assumes a priori that something is true (that some intelligent designer fashioned life with intent) and then attempts to find some sort of evidence to support these claims. It is entirely contrary to fundamental scientific methodology.

Furthermore, I would question the motive of people of faith who seek evidence of the hand of god within the origins of life. Christianity is predicated upon faith. You must profess a faith in God as your savior and to search for evidence to support that faith would seem to be a position that is contradictory and perhaps even heretical, no?

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. [[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Climbing Mount Improbable]] provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Here, Hear==
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist vs. Scientists ==
Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. [[User:Order]] 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)

::The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)

::::In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*What broke up the forces? The expanding universe did, afaik. And that happened at at an exact size and an exact temperature of the universe, that can be computed from quantum physics. The force had no choice other than break apart.
:::*Chaos theory is a theory that studies the behavior of deterministic functions. However, these deterministic functions are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. It might look non-deterministic, but it isn't.
:::*Calling God a force is actually just a bit short of atheism. Why would you worship a 'force'? Or believe in a 'force'? If you belief or not doesn't matter for a 'force'. How would you feel if you would find a tribe that worships magnetism?
:::*'Energy' is something different than 'force'. They are two different words, meaning something different. Your 'force'-speak sounds very much like New Age and Star Wars. Maybe that's what attracts you to it. But it's weasel language blurring the important difference between force and energy, and obscuring the deterministic nature of both. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:15 (AEST)

==Statements and Analogies==
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Behe==

Where it says:

One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael Behe's.

We should probably specify which book of Behe's this is. There's a reference to Darwin's Black Box in the next sentence, but it's not clear in context whether it's that book or not, and if I remember correctly, that may not have been his first book. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please add a sentence to the section on opposition: ==

I would like to add a sentence to opposition:

:Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, after Richard von Sternberg managed the peer review process and published a paper by Intelligent Design researcher [[Stephen C. Meyer]], scietists at the Smithsonian Institution retaliated in what is known as the [[Smithsonian Controversy]].

Of course, the sentece could be reworked as necessary.[[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 22:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== List is not needed given category ==

Please change '''List of Intelligent Design Theorists''' to [[:Category:Intelligent design theorists]] (please look at source to see proper way to link). The list page is only linked from this page. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is an added help to the article and no harm is done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The category has all the information the list does, and is updated automatically as new items are added to the category. The list requires manual updates. If that page (too) becomes protected, then all the work needs to be done by sysops. As it is, the list page has two links on it, making it rather, well, useless. If nothing else, the link to the category should be provided in addition to the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== I just came from wiki ==

I cannot believe how biased their ID article is. And I am not a conservative. However in many areas this site is much more accurate. [[User:ProtoCat|ProtoCat]] 12:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I just came from there too and it gives a FULL discussion of ID and the issues surrounding it.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:39, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fascinating... ==
Apparently, there are [http://www.caidweb.org/blog/ conservatives against intelligent design]. Who knew? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Not all conservatives are willing to ignore or attempt to discredit things we seen as being anti-conservative. I don't see how so many people seem to view evolution as liberal and anti-christian. There are plenty of conservative christians who recognize the significance of evolution and realize that it does not go against their beliefs. I learned evolution in a Catholic school and somehow have managed to keep my faith and remain a Christian. --[[User:TheGoodSociety|UPOD]] 13:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

My wife remembers being tought about evolution by a nun(who didn't bat an eye) in a Catholic school in Colombia.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

: And who taught the nun? The [[Catholic Church]] expressly forbids any teaching evolution as it is commonly taught because it contradicts one Adam. See [[Humani Generis]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:58, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Needed Entry ==
There should be an entry in this article (in the interest of objectivity and facts) about president Bush's science advisor. Professor Marburger has stated that intelligent design is not science.

==A new year of encyclopedia building==

This article has been locked for 9 months. I don't think I need to ask anybody to unlock it, but any sysop thinks there's a problem go ahead and reprotect it.

I've opened discussions with two Wikipedians about the objections to intelligent design and have gotten some very illuminating answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Identity_of_the_designer here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_designer#Design_and_the_designer here].

Not only do evolutionists believe that natural forces alone are sufficient to explain "the gradual appearance of new forms of life", but they also see ID in terms of a [[strategy]] or [[campaign]] to introduce [[Creationism]] into U.S. public school biology courses.

Plainly there is much hostility toward religion in America, and any excuse to keep it out will be employed. It's not just about science, but about the liberal movement toward secularism. The idea that God and religion can coexist with materialism is certainly not accepted by liberals. I'm not even sure how many conservatives think coexistence is possible. A lot of Christians would like to see schools teach that God exists, the He is the source of moral and ethical rules (or values), and so on.

The stakes are pretty high here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Cdesign proponentsists==

I would like to include mention of the term [[Cdesign proponentsists]] under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Implications==

It's not possible to discuss ID or evolution without considering the implications. The clear implication of naturalistic evolution is that "forms of life came into being with God". In fact, 15% of Americans believe just that. The other 85% believe either that God caused the forms of life to come into being gradually, or that he created it all a few thousand years ago.

The [[Origins dispute]] covers this in more detail (or it should). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)

==The International Society for Science and Religion==
<blockquote>
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.

The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”
</blockquote>
Just thought I should mention this.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 20:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled==
Does this article need mention Ben Stien's instant classic: [http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ Expelled] [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 21:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:Sure: how about a 'see also' link at the end? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Is someone going to add the Expelled link? I obviously cannot. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Double Standard ==

The page on [[evolution]] (falsely) criticizes evolution for being unfalsifiable, yet bands over backwards to allow Bacon's inductive reasoning as a legitimate line of demarcation. While I (and mainstream scholars of the philosophy of science) reject Popper's narrow view of falsifiability as the demarcation between science and conjecture, it seems anything but trustworthy to hold both models to differing standards. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 13:40, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please write something about falsifiability as it applies to evolution and ID. What sorts of things might occur (or be observed) that could possibly disprove evolution, for example?

