[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Discovery Institute/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Inaccurate Information, POV Status

I recommend that the DI page be tagged POV until substantative corrections are made. Users like User talk:Feloniousmonk are apparently committed to keeping the page POV, reverting edits on a whim. Staking out a page for any changes, and then reverting them with for no reason is entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, much of the entry contains information that is biased, untrue, and simply out-dated. I propose allowing factual corrections directly on the page, with discussion here only when someone has a sustainable objection. Reverting edits because you fear allowing the Institute to speak for itself is a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Truthologist 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest putting up an RfC if you have a specific complaint regarding a specific edit if the talk sections seem to be going nowhere. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think encouraging known Discovery Institute shills to disrupt the project further is a wise move, Wade. You should consider chilling on this front. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've often noticed that you seem to consider someone pointing out violations of Wikipedia "disruption." In that sense, I am quite happy to be "disruptive." --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Any RFC arising out of a POV-pushing campaign is by definition an abuse of WP:DR. There is no policy provision that condones disrupting the project, Wade, and experience has shown that your notions of what constitutes policy violations and the reality of actual violations of the project's rules seldom coincide. Were you as apt as you claim at rectifying policy violations you wouldn't be fanning the flames of an established violator of our policies to further abuse them. Please don't add any fuel to this nearly extinguished fire. FeloniousMonk 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"experience has shown that your notions of what constitutes policy violations and the reality of actual violations of the project's rules seldom coincide" of course, experience has taught me you probably cannot point to even one specific example where they did not coincide (you have a habit of accusing me and not backing up the groundless attack with a shred of evidence). I'm not (yet) convinced that an RfC of his would be merely a "POV-pushing campaign" especially given your track record of removing valid RfC's because they bump up against your POV-pushing (e.g. regarding a violation of WP:CITE, click here to see that specific example). You suggest that Truthologist is an "an established violator of our policies" (I would like to see a specific example of that to adduce your accusation). You yourself have willfully ignored and violated Wikipedia policy to suit your own POV; so methinks you've made another tu qouque objection.
I advise Truthologist that, if there is untrue information on the article, this should be rectified. But I advise this individual to use the discussion sections first before moving on to an RfC. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wade, there's enough examples on this page alone (not to mention all the others in your history here) of you engaging in ludicrous twists and turns to avoid having to face evidence that I'm perfectly comfortable not responding to your demands for "proof." After 9 months of believing while you were away that you'd find a constructive way to contribute quietly to the project I'm forced once again to conclude that you're a chronic malcontent and that yet again any time I spend on you moving forward will be limited to minimizing your disruptions and cleaning up your messes. My past experience with you and your history proves anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Avoid facing what evidence for what conclusion? Again, I would like to see a specific example for your accusation. Why is it that accusing an editor is not a waste of time but backing up that allegation is?
Calling me "disruptive" is a tu qouque considering you have a documented history of being very disruptive yourself (consider the specific examples above). --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wade, do you realise that this sentence makes no sense? "I would like to see a specific example of that to adduce your accusation". I'm not sure what you think adduce means, but given that there is only one subject in the sentence (Wade) the verb must refer to you as the subject (direct or indirect object can't take the verb here), thus meaning you'd like to "allege, bring forth, cite" the accusation. Huh? Maybe you should uise that handy dandy little pocket dictionary more carefully. (And you wonder why no one gives your screeds, gripes, complaints, whiney bitchfests any credibility). •Jim62sch• 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Argumentum "tu quoque" tantum in mente tua est. •Jim62sch• 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a possible explanation why: some people just don't seem to pay attention to what's going on (e.g. FeloniousMonk seems ignorant that his citation does not actually contain the claim in question here). In full context, here's the quote you are referring to:
You suggest that Truthologist is an "an established violator of our policies" (I would like to see a specific example of that to adduce your accusation).
The word "that" is referring to Truthologist being a violator of Wikipedia policies. The word "adduce" means "to offer as example, reason, or proof in discussion or analysis"[1] so when I asked Felonious Monk to provide a specific example [of Truthologist violating Wikipedia policy] to adduce his accusation, the word "adduce" was an excellent choice. You might want to look at your pocket dictionary again if you did not understand this, but methinks you just did not take into full account the context of the quote.
(P.S. it's not as if I'm always a minority of one when I bring up objections, e.g. in here all three of the non-anti-ID-regulars who stopped by agreed with me that the citation did not sufficiently support the claim).--Wade A. Tisthammer 01:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, Wade. The sentence is still grammatically wrong. You missed the point re subject, object, verb etc. The correct form of the sentence would be, "I would like to see a specific example of what you used to adduce your accusation". Get it? Complex sentence. Two subjects. Pretty cool.
BTW, linguists don't use pocket dikshunerries, we use the OED. Yes, that may sound snobbish...well, it is. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 01:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Political Affiliation

