Talk:Discovery Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias[edit]

The bias in this article removes all credibility. By the criteria of “pseudoscience” large elements of evolutionary neuroscience are pseudoscience. And evolution primarily uses an archeological and historical epistemology, not a scientific epistemology to support its claims. 199.184.236.202 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, for the "pseudoscience" qualifier of the this article, please read the archives of this talk page as well as the sources listed in the article. If you think other articles/subjects should be described as pseudoscience, you are welcome to go to those article talk pages and propose the change (don't forget to bring sources to backup your changes). If you have a specific change to propose here, please do so in the form of "Please change X by Y" or "Please insert X between Y and Z" followed by the sources justifying the change. Last thing, the talk pages are not a WP:FORUM, so without a specific change request, we can close this section. --McSly (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be amended that the majority of scientists agree with evolution, rather than there is no controversy.It is also not unfactual to say that scientists who do believe in intelligent design are expelled from the scientific community. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, someone has watched a propaganda film.
Science is not about majorities, it is about research. Research is published in peer-reviewed journals. Yes, there is a minority that rejects evolution (and a minority that rejects relativity, and a minority that rejects anthropogenic climate change, and so on), but they have no good reasons for their belief. It is just a belief. That is why their belief does not end up in peer-reviewed journals, except by cheating. And that is why it is not part of science. And that is why there is no bias here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly today science is about consensus, which is in fact based om majority opinion. Neither the evolution of one species to another species nor an act of special creation has been observed. And believing in one or another has no impact on true science which is how the world and the universe of today functions by a set of orderly laws.
Intelligent design is not just a belief system with no good reasons to believe it. What is observable is biogenesis and that intelligence
comes from intelligence. What is observable is that stalictites on kilns made hundreds of years ago, grow faster than the assumption for those in caves. Evolution presents problems such as inorganic matter evolving to organic matter. Because the universe follows a set of laws that do not change, it's logical to conclude that something way outside man's limited knowledge set those laws in place. What is observable is marine fossils on mountain tops. So it is with bias. Bias makes one unable to see one's bias. What is fact is the majority of scientists refute intelligent design. This is fact and not bias.
ce. TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go publish your thoughts in a reliable source, then we may be able to use them. Until then, we cannot, and you are wasting your breath here. We will continue following the reliable sources and not the ideas of random people on the internet.
There is no point in you telling us that you cannot publish your thoughts in a reliable source because reliable sources are part of the cabal. WP:RS does not have a "I am being suppressed" exception clause. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reliable source https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a and it shows there is controversy. Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral stance. Please see guidance on WP:NPOV. TheeFactChecker (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?" has no connection to the Disco Tute clowns. The article does not even mention the Disco Tute. It does mention ID: Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. "Those hostile to science" is the DI. They are not part of the discussion within science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You called a nature article bullshit. I see you have a problem with logic, reason and fact and only argue using insults and opinion, not fact. It is fact that the majority of scientists refute intelligent design. It is opinion that there is no controversy in the scientific community. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You called a nature article bullshit Not true. I called your attempt to use the Nature article for some unconnected subject bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This line is also very weak. First it says perhaps or maybe and second it suggests a fear in the scientific community of the intelligent design spectrum. Why would they have a fear if it's just a belief system not based on anything? The whole line is opinion. Where is the facts in the statement? You've just cherry picked a random line. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does it prove? The majority of scientists refute intelligent design, despite the controversy. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick skim of that Nature article shows that your claim of "controversy" comes from what looks like a healthy debate about including factors other than genetics in a revision of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Intelligent design is not one of those factors; the debate has nothing to do with the Teach the Controversy narrative espoused by creationists. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough research is expected. Not quick skims. I've never heard of the teach the controversy narrative. I find it ridiculous that you cannot even change the wording to be more accurate. The majority of scientists refute intelligent design is an accurate and descriptive statement. Sweeping statements are not accurate. TheeFactChecker (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a link to Teach the Controversy. Now you are aware of it, or ought to be. I read enough of the Nature article to know that framing its subject as a controversy between evolution and ID is bologna. Got any other WP:RS nuggets to share? Just plain Bill (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what constitutes as controversy then? Because any disagreement within the scientific community on evolution or even non acceptance of evolution would not constitute as controversy in your opinion. And no I didn't get my information from watching a propaganda film. My point is you cannot use a sweeping statement such as "there is no controversy" if there is any controversy at all. This makes this a sweeping statement. TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if in your opinion, it would take the majority of many of scientists to dispute evolution, for it to be a controversy, then it is more factual to say "the majority of scientists". TheeFactChecker (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been my opinion, that "it would take the majority of many of scientists to dispute evolution". Point me to the part of the Nature article you linked where it shows even a few serious scientists (taken seriously by others in their field, unlike Michael Behe) arguing that Intelligent Design is a credible alternative to modern biological evolution. That spurious "controversy" is the topic here; kindly stick to it. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Discovery Institute is saying that there are some scientists that believe in intelligent design and there are some scientists that dispute evolution. I can provide many references to prove this. Also you cannot exclude scientists you disagree with as not serious scientists as this is confirmation bias. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the truth is a respected scientist becomes unrespected as soon as they don't believe in evolution. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument. I would have no problem providing you with a list of scientists who believe that the Earth is flat. This is not how science works. You should take a look at Project Steve which nicely debunks that idea. --McSly (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you will struggle providing a list of scientists who believe the earth is flat. This is because the earth by science is proven to be round. However the study of origins is unproven and all we have is the best educated guesses on what happened in the past. Intelligent design proponents use the scientific method and so do those who believe in evolution because the processes that govern the world today are undeniable facts and can be observed. The past cannot be observed and therefore is up to debate. Because no Intelligent design proponent or creationist denies microevolution or adaptation, they just believe there is not enough evidence to show macroevolution or a change from one organism to another such as hominid to human over millions of years. https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2017-11-17/ty-article/scientist-comes-out-against-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page/0000017f-e91d-df2c-a1ff-ff5d6afa0000

TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all we have is the best educated guesses on what happened in the past.

Not so. We have evidence, and plenty of it. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is plenty of evidence for intelligent design
The fact that intelligence comes from intelligence
The appearance of design
The fact that genetics shows loss of information over time, not gain of information
The fact that life only comes from life: biogenesis
The fact that no matter how many changes bacteria goes through, it never turns into another organism
The evidence of marine fossils on mountain tops
The fact that in physics something of enormous mass and energy had to start the universe, not a miniscule exploding dot. The Big Bang deifies the law of physics
The universe is deteriorating, not evolving into something better TheeFactChecker (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
genetics shows loss of information over time, not gain of information
how do you define information?
marine fossils on mountain tops
That is evidence of tectonic activity. How do you think it is evidence of intelligent design? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of dna or rna (certain viruses), such as in the chromosomes or in plasmids. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how do you quantify it? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post Darwinism science insists that everything must be explained through naturalistic causes. This means that even if there was overwhelming evidence of intelligent design in the universe or a supernatural experience was encountered, an intelligent being is outside the equation. Pre Darwinism allowed scientists to explore the natural world, and examine all possibilities, including the supernatural. This allowed Isaac Newton to explore the world through the idea of a God of order who put everything in place whereas now believing in intelligent design and science are seen as conflicting when in fact one can believe both and practice groundbreaking discoveries in scientific fields. I will provide my list of scientists later, but they aren't from the list that the comical Steve list was competing. Logic cannot be put in a test tube and it is illogical that the world came to being on its own over billions of years as a result a big explosion. Whereas it is more logical that something that was always there that had all the mass and energy that exists in the world today started everything off as matter cannot be created or destroyed.TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice little micro-essay, but it doesn't answer how you quantify information, nor does it answer how marine fossils on mountaintops are evidence of intelligent design. 19:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"All living things experience an increase in entropy, manifested as a loss of genetic and epigenetic information. In yeast, epigenetic information is lost over time due to the relocalization of chromatin-modifying proteins to DNA breaks, causing cells to lose their identity, a hallmark of yeast aging."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36638792/#:~:text=All%20living%20things%20experience%20an,a%20hallmark%20of%20yeast%20aging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeFactChecker (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and then there is generation loss in which genetic information is not passed on to the next generation. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That paper looks like it is about individual organisms aging, which is not relevant here. Here is one about new organs arising more than once in a line of guppies. One way to increase genetic information is gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. It may happen only rarely, but it has happened.