:I recall Johnson or someone writing that ID could be falsified by proving evolution, by the way. So could you contribute a bit to [[Evidence for evolution]] or [[Proof of evolution]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:48, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::I've written plenty about the [[falsifiability of evolution]] on the relevant page. Intelligent design as a theory is not falsifiable because it's built on a negation; the theory essentially states that if we can't figure out a plausible way that an organism evolved, it must have been designed. However, the fact that we do not currently understand how an organism evolved does not preclude us from figuring it out in the future, so lack of understanding = evidence of design is a false tautology. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 18:18, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:Could you please provide a source for the analysis which boils down ID to the "essential statement" that if we can't figure out a plausible way that an organism evolved, it must have been designed? I've heard that objection so many times that I'm sure there's some famous author we can credit for it.

:Meanwhile, I think we should retain the claim of ID that "some living things are so complex that they show signs of being designed", which rests on the "take out one part and the machine breaks" argument of [[Irreducible Complexity]]. Just to be fair, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

New age movement

2008-06-24T22:24:39Z

Miles: adding what helped jump start new ageism

The '''New age movement''' is a large collection of differing beliefs and practices, which all share a theme of promised [[spiritual]] growth and personal development. Practices seldom include [[Christ]] and often include [[astrology]], [[reincarnation]], [[tarot card]] reading, [[crystal ball]] gazing, [[acupuncture]], [[meditation]], [[Eastern mysticism]], and many others. An early influence on the growth of the New Age movement was the founding of the [[Theosophical Society]] by [[Madame Blavatsky]] in 1875, but it gained most popularity in the 1960s, when its followers looked forward to the dawning of the [[Age of Aquarius]].

Often vague, and undefined, the New Age Movement shuns strict dogmatic teachings. Jonathan Adolph says that the New Age Movement "has no religious doctrine or teachings of its own."<ref>Jonathan Adolph, "What is New Age?" ''New Age Journal'' (Winter 1988)</ref>

The [[Stanford Research Institute]] estimates than as much as 5 or 10% of the population identified themselves as New Agers.<ref>Jonathan Adolph,"What is New Age?" ''New Age Journal'' (Winter 1988)</ref>

The movie Star Wars helped promote New Age thinking by advocating the power of "The Force" instead of God Himself.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-24T22:20:51Z

Miles: /* Lenski's second reply */

== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
 www.conservapedia.com
 cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Draft letter ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek

== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==

Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.

This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current total of supporters: 7'''

*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.

We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

----

Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.

:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

{{unsigned|Benp}}

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Follow-up Email==
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?

I would suggest something along these lines:

''Dear Professor Lenski''
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
''Thank you,''
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''

Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==

One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.

Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.

But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)

This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:

{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}

:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind.

:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.

:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.

:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.

::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.

:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.

:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Question==
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::At the end of the introduction to the revised paper, Wiles indicates that the original error was detected in discussions between himself, Nick Katz, Luc Illusie and Richard Taylor. Katz is a professor at Princeton, Illusie at Paris Sud, and Taylor at Harvard. Between the three of them they now have over 200 peer reviewed papers on elliptic curves and Galois representation theory. Of course their records were weaker at the relevant time in 1993, but they were certainly all established mathematicians. I think they were all at the Isaac Newton Institute when Wiles first explained his work in lectures there. So it is far from the truth to suggest that Wiles's expert friends declared the proof complete, or that errors were found by random other people after the release of the preprint. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 17:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==

I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::So your answers are

# you "skimmed" it
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.

What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.

I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

)

:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.

:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review. Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names. I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it. Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation? I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.
:Carl Wieland
:Don Batten
:Gary Bates
:Jonathan Sarfati
:Tas Walker
:David Catchpoole
:Pierre Jerlström
:Peter Sparrow
:Russell Grigg
:Mark Harwood
:John Hartnett
:Rod Walsh
:Barry Tapp
:Stephen Grocott
:Richard Fangrad
:Emil Silvestru
:Calvin Smith
:Jeff Chiasson
:Adrian Bates
:Johan Kruger
:Philip Bell
:Rob Carter
:Skip Tilton
:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=University+act&meta= If you scroll down a bit] Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.

::PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.

I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

==Detractor Lineup==

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''

* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Comments'''

StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.

But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== False Claim of a Bad motive ==

Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.

:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.

:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?

:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]

:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?

:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]

:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: StatsMsn, note that:

:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work

: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it.

::*Correct
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it.

::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.

::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.

::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.

Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?

And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.

: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

----

[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.

Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:

* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results

If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.

Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Failure to supply data? ==

Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Piltdown All Over Again ==

The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.

As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp

:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.

::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:

: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.

The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see?

Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:

: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).

: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).

In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)

Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.

Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== General Reply ==

Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review.

It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:

Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)

Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)

Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)

Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)

Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison. Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS. So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all. The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate. Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806. No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly. I'd invite you to take a look. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.

::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.

::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)

::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?

::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)". It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind. If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk. If not, then please rant somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper.

:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here. If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so. Otherwise, it's a futile exercise. Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it. Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.

: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.

: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.

: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)

: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed. The underlying data are not in the papers. The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse. The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski). Let's see what they analyzed. We may see things they missed or ignored. Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose. In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.

:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(this discussion is limited to those who accept the logical premise repeated above: "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data." Sermons, rants and illogical postings can be made elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT))

::: Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):

:::: After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit+ mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

::: So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).

::: Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)

::: The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)

::: So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)

::: So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.

::: As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.

::: So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.

::: Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.

::: So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)

::: As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)

Thank you, Divaricatum, for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently on the page. I believe that Lenski was being straight when he published his findings, and that barring gross fraud, the paper is very well-researched. -- Aaronp

==Note re. article==
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Lenski's second reply==
Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Really, Bugler? After that statement, I have trouble believing you're real. Atheistic pseudo-science? Liberal deceit? Do you even know what you're talking about? This isn't pseudo-science. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the information is suddenly invalid. In fact, after what is seemingly a post purely to stroke Andy's ego just a little bit more, even in the face of Lenski's reply, I believe that you are just a sock of Aschlafly. By the way, I'm expecting a 90/10 for this. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of dignifying such a ridiculous post in that manner. Nor does the exchange require my poor talents to explain it to you. The messages stand by themselves, and Andy's honest intentions and integrity stand out. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok Bugler, to be fair, I will let go of my frustration and attempt to make a "valid" point. Can we at least respect Lenski for taking the time to write out his replies? The man is incredibly busy (trust me, I know), and still managed to communicate to a random person from the internet who was challenging 20 years worth of work. In addition to this, Lenski was very courteous with his replies! Surely we can't demonize the man purely because of his work on a bacterial strain? I can respect that Andy was doing what he thought was right, but can't we also give the same courtesy to Lenski, who put equal heart into his own work? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::I can't say I noticed sarcasm or mockery in Andy's messages. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::True, but I did notice some serious (unfounded) allegations of fraud in his statements on the talk page; since the talk page is public domain, it means that Lenski saw them as well. I would say that Andy was being very rude, accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::::: Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Anyway back to my question, are you now satisfied in the response? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review..." "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.

: Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::''You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this!'' You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp

::::The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp
That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was fraudulent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp

Lenski's reply in a nutshell, once all the talk pollution and ad hominem attacks are removed: No, I will not give you my raw data or my E. Coli samples, not to you or any other non-Darwinist.

And we're still supposed to believe his research is legitimate??? This is exactly what Andy predicted he would do, only not necessarily so rudely. Andy wins. Game. Set. Match. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 10:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think [[Behe]] meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Behe? Are you serious? He's supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He's an evolutionist who happens to say "oh yeah, God guided evolution." As if there was anything on the Earth ''not'' guided by God! Just because he's one of the few scientists who isn't an atheist he's supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I'd rather go with someone who didn't drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::In spite of his Old Earth views or sympathies to evolution, Behe would be the perfect person for the job. He's a scientist! Has anyone contacted him yet? I bet he would jump at the opportunity to do research like this and having it published in a peer review journal would make ID more credible. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Missing Link ==

Excuse the pun but could you please provide the link missing from Lenski's second reply. I know your against censorship so assume good faith here. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 06:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:What missing link is that? All the links to Wikipedia are included. I dont think Andy would stoop so low as to remove anything from the letter when Lenski he specifically asked that it be reproduced in its entirety. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 07:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::This one '[Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter]'. As stated above I am not suggesting anyone is stooping anywhere and assume good faith. I would still like to see the link. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 07:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh yes, I didn't see that. Well in that case I think I think it should be made known. Even if a spam filter stops it being shown then there could be a couple of asterisks to get round it. Although I doubt that Lenski would use any profanity in his reply so I don't know what could possibly be excised from the original. Without it the terms of Lenski's post have not been complied with. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 07:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The spam filter blocked it because it consists of a link previously determined by this site to be unacceptable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I am concerned that you have chosen to censor an element of Lenski's reply. Could you please be more specific. If Lenski's reply contained vulgarities etc this is of note to the argument at hand. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::It does seem rather odd that one of his references was omitted. It can hardly be a pornographic site. In general, what other links are subject to censorship?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly has said that the site concerned has been deemed unacceptable. Further questioning on this point will be deemed disruptive and dealt with accordingly. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:It hardly seems fair to censor part of Professor Lenski's full and comprehensive reply. It also seems to be a little heavy-handed to say that people who ask questions about such censorship will be "dealt with accordingly".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::No, the link should definitely not be revealed. Although I, naturally, don't know what the link is to, though we can assume it was a shock site, foul language, pornography, or something in that line. Since Lenski knew that his response would be posted on this family-friendly encyclopedia, he would have purposefully put the link in to aggravate readers. That tells us a lot about [[professor values|his attitude]], and by keeping the link intact, we let him "win".

::However, I would like to ask mr. Schlafly to reveal the ''nature'' of the unacceptable site. I personally find it a bit strange that Lenski would insert a pornographic link in his otherwise relevant response. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 09:59, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If I am allowed to continue questioning this without further threats from sysop:Bugler I would say that it seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the link would be to "shock site". But I agree with you that we should be told why it was necessary to censor the reply. Especially so when Mr Schafly has been arguing for the importance of the disclosure of data all this time.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Deal however you see fit Bugler old fruit. Your censorship of both me and more importantly of Lenski will stand fine testament. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Censorship? Censorship? Even a good dog needs a tug on the choke chain every now and again - and where on earth am I supposed to have censored the esteemed Prof? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Bugler. Very obviously the link in Lenski's e-mail has been censored (as per the top of this thread). I have simply asked specifically why this is the case. If that gets me banned it says more about you than me. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler, perhaps rather than trying to speak for Mr. Schlafly, you could stand down and let him respond to questions that were directed at him and that he is more qualified to answer. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 10:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::RedDog, it has been removed as it links to a site deemed unacceptable. I do not know what the link was. I did no remove it. However, one either believes that Andrew Schlafly acted in good faith or not. If you believe not, then why should you be here? I know I wouldn't be. And since he acted in good faith and the best interests of CP, we should leave it at that.

ZTak, MYOB
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:I agree Bugler and I accept good faith. But make no mistake this IS censorship. There is no other word for it. I do accept what you say though and will let the matter drop here. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

My guess would be RW. I know that it is blocked by the spam filter, and I don't know of any other websites blocked by the filter. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:What is "RW"? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:If you knew that is the site, it would be improper for you to mention it by name. Since you don't know, it is utterly irresponsible of you to speculate. Do you see what you have started? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Asking what it is seems a lot different from speculating as to what it is... [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry, that comment was to CPadmin, not Drochld [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::No problem; apology accepted. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

(@Tim)Why would Professor Lenski be linking to RW? Quite frankly, there are many other more reliable websites to be used as sources... --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::RW is a wiki which claims to be rational. It is highly critical of Conservapedia and I had understood that mentioning its existence generally got the poster blocked. Am I correct in this or has that polocy changed?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:09, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Tolerance is correct. The place is the cesspit of the internet. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:12, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I assume you don't visit the cesspit? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::The place exists, and I see no reason to pretend that it doesn't. I was simply guessing as to what the removed link might be. As for mentioning it by name, I did not do so. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Asking for the name of the site that was deliberately not mentioned requires an expectation that the unnamed site will be named, which is clearly ludicrous. My speculation is the same as CPAdmin1's. I don't think anything further can be gained by discussing this particular point, so apart from a totally new take on the issue with good reason, I'm declaring this particular discussion (regarding the site's name) now closed, and further discussion on it will result in blocks. Okay? (Too bad if it's not!). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== "P.P.P.P.S.?" ==

Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Fair enough. I think Lenski raises a valid point that honestly hadn't occurred to me--namely, the logistics of transporting and storing biological materials. While a request for data stored in electronic form is one thing, a request for actual samples of the cultures is another. Unless facilities for the storage of such material are available, I don't think this issue can be brought to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for everyone. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== E. coli in our bowels ==