What is the back up for the claims about political affiliation, and supporting George Bush?

  1. It's founder, Bruce Chapman was a Republican Party politician.
  2. There was something prominent on their website endorsing GWB when I wrote it. Try searching their website for Bush; you come across [2] [3] [4] etc etc. Search for Kerry and they're not very nice about him.
Now if they claim to be non-partisan, then that should be mentioned too, but they're fibbing in order to appear "fair and balanced" (see Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) Dunc|☺ 11:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  1. That's weak. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. Leading with that kind of commentary makes for a very POV article.
  2. I don't think that they can "endorse" Bush without losing their tax exempt status. Taking positions that correlate with Bush's is different is very different from endorsing him. The book you cite is quintessential POV argumentation.
  3. My impression of the Discovery Institute is that they are pretty hard to pigeon hole into one political position. -VorpalBlade

I disagree, Vorpal. From what I know of them, the group seems to me pretty plainly on the "red" end of the political spectrum. Mr. Billion 04:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As evidence against Mr Billion's assessment see the article on the major funder of the Discovery Institute Howard Ahmanson, Jr and the many articles on the Discovery Institute's site in favor of conservatism, e.g. Gilder writes "at the Discovery Institute, with my friend of 40 or more years, Bruce Chapman, we are again carrying this essential concept of ordered liberty, this reconciliation of cultural conservatism and economic conservatism forward with the focus on my part on science and technology... A lot of conservatives sort of adopt an intuitive resistance to the discoveries of science without a full grasp of how deeply they affirm conservative insights and how leftist scientism—this sort of materialist reductionism—has been completely overthrown by the twentieth century scientific discoveries". --Ian Pitchford 08:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, no. I mean "red" in terms of the "red state/blue state divide." That is, the group is fairly obviously rather conservative. Mr. Billion 17:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sincere apologies! --Ian Pitchford 17:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major edit

I have attempted to Wikify this article by importing material from Discovery Institute directly and by removing built-in external links which belong at the bottom of the page. After reading the Discovery Institue's web pages (several) it was obvious that the original article certainly did not present a true account of the organization. A lot more needs to be added but what it does not need is a fusion of topics related to religion and evolution that are not even found on the Institute web site under its main name. An overview should be presented here and if necessary, each of the several branches of the Institute could have their own articles if there is enough material to support them. I knew nothing about this organisation before and I only know a little more now after reading their material and trying to rewrite this article. While it is now clearer than it was, it is by no means perfect. However, I would caution against trying to use it as a means to "preach" or push a POV either for or against its stated aims. The big problem I see with the organisation is that it is trying to be a sort of Christian government in exile which if it had its way, would be the only way. Since I am not a Christian (was) I am certainly not a supporter, but this does not mean that I do not believe in fair reporting and writing. This is sort of "I may not agree with your point of view but I will defend your right to have one". I have thus created a prototype article to link to this one in order to avoid the mess previously created by another "controversial" article. MPLX/MH 06:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a jumbled jungle!

I thought that I could clear up the mess on "Teaching the Controversy" by simply linking to a new article for Center for Science and Culture ... only to discover that it already exists! Clearly this is a tangled web and not just one article that became bogged down. I suggest that the editors who created all of this rethink what it is that they are trying to present and do some major revisions of all of the related sites. They don't do the Discovery Institute justice and they have caused at least one site to turn into a blog that has become blocked. I don't think that anyone other than the original editors know that this is an interrelated tangled web of many sites. Not that there is anything wrong with having more than one article, but at least one of them should be well written and right now none of them are (including the one I worked on!) MPLX/MH 06:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I agree that the previous version was a jumbled mess, but I am not sure this is so much better. The headings do not seem to be very logically arranged. Their position on ID was under the "history" heading. Also, shouldn't edits try to keep as much of the previous work as possible?
Why not cite to outside sources in the body? This gives the reader the chance to check the original sources easily. Hence, I added back the cite to the web page where they state their policy clearly.