Again, how do you quantify genetic information? (Still waiting for an explanation of how marine fossils in lifted strata are evidence of intelligent design.) Just plain Bill (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know what you are saying. I've quantified what I meant by genetic information. I gave you the rigid definition of what I meant by it. Also it's a massive assumption that these rare occurrences could produce a new organism over millions of years. You are being pedantic on purpose and you know it. You know about generation loss and genetic information loss over time. It's scientific fact. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maybe instead of an article, I'll quantify it in one word:: genes. If you don't know what a gene is.then you need some intelligent design to fix your brain. TheeFactChecker (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, with the personal attack I guess we've established that you don't know what "quantify" means. It's about numbers and measurement, not wordy hand-waving. How much information is carried by a single gene? A gene is not a unit of information; it is a component in a system including information, redundancy, error detection/correction, and other stuff. The creationist claim that evolution cannot produce new information has been thoroughly debunked, by scientists who are taken seriously by their peers who review their papers. If you want to keep on wasting your time here, go nuts. I can't guarantee timely responses, or any response at all, tbh. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I am saying. "Genes that were once identical have diverged; many of the gene copies have been lost through disruptive mutations; some have undergone further rounds of local duplication. Genes that were once identical have diverged; many of the gene copies have been lost through disruptive mutations; some have undergone further rounds of local duplication. Genes that were once identical have diverged; many of the gene copies have been lost through disruptive mutations; some have undergone further rounds of local duplication." Substantial information such as all the information to comprise a gene is how I would quantify genetic information. Information stored by a gene. And yes, it can get frustrating when I am not disputing the fact that most scientists reject intelligent design. I am disputing that there is no controversy whatsoever in the scientific community. TheeFactChecker (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My list of scientists among others who disagree with some of the fundamentals of evolution are:
RAYMOND TALLIS
LYNN MARGULIS
JERRY FODOR
THOMAS NAGEL
STEVE FULLER
DAVID BERLINSKI
And there is an enormous wealth of evidence of intelligence and design in the universe, even in single celled organisms. TheeFactChecker (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your list of flat earth scientists? TheeFactChecker (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it.
  • Tallis is a physician and clueless biological layman.
  • Margulis' ideas have been incorporated into evolutionary biology. She has no connection to Intelligent Design or the Disco Tute.
  • Fodor is a philosopher and clueless biological layman.
  • Nagel is a philosopher and clueless biological layman.
  • Fuller is a sociologist and clueless biological layman.
  • Berlinski is a mathematician and clueless biological layman.
You are missing the main point. Even if you convinced everybody here that ID is wonderful and not the disingenious fraud it is, you would be not one step further. What you need are reliable sources that agree with you.' You tried to use the Nature article as such, but, well, WP:NOTDUMB. Stop using this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I'm doing. I'm simply stating fact and I can provide multiple references that the majority of scientists refute intelligent design. It is not fact that there is no controversy within the scientific community. TheeFactChecker (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Hob, you don't adhere to this policy. All you use is insults or shouting "stop it" I provide references to reliable sources. I'm not trying to hide anything Hob. Never heard of Disco Tute.
"Wikipedia has norms of decorum, politeness and good faith. " TheeFactChecker (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But because controversy is redefined and members of the scientific community is redefined by Wikipedia, each reference would be seen in the same light. TheeFactChecker (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not respond to yourself all the time. I corrected the indentation.
It is not fact that there is no controversy within the scientific community. You still have given no valid evidence of that. "Controversy within the scientific community" happens in peer-reviewed publications, and on the subject of ID there is no such thing.
I provide references to reliable sources Which do not say what you claim they say, therefore they are not relevant here. There is nothing wrong with us Wikipedians pointing that out to you.