So if they're mutating and evolving, why don't they kill us? Our bodies obviously have defenses that protect us from the E. coli in our guts, but with all this evolving supposedly going on, you'd think they'd have evolved into something that could overcome those defenses and kill us so they could feast on our corpses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT) + I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
: Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
: Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) +
:: Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? Bobdobbs 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peer Review Process==

My apologies if I am contributing to a debate that has already closed, but skimmed through the letters exchanged and the debate here and noticed a slight discrepancy in understanding. The peer reviewers of a paper do not receive any data other than that which is eventually published in the journal (although some may be removed by the editor, such as for page restrictions). They exist to judge the method and to ensure that the conclusions are accurately drawn from the results provided in the paper. They do not check to make sure the raw data is properly summarised in the results, nor do they ever have access to the raw data. The checking of raw data is carried out after the paper is published, either through scientists reproducing the experiment or (such as in this case) obtaining materials and records directly from the scientist involved.

Hope this clears things up. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well I don't know the details of the peer review process. I also dunno about anyone else. But I did get a chuckle out of his little anecdote. For what its worth, it lightened my mood after 38 hours without sleep, (recipe for regret, I don't recommend it). [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:44, 24 June 2008

== Reply to Lenski's second-last paragraph ==

Dr. Lenski, I hope you get to read this.

I have no dispute with most of your second letter (or your first one), and you will note above my objections to the letters being sent to you, but do wish to respond to your second-last paragraph (the P.P.P.S.). You point out earlier in your letter than Andy Schlafly lacks expertise in the relevant fields, but you then proceed to pontificate on an area in which you appear to have no expertise, biblical [[exegesis]].

The main problem with your claim that God may have used evolution is not that He could not have, but that He said that he didn't (or, more precisely, what He said that He did is incompatible with evolution). What is "insulting to God" is rejecting what He has plainly told us that He did.

This point has been made over and over by creationists, so your lack of awareness of this demonstrates that you have little idea of what creationists actually claim and believe, yet it seems that you yourself are willing to go beyond your expertise when it suits you.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Don't take too much notice of some of the messages posted above, a few of which are likely parodist troublemakers.

:He wasn't talking about Creationism (specifically Young Earth Creationism) though, Philip. As you are aware, many Christians, possibly the majority, reject YEC and use very similar arguments that Lenski iterated, i.e. that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive and it is presumptuous of any of us to claim knowledge of how precisely God created the universe. Of course, that's the core disagreement between YEC and more theistic evolution positions. You would expect an evolutionary biologist to side with the latter in his appreciation and understanding of Christianity. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just to clarify - I'm not deliberately arguing, just pointing out what I understood to be his position on that bit. I agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Fair Warning==
Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well]. I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else or just a mistake.[[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Please be charitable==

[[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] was trying to warn you about the risk of ridicule. Please be charitable and unblock him.[[User:Veronica|Veronica]] 10:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&oldid=478060 See this]

:Veronica, please see my response to 'Fair Warning' above. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler ==
(only because Bugler seems to be answering all the questions to Aschlafly)

* I am repeating DanielB's question. Prof. Lenski has agreed to share the data.. actually the real samples to anyone with the credentials. Are you satisfied by his response?

* How can I obtain an uncensored version of the letter?

Please answer... I would love to hear from the top man himself. not any of the acolytes.

thank you in anticipation. --[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

: Seconded, I'd love to hear Mr. Schlafly's responce to Lenki's second letter. He basically agreed to all demands, stating the required conditions under which they can be met, so what's going to happen now? (now signed) --[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 17:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well I hope we're not going to stop here. It's not just an issue of will the evolutionist make their data open to the public, but we must validate that data, yes? I'm curious to know which university Mr Schlafly will be working with to receive the biological samples and also I'm curious to know what researcher(s) he will ask to experiment/validate the data. I don't recall an evolutionist ever being this open with their data so this is all so very intriguing. Perhaps the Discovery Institute could help, they have a laboratory in Seattle Washington where they conduct intelligent design experiments and biology research all the time. That would be a logical resource. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Question concerning deletions==

Bugler,

I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:No. I don't know how this happened. I shall restore the [passage concerned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Miles

2008-06-24T22:10:33Z

Miles: New page: I had forgotten my password and even my user name. I finally found them both! :-)

I had forgotten my password and even my user name. I finally found them both! :-)

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-24T22:08:48Z

Miles: /* Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler */

== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
 www.conservapedia.com
 cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Draft letter ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek

== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==

Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.

This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current total of supporters: 7'''

*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.

We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

----

Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.

:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

{{unsigned|Benp}}

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Follow-up Email==
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?

I would suggest something along these lines:

''Dear Professor Lenski''
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
''Thank you,''
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''

Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==

One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.

Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.

But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)

This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:

{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}

:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind.

:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.

:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.

:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.

::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.

:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.

:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Question==
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::At the end of the introduction to the revised paper, Wiles indicates that the original error was detected in discussions between himself, Nick Katz, Luc Illusie and Richard Taylor. Katz is a professor at Princeton, Illusie at Paris Sud, and Taylor at Harvard. Between the three of them they now have over 200 peer reviewed papers on elliptic curves and Galois representation theory. Of course their records were weaker at the relevant time in 1993, but they were certainly all established mathematicians. I think they were all at the Isaac Newton Institute when Wiles first explained his work in lectures there. So it is far from the truth to suggest that Wiles's expert friends declared the proof complete, or that errors were found by random other people after the release of the preprint. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 17:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==

I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::So your answers are

# you "skimmed" it
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.

What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.

I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

)

:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.

:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review. Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names. I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it. Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation? I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.
:Carl Wieland
:Don Batten
:Gary Bates
:Jonathan Sarfati
:Tas Walker
:David Catchpoole
:Pierre Jerlström
:Peter Sparrow
:Russell Grigg
:Mark Harwood
:John Hartnett
:Rod Walsh
:Barry Tapp
:Stephen Grocott
:Richard Fangrad
:Emil Silvestru
:Calvin Smith
:Jeff Chiasson
:Adrian Bates
:Johan Kruger
:Philip Bell
:Rob Carter
:Skip Tilton
:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=University+act&meta= If you scroll down a bit] Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.

::PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.

I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

==Detractor Lineup==

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''

* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Comments'''

StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.

But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== False Claim of a Bad motive ==

Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.

:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.

:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?

:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]

:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?

:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]

:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: StatsMsn, note that:

:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work

: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it.

::*Correct
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it.

::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.

::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.

::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.

Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?

And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.

: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

----

[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.

Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:

* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results

If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.

Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Failure to supply data? ==

Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Piltdown All Over Again ==

The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.

As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp

:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.

::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:

: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.

The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see?

Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:

: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).

: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).

In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)

Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.

Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== General Reply ==

Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review.

It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:

Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)

Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)

Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)

Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)

Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison. Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS. So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all. The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate. Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806. No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly. I'd invite you to take a look. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.

::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.

::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)

::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?

::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)". It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind. If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk. If not, then please rant somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper.

:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here. If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so. Otherwise, it's a futile exercise. Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it. Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.

: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.

: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.

: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)

: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed. The underlying data are not in the papers. The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse. The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski). Let's see what they analyzed. We may see things they missed or ignored. Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose. In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.

:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(this discussion is limited to those who accept the logical premise repeated above: "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data." Sermons, rants and illogical postings can be made elsewhere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT))

::: Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):

:::: After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit+ mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

::: So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).

::: Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)

::: The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)

::: So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)

::: So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.

::: As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.

::: So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.

::: Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.

::: So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)

::: As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)

Thank you, Divaricatum, for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently on the page. I believe that Lenski was being straight when he published his findings, and that barring gross fraud, the paper is very well-researched. -- Aaronp

==Note re. article==
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Lenski's second reply==
Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Really, Bugler? After that statement, I have trouble believing you're real. Atheistic pseudo-science? Liberal deceit? Do you even know what you're talking about? This isn't pseudo-science. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the information is suddenly invalid. In fact, after what is seemingly a post purely to stroke Andy's ego just a little bit more, even in the face of Lenski's reply, I believe that you are just a sock of Aschlafly. By the way, I'm expecting a 90/10 for this. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of dignifying such a ridiculous post in that manner. Nor does the exchange require my poor talents to explain it to you. The messages stand by themselves, and Andy's honest intentions and integrity stand out. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok Bugler, to be fair, I will let go of my frustration and attempt to make a "valid" point. Can we at least respect Lenski for taking the time to write out his replies? The man is incredibly busy (trust me, I know), and still managed to communicate to a random person from the internet who was challenging 20 years worth of work. In addition to this, Lenski was very courteous with his replies! Surely we can't demonize the man purely because of his work on a bacterial strain? I can respect that Andy was doing what he thought was right, but can't we also give the same courtesy to Lenski, who put equal heart into his own work? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::I can't say I noticed sarcasm or mockery in Andy's messages. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::True, but I did notice some serious (unfounded) allegations of fraud in his statements on the talk page; since the talk page is public domain, it means that Lenski saw them as well. I would say that Andy was being very rude, accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::::: Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Anyway back to my question, are you now satisfied in the response? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review..." "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.

: Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::''You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this!'' You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp

::::The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp
That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was fraudulent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp

Lenski's reply in a nutshell, once all the talk pollution and ad hominem attacks are removed: No, I will not give you my raw data or my E. Coli samples, not to you or any other non-Darwinist.

And we're still supposed to believe his research is legitimate??? This is exactly what Andy predicted he would do, only not necessarily so rudely. Andy wins. Game. Set. Match. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 10:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think [[Behe]] meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Behe? Are you serious? He's supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He's an evolutionist who happens to say "oh yeah, God guided evolution." As if there was anything on the Earth ''not'' guided by God! Just because he's one of the few scientists who isn't an atheist he's supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I'd rather go with someone who didn't drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Missing Link ==

Excuse the pun but could you please provide the link missing from Lenski's second reply. I know your against censorship so assume good faith here. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 06:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:What missing link is that? All the links to Wikipedia are included. I dont think Andy would stoop so low as to remove anything from the letter when Lenski he specifically asked that it be reproduced in its entirety. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 07:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::This one '[Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter]'. As stated above I am not suggesting anyone is stooping anywhere and assume good faith. I would still like to see the link. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 07:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh yes, I didn't see that. Well in that case I think I think it should be made known. Even if a spam filter stops it being shown then there could be a couple of asterisks to get round it. Although I doubt that Lenski would use any profanity in his reply so I don't know what could possibly be excised from the original. Without it the terms of Lenski's post have not been complied with. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 07:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The spam filter blocked it because it consists of a link previously determined by this site to be unacceptable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I am concerned that you have chosen to censor an element of Lenski's reply. Could you please be more specific. If Lenski's reply contained vulgarities etc this is of note to the argument at hand. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::It does seem rather odd that one of his references was omitted. It can hardly be a pornographic site. In general, what other links are subject to censorship?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly has said that the site concerned has been deemed unacceptable. Further questioning on this point will be deemed disruptive and dealt with accordingly. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:It hardly seems fair to censor part of Professor Lenski's full and comprehensive reply. It also seems to be a little heavy-handed to say that people who ask questions about such censorship will be "dealt with accordingly".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::No, the link should definitely not be revealed. Although I, naturally, don't know what the link is to, though we can assume it was a shock site, foul language, pornography, or something in that line. Since Lenski knew that his response would be posted on this family-friendly encyclopedia, he would have purposefully put the link in to aggravate readers. That tells us a lot about [[professor values|his attitude]], and by keeping the link intact, we let him "win".

::However, I would like to ask mr. Schlafly to reveal the ''nature'' of the unacceptable site. I personally find it a bit strange that Lenski would insert a pornographic link in his otherwise relevant response. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 09:59, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If I am allowed to continue questioning this without further threats from sysop:Bugler I would say that it seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the link would be to "shock site". But I agree with you that we should be told why it was necessary to censor the reply. Especially so when Mr Schafly has been arguing for the importance of the disclosure of data all this time.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Deal however you see fit Bugler old fruit. Your censorship of both me and more importantly of Lenski will stand fine testament. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Censorship? Censorship? Even a good dog needs a tug on the choke chain every now and again - and where on earth am I supposed to have censored the esteemed Prof? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Bugler. Very obviously the link in Lenski's e-mail has been censored (as per the top of this thread). I have simply asked specifically why this is the case. If that gets me banned it says more about you than me. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler, perhaps rather than trying to speak for Mr. Schlafly, you could stand down and let him respond to questions that were directed at him and that he is more qualified to answer. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 10:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::RedDog, it has been removed as it links to a site deemed unacceptable. I do not know what the link was. I did no remove it. However, one either believes that Andrew Schlafly acted in good faith or not. If you believe not, then why should you be here? I know I wouldn't be. And since he acted in good faith and the best interests of CP, we should leave it at that.