--VorpalBlade 22:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read something about sticking external sources at the end of an article, it also means that the article has to stand on its own within Wikipedia. By opting out to an external link within the opening of the article the reader is taken away from Wikipedia and it means that the article itself has no value because it lacks understanding. All of the related articles are a hodge-podge mess and that is why I threw up my hands after spending hours trying to figure out what to do. It seems that instead of dealing with a sub-page (like Teach the Controversy) it would be better to fix the main articles first and the sub-pages should take care of themselves. MPLX/MH 00:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Curious to know where you read it. Personally, because of the nature of Wikipedia, I am skeptical of everything I read here. Some is good, some is weird, some is biased, some is just plain false. What is often helpful is that it points you to links to find what you couldn't through Google. And it lets you verify what you are reading and evaluate it for yourself, to judge its reliability.
External links are like footnotes in my mind. Readers don't have to read them, but if what is said is interesting, provocative, doubtful, they can pursue that for themselves. Until Wikip. becomes more consistent and reliable and serious about neutrality, they are essential.
As you discovered, these topics instill passion on all sides. All the more reason to include links. --VorpalBlade 01:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with VorpalBlade completely here. Ian Pitchford 07:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Billions Behind the Discovery Institute

Talking about money, there is interesting controversy surrounding the funding of the Discovery Institute - see below. Ian Pitchford 13:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Genesis To Dominion Fat-Cat Theocrat Funds Creationism Crusade by Steve Benen Americans United for Separation of Church and State from: Church & State, July/August 2000

Anti-evolution crusader Phillip Johnson, dedicated his 1997 book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, to "Roberta and Howard, who understood 'the wedge' because they love the Truth."

The mysterious reference is apparently a note of thanks to Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and his wife Roberta, a wealthy and secretive Orange County, Calif., couple who have generously funded the anti-evolution movement and other right-wing causes that advance their fundamentalist Christian outlook.

Howard Ahmanson, however, is no ordinary fat-cat. The savings and loan heir has maintained a long-time relationship with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace American democracy with a harsh fundamentalist theocracy.

Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take "dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders, including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and those who spread "false" religions. They regard the teaching of evolution as part of a "war against Genesis."

Ahmanson served for over two decades on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation, Rousas J. Rushdoony's Reconstructionist think tank that serves as the intellectual center of the movement. Ahmanson has also generously supported the Foundation's work.

As for Ahmanson's interests in opposing evolution, his relationship with leaders such as Johnson raises a series of questions about how the movement to "defeat" evolution is paid for and what the larger agenda might be.

There is little doubt that the Ahmansons have the resources to help finance anti-evolution efforts. The family's wealth grew exponentially during the 1950s and '60s when Howard Ahmanson Sr, made billions in the savings and loan industry. After his death, his estate was divided between his son Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation, which had $663 million in assets at the end of 1996. (H.F. Ahmanson & Co., the parent company of Home Savings of America, had over $47 billion in assets in 1997.)

With a vast fortune in hand, the Ahmansons are playing an active role in ensuring the anti-evolution movement's success.

According to Reason magazine, promotional materials from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute acknowledge that the Ahmanson family donated $1.5 million to the Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy." In fact, the August 1999 issue of the Discovery Institute's Journal recognizes an Ahmanson outfit for providing the Center's start-up funds.

With such high-powered assistance, the Center has quickly become a leading anti-evolution organization. The center's senior fellows include some of the highest profile advocates of "Intelligent Design" creationism, including David Berlinski, William Dembski and Michael Behe. Johnson himself is listed among the center's two official advisors.