"Disco Tute" is a short name scientists give the Discovery Institute in the few cases they mention it. It's a clown college and has no place in science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Scientific community" and "controversy" are redefined on Wikipedia and so therefore everything fits nicely into its own bias. It's a shame that a neutral point of view and removal of bias is disallowed on Wikipedia. Changing the statement to "the majority of scientists refute intelligent design" is a factual statement. Saying the "majority of scientists" or "the scientific consensus" is factual, without a bias slant. Stating there is no controversy injects bias as it makes a sweeping statement and uses loaded rather than accurate and factual terminology. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are redefined by pseudoscientists. Climate change deniers, for instance, like to define the set of climate experts as the set of all scientists instead of, as it should be, just climate scientists. This is exactly the same: ID proponents want to include biological laypeople in order to artificially increase the number of disagreeing "experts". I am sorry that you do not know how science works, but that is not Wikipedia's problem. Repetition does not make your misconception true.
BTW, you may want to look up the definition of "refute". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor and excessive citations[edit]

Regarding the phrase that there is no controversy within the scientific community, reliance should be on scientific papers showing that there is no heated discussion or debate on some aspects of evolution. If there is, then sweeping statements such as "none" cannot be used. Citations from non scientific papers are irrelevant as one media organisation could say there is controversy and another media organisation could say there is no controversy depending on their bias. https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of controversies within the scientific community.
There is no controversy within the scientific community about whether Intelligent Design is science or bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. According to research it is the majority (97%) which means there is some controversy within the scientific community.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/ TheeFactChecker (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get a way with using sweeping statements in any other piece of academic research like this one, and nor should you expect to find it on Wikipedia. TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Polls are not an indication of controversy. ID is about biology, and most scientists are not biologists but mostly clueless biological laypeople. Their opinions have no bearing on the status of ID in biology.
Even the opinions of biologists have no bearing on it: science is about results of research. Science explicitly uses methods that try to minimize the influence of scientists' opinions, e.g. double blinding. In science, opinions are just disturbing factors.
Can you please get your basic science education somewhere else? This page is about improving the page Discovery Institute. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm trying to do, painfully try and remove bias. Why is it so hard? And no, I don't get my scientific education from the Discovery Institute. I get it from scientific papers in which when I remove the evolution it still makes perfect scientific sense. Absolutely not necessary. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOODBIAS. Pseudoscience like ID is treated as pseudoscience here, and that is how it should be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote Can you please get your basic science education somewhere else? I meant: I do not want to have to explain the basics to you all the time. That is not what this page is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hob, you don't need to talk down to me. You only argue by calling names or belittling people. You don't argue with facts or references.I knew what you meant by Disco Chute, but it was entertaining getting you to spell it out. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my fault you do not understand how science works and how Wikipedia works.
Since you have nothing to contribute to article improvement, can you please do your pseudoscience proselytizing (and trolling: asking questions you already know the answer to) somewhere else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has all been about improving the page. I'm not proselytizing. Simply removing bias and replacing it by fact. Simple. Anything you disagree with is "bullshit to you". You've provided no references. I've provided reliable sources which show the majority of scientists refute intelligent design which is fact. Science works by adhering to the scientific method. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which show the majority of scientists refute intelligent design No, they do not. Very few scientists are even concerned with ID. Most do not care; they are concerned with serious matters instead. But it does not matter how many scientists "refute" it. It does not even matter how many reject it. (For some reason, you seem to write "refute" when you mean "reject".) Science does not work by counting heads, and that is one reason why your claims are irrelevant for the article. Can we stop this now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, as I said before, the Nature article does not even mention the DI, therefore it cannot be used for this article. It also does not show that the majority of scientists refute intelligent design; it does not even mention majorities or refutations, and, although it does mention ID shortly, it does that only in the speculative half-sentence Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, as an aside that has very little to do with its subject, current developments of evolutionary theory. For what you are trying to use it for, that source is really shitty. People have been telling you again and again. But you will continue to not get it. You are not even trying to understand what people tell you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So wow! No scientific papers allowed as sources Musy be media organizations that mention the Discovery Institute or Disco Tute as you call it.. Scientific papers are shitty. I get it. TheeFactChecker (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific papers are shitty. I get it.
That's not what Hob said, and you don't get it. Trying to shoehorn that Nature article into this discussion as attempted support for a claimed "controversy" among bona fide scientists is a shitty choice of sourcing. The article is fine. Trying to pretend it is relevant here is a forlorn hope. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discovery_Institute&oldid=1211855238"