ZTak, MYOB
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:I agree Bugler and I accept good faith. But make no mistake this IS censorship. There is no other word for it. I do accept what you say though and will let the matter drop here. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

My guess would be RW. I know that it is blocked by the spam filter, and I don't know of any other websites blocked by the filter. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:What is "RW"? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:If you knew that is the site, it would be improper for you to mention it by name. Since you don't know, it is utterly irresponsible of you to speculate. Do you see what you have started? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Asking what it is seems a lot different from speculating as to what it is... [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry, that comment was to CPadmin, not Drochld [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::No problem; apology accepted. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

(@Tim)Why would Professor Lenski be linking to RW? Quite frankly, there are many other more reliable websites to be used as sources... --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::RW is a wiki which claims to be rational. It is highly critical of Conservapedia and I had understood that mentioning its existence generally got the poster blocked. Am I correct in this or has that polocy changed?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:09, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Tolerance is correct. The place is the cesspit of the internet. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:12, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I assume you don't visit the cesspit? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::The place exists, and I see no reason to pretend that it doesn't. I was simply guessing as to what the removed link might be. As for mentioning it by name, I did not do so. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Asking for the name of the site that was deliberately not mentioned requires an expectation that the unnamed site will be named, which is clearly ludicrous. My speculation is the same as CPAdmin1's. I don't think anything further can be gained by discussing this particular point, so apart from a totally new take on the issue with good reason, I'm declaring this particular discussion (regarding the site's name) now closed, and further discussion on it will result in blocks. Okay? (Too bad if it's not!). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== "P.P.P.P.S.?" ==

Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Fair enough. I think Lenski raises a valid point that honestly hadn't occurred to me--namely, the logistics of transporting and storing biological materials. While a request for data stored in electronic form is one thing, a request for actual samples of the cultures is another. Unless facilities for the storage of such material are available, I don't think this issue can be brought to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for everyone. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== E. coli in our bowels ==

So if they're mutating and evolving, why don't they kill us? Our bodies obviously have defenses that protect us from the E. coli in our guts, but with all this evolving supposedly going on, you'd think they'd have evolved into something that could overcome those defenses and kill us so they could feast on our corpses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT) + I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
: Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
: Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) +
:: Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? Bobdobbs 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peer Review Process==

My apologies if I am contributing to a debate that has already closed, but skimmed through the letters exchanged and the debate here and noticed a slight discrepancy in understanding. The peer reviewers of a paper do not receive any data other than that which is eventually published in the journal (although some may be removed by the editor, such as for page restrictions). They exist to judge the method and to ensure that the conclusions are accurately drawn from the results provided in the paper. They do not check to make sure the raw data is properly summarised in the results, nor do they ever have access to the raw data. The checking of raw data is carried out after the paper is published, either through scientists reproducing the experiment or (such as in this case) obtaining materials and records directly from the scientist involved.

Hope this clears things up. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well I don't know the details of the peer review process. I also dunno about anyone else. But I did get a chuckle out of his little anecdote. For what its worth, it lightened my mood after 38 hours without sleep, (recipe for regret, I don't recommend it). [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:44, 24 June 2008

== Reply to Lenski's second-last paragraph ==

Dr. Lenski, I hope you get to read this.

I have no dispute with most of your second letter (or your first one), and you will note above my objections to the letters being sent to you, but do wish to respond to your second-last paragraph (the P.P.P.S.). You point out earlier in your letter than Andy Schlafly lacks expertise in the relevant fields, but you then proceed to pontificate on an area in which you appear to have no expertise, biblical [[exegesis]].

The main problem with your claim that God may have used evolution is not that He could not have, but that He said that he didn't (or, more precisely, what He said that He did is incompatible with evolution). What is "insulting to God" is rejecting what He has plainly told us that He did.

This point has been made over and over by creationists, so your lack of awareness of this demonstrates that you have little idea of what creationists actually claim and believe, yet it seems that you yourself are willing to go beyond your expertise when it suits you.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Don't take too much notice of some of the messages posted above, a few of which are likely parodist troublemakers.

:He wasn't talking about Creationism (specifically Young Earth Creationism) though, Philip. As you are aware, many Christians, possibly the majority, reject YEC and use very similar arguments that Lenski iterated, i.e. that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive and it is presumptuous of any of us to claim knowledge of how precisely God created the universe. Of course, that's the core disagreement between YEC and more theistic evolution positions. You would expect an evolutionary biologist to side with the latter in his appreciation and understanding of Christianity. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just to clarify - I'm not deliberately arguing, just pointing out what I understood to be his position on that bit. I agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Fair Warning==
Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well]. I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else or just a mistake.[[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Please be charitable==

[[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] was trying to warn you about the risk of ridicule. Please be charitable and unblock him.[[User:Veronica|Veronica]] 10:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&oldid=478060 See this]

:Veronica, please see my response to 'Fair Warning' above. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler ==
(only because Bugler seems to be answering all the questions to Aschlafly)

* I am repeating DanielB's question. Prof. Lenski has agreed to share the data.. actually the real samples to anyone with the credentials. Are you satisfied by his response?

* How can I obtain an uncensored version of the letter?