Additionally, Roberta Green Ahmanson provided the funding for Dembski to appear at her alma mater, Calvin College, a conservative Christian school in Michigan, to promote his approach to attacking evolution. Although he claims to be interested only in the scientific "evidence" against evolution, Dembski's appearance was listed as part of the college's "Seminars in Christian Scholarship."

Funding from the Ahmansons is not always obvious. For example, the Fieldstead Institute is an extension of the Ahmanson empire, which frequently provides financial support for creationist causes. Dembski's appearance at Calvin was sponsored by a group called Fieldstead and Company. (Both appear to derive their name from Howard's middle name, Fieldstead.)

Ahmanson has also taken an interest in providing money for other political causes, including support for voucher subsidies for religious schools and opposition to gay rights and pornography. In the January/February 1997 issue of Religion & Liberty, published by the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, he argued that the Bible opposes minimum wage laws.

Ahmanson's opposition to evolution remains part of his larger agenda of establishing a fundamentalist "Christian nation." In the coming years, as different groups and personalities step into the anti-evolution fray, Ahmanson's role bears watching.

critics, proponents- enough already

apprently- in that beastly sentence which I changed once, reverted then changed back, what is being said is that

critics are unwilling to recognize that an organization (in this case, discovery institute) can have certain goals but adopt an educational policy that does not require said goals be required of schools. can you require a goal of a school?? I'm gonna leave it how it is, now with my one small change intact. I think "include" works better than that "including" that was there, which baffled me. I am uncertain about a few sentences in the neighborhood of that paragraph. The original writer should be found, I think. Is the writer saying that evolutionists challenges to the disc.inst. are ad hominem, straw man arguments?? If so, it should be stated more clearly. I'll be checking back.

someone who wants to clarify what proponents assert PLEASE jump in and make that sentence into 2 or three tolerable sentences. For the love of the potential for God-like quality in us all...

thanks, Kzzl

Biased towards ID in content

When I wrote this article some months ago I was careful to include the other projects of the DI, I think one was to do with bioethics (don't murder the embryos!) and the importance of the views of the, er, great amateur theologian C.S. Lewis to public life in a country with strict separation of church and state. Right now it's just turned into a messy summary of ID, for which the Center for Science and Culture article was supposed to be. And those elements stating the other interests have mysteriously vanished! Another hint: Howard Abrahamason Jr (spelling?) Dunc|☺ 16:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The missing content may be my fault ;-) Sorry. Keeping an appropriate level of ID (while keeping in mind the Institute claims 90% of their resources are dedicated to promoting ID) in the article, lets then move any excess to the CSC article. Do you have any suggestions what I should move over, or do you prefer to tackle it yourself? The missing non-ID content will have to be pulled from previous versions. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


Cascadia

The article reads:

It recently created its own Web site to ensure an individual identity and distance itself from the institute's controversial role in promoting intelligent design.

I don't doubt this is true but without some sort of supporting data/evidence this reads very POV/biased. It sounds like Wiki is either speculating on the DI's motives or simply asserting what those motives are. How do we know Cascadia is trying to "distance" itself from the institute's IDC efforts? How do we know this isn't simply their attempt to better define what Cascadia is about and better focue their Cascadia efforts? Again, I think this entry either neeeds some supporting evidence or it should be rewritten without what appears to be a biased slant/speculation. Mr Christopher 17:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory

[Cut spam from 72.67.20.74.] --Mr. Billion 16:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this user has been spamming numerous talk pages, including Talk:Evolution#Where_is_the_Pro.2FCon_section.3F and Talk:Charles Darwin#Where is the Pro/Con section?, in a clear attempt to push a POV. -Silence 15:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's spam, it doesn't belong here. I've removed it. --Mr. Billion 16:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-neutral statement

It's true that they haven't proven Intelligent Design through science, and it's true that they'll never do so because it's just another form of creationism. But the statement "The central item of this agenda - proving intelligent design by conducting actual scientific research - has clearly not been achieved" isn't NPOV. An ID proponent would object that ID hasn't yet been proven. At a minimum, the phrasing needs to be tweaked. --Mr. Billion 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How about adding the word 'yet' after the sentence? But would that make clear that there is no scientific research actually going on at the moment? --Kristjan Wager 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How to make this article more neutral: POV tag

I was reading this article today and was struck at how biased it seems against the DI. First of all, the biggest section is the Criticisms section. Second, of the three footnotes, only the last can arguably be considered "unbiased." Finally, the last footnote is used to support the statement, The central item of this agenda - establishing intelligent design as legitmate science through conducting actual scientific research - has not been achieved. Except, that the last foot note is a link to the Dover school district court case decision. So now our concept of whether or not something is considered legitimate science is based on how the courts rule on cases relating to it? That is, to be kind, absurd. I am thinking that this article probably needs to be tagged as POV until it balances out. El Cubano 02:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your arguments are flawed.

  • There is no need for requirement to be "unbiased". There is no requirement for an article to be sympathetic to the subject.
  • The lack of a scientific programme has been pointed out many times, and it's there for anyone to see. There have been no publications, even in in-house DI pubs, which produce the results of any scientific research into ID. The Kitzmiller ruling is up to date, and is based on testimony by experts. There's nothing wrong with it as a source. It reports testimony, under oath, by both sides. Even the pro-ID people had nothing to contradict that. So it's an excellent source.
Anyway, you should not tag articles until after the discussion has failed. What changes do you propose making? Guettarda 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV: NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. That sort of tells me that an article that is biased is in violation of the NPOV policy. Besides, the article is about the Discovery Institute, not intelligent design or creationism. While I understand that including some valid criticism is appropriate, there are plenty of other articles where anti-creationists and anti-IDers can trot out all the facts, figures, opinions and whatever about how the proponents of ID and/or creationism have failed to establish a scientific case that is acceptable to their critics. I think that the quality of the article is quite lacking and that the bias is clearly evident when the largest section of the article is the criticism section. I'll have more suggestions/comments later. El Cubano 15:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The criticism is necessary to "express all sides fairly and without bias". Links and sources are not expected to be unbiased.
  • DI is very controvertial and it has attracted a lot of criticism. Excluding the list of officers and fellows, the criticism takes up about 1/5 of the article. Why is that excessive?
  • Not sure what you mean by "Besides, the article is about the Discovery Institute, not intelligent design or creationism." Obviously. So why do you bring it up? ID needs to be mentioned, since it is one of the primary thrusts of DI.
  • Criticism:
    • Para. 1 - charges of intellectual dishonesty, criticism from the scientific community. Widely made, relevant.
    • Para. 2 - also made by former donors. Relevant - scope of criticms.
    • Para. 3 - Templeton Foundation - independent commentary on the failure to follow through on the offer of funding. Very telling, since it undercuts one of the major claims of DI regarding their flagship programme.
    • Para. 4 - One line para, crit. by former fellow. Distinct from the other crits, relevant.
    • Para. 5 - Wedge document - huge issue, huge deal. Could, quite fairly, have more coverage here (but is appropriately spun off into its own article). Deals with the underlying philosophy of DI, and how it differs from their public statements
    • Para. 6 - Quote which ties it all together. Relevant, helpful to the reader.
Guettarda 16:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda is right here. The criticism as presented is accurate, supported. I think El Cubano's concern here is misplaced and caused by being not taking into account the realm in which the Discovery Institute has tried to insert itself and how that relates to our NPOV policy.
The Discovery Institute's method and goal for its CSC it at nature a challenge to the scientific community, its philosophical foundation and its method. This being the case, the scientific community's viewpoint clearly is the majority viewpoint while the DI's the minority. The amount of criticism present is in proportion to the significance of the viewpoints, which is exactly what WP:NPOV calls for:
  • NPOV: Undue weight: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
  • NPOV: Giving "equal validity": "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."
The POV template is unjustified; the amount of criticism is not undue, the is DI a distinct minority viewpoint challenging the majority's; presenting the majority's viewpoint here (which is thoroughly critical of the DI) is supported by policy. The criticism is also accurate and well-supported by cites. Time for the template to come off. FeloniousMonk 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me state a few things. First, I don't want to cause trouble. Second, I don't think that equal validity or undue weight are issues here. The article is not one of comparing views, it is about the institute itself. If you think the POV tag is unjustified, then please remove it. I will try and rewrite the article/fix itup this weekend into something I think is a bit more neutral. Though, if anyone else out there can take a crack at please do (I say that becuase I seriously dislike their approach toward promoting ID and I have not yet mastered the art of writing neutrally about things I don't like). El Cubano 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Your reasonableness is appreciated here, thanks. To avoid conflict, since you are alone in your opinion that the article needs fixing (long-term contributors here saying it's accurate, well-cited, and appropriate) I suggest proposing any changes you have in mind here on the talk page first and working toward consensus. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll propose changes, probably section-at-a-time here on the talk page. El Cubano 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, given the dishonest and misleading nature of the DI and their (previously hidden) agenda (down with science and up with jesus) it is difficult to write anything honest or accurate about them without the DI coming out looking odd to say the least. The DI is like poop. You can sprinkle perfume on it all day long to make it smell better, but in the end it's still poop. And there are tons of references out there criticizing the DI, but not many people other than DI members themselves say much of anything nice about them. Even their "allies" like the TMLC think they are scummish. Mr Christopher 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor spelling fix