Please answer... I would love to hear from the top man himself. not any of the acolytes.

thank you in anticipation. --[[User:Kajira|Kajira]] 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

: Seconded, I'd love to hear Mr. Schlafly's responce to Lenki's second letter. He basically agreed to all demands, stating the required conditions under which they can be met, so what's going to happen now? (now signed) --[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 17:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well I hope we're not going to stop here. It's not just an issue of will the evolutionist make their data open to the public, but we must validate that data, yes? I'm curious to know which university Mr Schlafly will be working with to receive the biological samples and also I'm curious to know what researcher(s) he will ask to experiment/validate the data. I don't recall an evolutionist ever being this open with their data so this is all so very intriguing. Perhaps the Discovery Institute could help, they have a laboratory in Seattle Washington where they conduct intelligent design experiments and biology research all the time. That would be a logical resource. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Question concerning deletions==

Bugler,

I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:No. I don't know how this happened. I shall restore the [passage concerned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-04T21:47:57Z

Miles: /* is the watch analogy useful or misleading? */

{{protect|CPWebmaster}}

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Here, Hear==
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-03T22:27:56Z

Miles: /* is the watch analogy useful or misleading? */

{{protect|CPWebmaster}}

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-03T20:42:08Z

Miles: /* is the watch analogy useful or misleading? */

{{protect|CPWebmaster}}

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-03T20:22:15Z

Miles: the watch analogy

{{protect|CPWebmaster}}

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:New age movement

2007-04-03T20:15:17Z

Miles:

Should this article point out why New Ager's are dopey? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not in so many words. It would be better to take a 'both sides' approach, as Wikipedia says (but often does not do). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::Everwill, do you mean because they are choosing paths other than Christ and therefore inviting a doomed afterlife? I think making a distinction and pointing a few things out might be a good idea. Of course we should avoid predicting who will be saved and who won't. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I just made some edits that I think better describes the subject without making new agers look "dopey" :-) [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

New age movement

2007-04-03T20:14:12Z

Miles: spelling and making it clear what they seek (or don't seek)

The New Age movement is a name given to are large collection of differing beliefs and practices, which all share a theme of promised spiritual growth and personal development. Practices seldom include Christ and often include [[astrology]], [[reincarnation]], [[tarot card]] reading, [[crystal ball]] gazing, [[acupuncture]], [[meditation]], [[Eastern mysticism]], and many others. An early influence on the growth of the New Age movement was the founding of the [[Theosophical Society]] by Madamme Blavatsky in 1875, but it really took off in the 1960s, when its followers looked forward to the dawning of the [[Age of Aquarius]].

Talk:New age movement

2007-04-03T20:09:24Z

Miles: can you elaborate, Everwill?

Talk:American Civil War

2007-03-28T22:41:14Z

Miles: /* Alternate Names for Civil War */

The main issue may have been states' rights... but specifically it was the states' right to keep slavery. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate Names for Civil War ==

According to a friend of mine in Atlanta, the older generation is still known to refer to it as "The Late Great Unpleasantness" :-D [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 19:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: If you can find a resource supporting that, feel free to add it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's why it's here in the Talk page; I don't have a source other than the friend in question. Just thought it might be worth a chuckle. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 20:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I see. I looked it up on google and found a few sites that actually use the phrase. Think it's worth mentioning? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Civil war is not the most accurate term, since a civil war is (according to m-w.com) a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. The American "Civil War" was a war between the U.S. and a group of states who believed themselves to be of another country. Thus the term civil war really depends on if you consider the Confederacy to be part of the U.S. or not. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Have to disagree with you there. Lincoln himself used the term "civil war" before the war even started, in his first innaugural address in 1861. He knew exactly what it was, and what was coming. The term was used throuhout the war and after the war; it was used extensively by participents on both sides, and quite frankly it would be better to listen to them first, then a bunch of revisionist historians today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::My great grandpappy used to say "there weren't nothin' civil about that war" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Going to remake this article==
My layout to expand this article will be based around the following subheading plan:
*Intro paragraph
*Prelude to war
**Description of North prior to 1850
**Description of South prior to 1850
**Slavery
**Political machinations and compromises
**Dred Scott decision
**John Brown
**1860 Presidential campaign
*1861
**Secession of the Southern states
**Ft Sumter, etc for 1861
*same for 1862,63,64,65...detailing battles and other events for each year of the war.
*Lincoln's death
*Reconstruction
*Innovations during the war; detailing weapons, the ''Hunley'', etc.
*Foreign affairs; the Trent affair, the use of cotton as a bargaining tool, the South's attempts at foreign recognition, etc.
*Use of blacks as troops
*Deaths during the war
*Effects of the war
The article will include detailed maps and photos where needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds excellent. I had been considering making an article about the Kansas-Missouri border skirmishes, but that seems to be covered under what you have planned. I look forward to seeing the end product. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, anyone can jump in and contribute, as long as this basic plan is followed. I'm going to start by Monday...as soon as some college essays are typed and finished. I hate college essays! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Insult of a flag. ==

Please, if a C.S.A. flag is going to be put up, at least put up the correct flag, or at least a properly shaped battle flag. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:The flag I used was the CSA naval jack, which is the most familiar flag to readers, plus the Union flag then in use. The arrangement of the flags in this maner I did deliberately after a similar arrangement which was part of the standard used for the Gettysburg 50th Anniversary Reunion of both Union and Confederate soldiers in Gettysburg, PA, 1913. I would use the standard itself if I can get a good picture of it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:The flag/table that is here in this article can also be used for every article on the Civil War in Conservapedia as a tie-in. If the table was used for Gettysburg, we'd alter it to include the leading commanders, number of men engaged, casuaties, etc. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Found the logo in question, from Time-Life Books in their Civil War series, and this one illustrated the cover to a program on the Battle of Gettysburg 1938 Reunion (not 1913). I made my own version of it, and so far I think it looks good. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's still not the C.S.A. flag. That's a misshapen battle flag (which was a square flag). If the third National flag of the C.S.A. was used, I think it would be much more appropriate. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is not a mis-shapen battle flag; it was the rectangular design crafted for use as a naval jack onboard CSA warships. This is attested from period paintings, photographs, the files from the Official Records, and other sources. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Touché ;) I would still prefer the third National flag be used, as it was the official flag of the C.S.A., but that's just my feelings. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 12:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::This does not mean that the CSA flag will not be displayed here, or in an article about the Confederate States. If you'll look in Wikipedia at any Navy warship, you'll see a table to the right, and in the table is an image file of the Navy jack. The way I see this subject progressing, I intend to have such a table in every Civil War article here, and I think that a flag image is warranted in a similar manner, but current for the year in question (for example, Gettysburg should display the CSA flag used for 1863). I'll have to figure out how to include it in the table, but that will come later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Works for me. Thanks. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I'm having a problam doing it, but if possible, can you upload all CSA flags to a separate file page? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I have the images ready, as soon as file uploading is fixed I'll take care of uploading all the flags. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Prelude to war subheading==
So far I'm working on what you see here. In the heading titled "political machinations" I would like to have more than just the Missouri Compromise. Such would include the Compromise of 1850, Kansas/Nebraska act, and so forth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Southern Titles==
The article is titled "American Civil War" and as such I'm not going to allow the intro paragraph to be overburdened by additional names. But there are Southern titles for this war, and I've included them in a separate subheading, including why the name "civil war" is more accurate. The article as a whole will remain neutral.

As far as battles are concerned, they will be called by both names where practical. '''First Bull Run''' will also have '''First Manassas''' side-by-side in a "North/South" fashion when that info is presented, and so on for any other battle where that battle is known by both names. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Deadliest war ==

The article states the Civil War was "[t]he deadliest war ever fought in American history...". Does the term "American history" confine the observation to American civil wars? If so there really only has been one that I am aware of (so it's not much of a comparison). Also, I understand that the US had some involvement in the First and Second World Wars for example. I think about 50 million died in the Second World War. Was that war part of American history? In which case it was more deadly than the Civil War. Or does the word "deadliest" only apply to American casualties? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "deadliest" was a replacement by Myk over a word I had used: "worst". As to what you're implying, the Civil War was THE worst war we had fought, for two reasons: 1) in terms of casualty versus population percentage it was higher than any other war we fought in, and in terms of battle deaths there were more men lost in the Civil War than in every other war that we had fought in combined, leaving out WWII. And 2), there is no war that is worse than a civil war, because the very nature of the war tears apart the country, which is what nearly happened back in the 1860's. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Worst might also imply that it was a war in which we fought poorly in, can it not? I would use deadliest, even if it is a slightly non-encyclopaedic word, because of the reasons stated above. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bleeding Kansas==

Very minor point, but I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with the claim that "Bleeding Kansas" culminated with the Lawrence raid/Brown massacre, because there were a few other events after 1856, such as the Marais Des Cygnes massacre of 1858. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's part of the "Bleeding Kansas" episode, which can be briefly addressed here...in fact, writeups of battles and events are briefly listed here. What I want to do is complete this, and make it as large as possible, then use the article as a template for every event listed for the Civil War (I just added the table to the [[Battle of Gettysburg]]). What I need for this article is several (free domain) USA maps that chronicle the changes in the country from 1850-1861, and several strategic battle maps that show the movements of armies across the country; the blockade; a detailed look at the battles within the Virginia area. Other pics an be added later as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'll see what I can find for that, although I have had problems uploading images on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Citations/Protection? ==

This article has a strange lack of citations. Only one section, as far as I can see, has any citations at all, and yet in the introduction paragraph itself there are quite a few basic facts (like all the things that came out of the factories at "near break neck speed", a phrase I'm not particularly happy with in an encyclopedia). I would add some, or at least add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> a bit, but it is protected.
'''Why is this article protected'''? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is protected because I am working on it. And there are citations, in parenthesis, from the books I am continuing to use, one of which includes the phrase "break-neck speed". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands==
At this time, "Lincoln" is not finished, and "Slavery", "1860 Elections" plus the two at the bottom are not started. I want to get these finished, and possibly more detail for the remaining, before I get into the war years. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Now on to the 1860 election, then the secession, then the war. Everything before is pretty much done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:22, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: WOW! A factual, important, relevant, non-biased article on Conservapedia! Karajou, this is very VERY well done.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Split the article==
Due to the size of it, I am concentrating this article to include detail on conditions in the country up until the surrender of Ft. Sumter. Each subsequent article will be similarly detailed, and possibly large in byte size as well, hence the split. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-27T21:06:43Z

Miles: /* Kitzmiller trap. */ what trap?

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-27T18:14:56Z

Miles: /* Other Intelligent Causes */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-27T17:53:21Z

Miles: /* Kitzmiller trap. */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:20:36Z

Miles: /* Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid */

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML)
Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.
Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp.
311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.”
Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331-
351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.
Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design.
Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Sean Hannity

2007-03-19T16:14:22Z

Miles: adding a little more detail

Sean Hannitiy is a conservative talk show host of [[Hannity and Colmes]]. He is known for being a very level headed and patriotic pundit. He provides the conservative view on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" show. He also hosts a radio call in show.

{{stub2}}

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-19T16:10:06Z

Miles: /* Other Intelligent Causes */

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-19T16:06:47Z

Miles: /* two issues= */ fix my own spelling

Karl Rove

2007-03-15T22:37:51Z

Miles: turd blossom

Karl Rove, born on [[Christmas]], 1950 AD, is the [[Deputy Chief of Staff]] in the [[Bush administration]]. Rove's longtime partnership with [[George W. Bush]] dates back to Bush's terms as [[governor]] of [[Texas]]. Rove ran both of Bush's campaigns for governor and for president.

Rove's track to the top began early, when he dropped out of [[the University of Utah]] to work in the [[College Republican National Committee]]. He quickly demonstrated his political guile, including a teenage prank on a [[liberal]] opponent using the man's letterhead[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm].[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html].

Rove's personal theme song is Jack Palance's "The Meanest Man Who Ever Lived."

When the Selective Service System held its first lottery drawing in 1969, Rove, born on December 25, 1950, received number 84. That number placed him in the middle of those (with numbers 1 to 195) who would eventually be drafted.

George Bush gave him the nickname of "turd blossom" (a flower which grows from a pile of dung).

[[Category:Biographies]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-15T22:08:41Z

Miles: /* Giving to the poor */

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-15T21:59:31Z

Miles:

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-15T21:57:46Z

Miles: /* Giving to the poor */

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-15T21:30:55Z

Miles:

User:Miles

2007-03-15T21:26:18Z

Miles:

Christian and I could say I am conservative but that term has pretty much lost all meaning over the last 8 years or so.

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-03-15T21:25:27Z

Miles: /* I created an article at another website */

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?

----
===Religious Views===

I have completely revamped the '''Religious Beliefs''' section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Read a credible biography for once. He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Oops, I stand corrected. He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death. Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his ''Autobiography'' is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published ''Origin of Species'' (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== I created an article at another website ==

I created an article at another website:

[[Darwin's illness]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty. Should we add that to the article? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:SwissKnight

2007-03-15T20:43:55Z

Miles:

Hey you keep messing up articles! [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)