Hi, I am doing research on the Discovery Institute and ran across a few spelling errors in the current Wiki article. I hope nobody has a problem, but just in case you are wondering, here is what I fixed; (1) History section, “institute’s” had an extra “s”; (2) Criticism section, “offices” did not have an “i” and “legitimate” was also missing an “i"; (3) Funding section, “totaling” had an extra “l”, “institute’s” had an extra “s”, and “News asked” was missing a space.Veritasjohn 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

History dates off

I’ve noticed what appears to be a mistake in the History section. The third paragraph starts out with this sentence:

“In 1993, having formed a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism with Stephen C. Meyer and George Gilder (Chapman's former Harvard roommate and his writing partner), Chapman secured seed money in the form of a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and $450,000 from the MacLellan Foundation.”:

This leaves the impression that Champan founded “a think tank opposed to materialism” with Stephen Meyer in 1993. However, as the Wiki article, and all linked sources agree, the Discovery Institute was founded in 1990, not 1993. That’s my first problem.

Second, the sentence claims that Champan “formed a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism.” I’ve searched far and wide on the internet, and find no evidence anywhere that Chapman formed the Discovery Institute to oppose materialism. There is no verification for this claim.

Third, the paragraph leaves the reader very confused about when Discovery started doing intelligent design work, and when Stephen Meyer entered the picture. It was not 1993. The Judy Wilgoren NYT article explains that Chapman first learned about Meyer in 1993, and then met him a year later.

“In late 1993, Mr. Chapman clipped an essay in The Wall Street Journal by Dr. Meyer, . . . . About a year later, over dinner at the Sorrento Hotel. . .”:

Finally, as best I can tell, the CSC was not founded until 1996, with no money being promised until 1995 (same NYT article). Thus, the Wiki history is just in error, there was no founding with Meyer in 1993. I will propose a revision soon, once I do a bit more research. Veritasjohn 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The DI was founded 1990, but Meyer brought ID to it in 1993. Also, ID is a stalking horse for ID proponents rejection of "scientific materialism," as supported by the DI's Wedge Document and it's former website content from the 1990's [5]. The timeline is accurate. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
FeliniousMonk - you claim that "Meyer brought ID to it in 1993." What is your evidence? The timeline is not accurate. Unless you have a verifiable source for this, I think it violates the verifiability policy WP:V. Meyer was not part of DI in 1993. I quoted the NYT article, you quoted no source.:
2. The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Culture was founded in 1996. You claim that “website content from the 1990’s” deals with intelligent design. However, the website archive you linked was from 1997. 1997 is not “the 1990’s” when we are trying to create a verifiable, accurate timeline. The same NYT article says that Meyer and Chapmen met to procure money for the CSC only in 1995.:
3. Your opinion that Discovery is a stalking horse is not relevant to writing a WP:NPOV Wiki article about Discovery. Where is the verifiable source that says the Discovery Institute was founded to combat materialism? That’s a bold claim, and I see no source or evidence. The CSC, and the Wedge Document, come well after the Discovery Institute was founded. According to the only verifiable source relevant in this discussion, DI was founded to deal with economic issues. Chapman did not even know who Meyer was until he read the 1993 WSJ op-ed piece.:
This timeline is not accurate in the current article. 1997 is not 1990.Veritasjohn 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Former DI fellow Edward Larson said Meyer was "the person who brought ID to DI" prior to it becoming the center of the intelligent design movement. [6]
Last time I checked, 1997 was in the 1990's. The statement is accurate. Work at the DI putting together the ID movement preceeded that creating the CSC, or CRSC as it was known then, read [7][8].
"This timeline is not accurate in the current article." Do you have a source for this? FeloniousMonk 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There are several problems with the history section. First, nobody disputes that Stephen Meyer brought ID to DI. As I understand Veritasjohn's comment, the problem is that the current Wiki page says in two places that Stephen Meyer was a founder of DI. He was not--he came in only in late 1994, and was not involved until 1995 when he began founding the CRSC (later CSC). The first sentence of the History section is totally wrong. It lists Stephen Meyer as a founder of DI in 1990:
" The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman, George Gilder, and Stephen C. Meyer as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis."
The other part without verification is the third paragraph, where the Wiki claims that in 1993 Chapman formed a plan for a think tank "opposed to materialism." I still don't see the evidence. It stands to reason that if DI was not FOUNDED to promote intelligent design (and the Wedge Document), then the Wiki page needs to be fixed.
The name change from CSC to CRSC has nothing to do with the problem. Also, the two links you give say nothing about the CSC or CRSC. They speak of Philip Johnson, and some individuals now associated with Discovery (including Meyer), but nowhere do they say that 'Meyer formed a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism' (and that was the Discovery Institute). These links do not support the claim that Bruce Chapman had a plan for a think tank "opposed to materialism." This is precisely the claim of the Wiki page in question. Nobody disputes that Philip Johnson opposes materialism.
You also missed the point about the 1990's. Your first claim that "website content in the 1990's" proved that the current Wiki is documented. The section of the Wiki page now in question claims that things happened in 1993, with no documentation. A citation to a 1997 CRSC website does not verify anything. Saint-George 21:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the intro to the section is unclear, implying that Meyer and Guilder founded the DI, not the CRSC. that will be changed. Regarding the "Bruce Chapman had a plan for a think tank "opposed to materialism", um, read the Wedge Document and the New York Times article:
"So in 1996, with the promise of $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons and a smaller grant from the MacLellan Foundation, which supports organizations "committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ," according to its Web site, the institute's Center for Science and Culture was born. "Bruce is a contrarian, and this was a contrarian idea," said Edward J. Larson, the historian and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the Scopes Monkey Trial, who was an early fellow at the institute, but left in part because of its drift to the right. "The institute was living hand-to-mouth. Here was an academic, credible activity that involved funders. It interested conservatives. It brought in money." [9]
I'll add that cite to the article. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the DI's basic timeline, with the meetings that lead up to the formation of the CRSC:

  • 1990: Discovery Institute is founded by Bruce Chapman as a offshoot of the Hudson Institute.
  • 1991: Johnson publishes Darwin on Trial
  • 1992: A group influenced by Darwin on Trial meets at Southern Methodist University, bringing together Johnson, Dembski, Behe, and Meyer. They formed the core of the ID movement for the next 15 years.
  • 1993: Johnson invited several of the ID community to a conference in California, a "smalltime Manhattan Project for the ID movement," at Pajaro Dunes. Present were Behe, Dembski, and Wells. "Pajaro Dunes thus became a model for what has come to be known as the “intelligent design movement." -- Paul A. Nelson [10]
  • 1994: Ahmanson makes small grant to DI.
  • 1994: Discovery starts to pay Meyer to head the ID cause, and signs Johnson as an adviser [11] [12]
  • 1996: Center for Renewal of Science and Culture is founded, with Meyer as head, with a promise of $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons. [13]
  • 1996: Language in Wedge Document is drafted, available on CRSC website [14]
  • 1999: Wedge Document is leaked on the Web [15]
  • 2002: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture renamed Center for Science and Culture
  • 2005: Discovery Institute finally admits Wedge Document is theirs. [16]

FeloniousMonk 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I’ve re-written the unclear third paragraph in the history section, to better reflect the verifiable chronology for the founding of the CSC (first CRSC). My rewrite expanded the first sentence by making it three sentences. It has these advantages: 1) makes clear how Bruce Chapman came in contact with Meyer – the WSJ op-ed 2) Makes clear the date of their first meeting was 1995, not 1993. The NYT source makes this clear. 3) Adds information about the financing, which came in the summer of 1995 NYT source again makes this clear. 4) The new third/fourth paragraph of the History section make more logical sense now. Gives the chronology of the founding, then has the description of the CSC’s role in the intelligent design movement. 5) Cuts unclear and unnecessary information from the first version. The old version had two paragraphs about the founding of the CSC, but it was very unclear how everything developed. Veritasjohn 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Chapman and Meyer worked together prior to 1995, re-read the cites provided. Ahmanson provided seed money first, in 1994, then in 1996 he made the promise of $750,000 that started the CRSC. Your version conflated the two. Here's the entire passage from the NYT article:

"Founded in 1990 as a branch of the Hudson Institute, based in Indianapolis, the institute was named for the H.M.S. Discovery, which explored Puget Sound in 1792. Mr. Chapman, a co-author of a 1966 critique of Barry M. Goldwater's anti-civil-rights campaign, "The Party That Lost Its Head," had been a liberal Republican on the Seattle City Council and candidate for governor, but moved to the right in the Reagan administration, where he served as director of the Census Bureau and worked for Edwin Meese III.

In late 1993, Mr. Chapman clipped an essay in The Wall Street Journal by Dr. Meyer, who was teaching at a Christian college in Spokane, Wash., concerning a biologist yanked from a lecture hall for discussing intelligent design. About a year later, over dinner at the Sorrento Hotel here, Dr. Meyer and George Gilder, Mr. Chapman's long-ago Harvard roommate and his writing partner, discovered parallel theories of mind over materialism in their separate studies of biology and economics. "Bruce kind of perked up and said, 'This is what makes a think tank,' " Dr. Meyer recalled. "There was kind of an 'Aha!' moment in the conversation, there was a common metaphysic in these two ideas." That summer of 1995, Mr. Chapman and Dr. Meyer had dinner with a representative of the Ahmansons, the banking billionaires from Orange County, Calif., who had previously given a small grant to the institute and underwritten an early conclave of intelligent design scholars. Dr. Meyer, who had grown friendly enough with the Ahmansons to tutor their young son in science, recalled being asked, "What could you do if you had some financial backing?" So in 1996, with the promise of $750,000 over three years from the Ahmansons and a smaller grant from the MacLellan Foundation, which supports organizations "committed to furthering the Kingdom of Christ," according to its Web site, the institute's Center for Science and Culture was born.

"Bruce is a contrarian, and this was a contrarian idea," said Edward J. Larson, the historian and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the Scopes Monkey Trial, who was an early fellow at the institute, but left in part because of its drift to the right. "The institute was living hand-to-mouth. Here was an academic, credible activity that involved funders. It interested conservatives. It brought in money."

FeloniousMonk 23:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't read it that way Felonious. I think the Times article says that they didn't work together until "about a year" after "late 1993" -- in other words, when the rewrite said they did. I think you should undo your reversion. The new prose is cleaner and clearer.Saint-George 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Why? It's inaccurate and implies several unsupported points:
  • "Chapman first became interested in evolution after reading a 1993 op-ed by Stephen C. Meyer in the Wall Street Journal about a university biology teacher who had been ordered to stop teaching intelligent design." The NYT article also says Chapman brought the ID movement under the DI auspices for money, [17]: "Here was an academic, credible activity that involved funders. It interested conservatives. It brought in money." Should we include that viewpoint as well?
  • "In 1995, Chapman, Gilder, and Meyer found similar goals between Gilder’s views on conservative economics and Meyer’s conservative philosophical views about evolution." Implies that Chapman and Meyer came together 1995, yet the Wired article shows that the DI were paying Meyer in 1994. [18]
  • "The new Center underwrote the earliest nucleus of intelligent design authors who titled themselves "The Wedge". [19]" The cite provided says nothing of the sort and passage completely skips over the earlier small grant from Ahmanson to the DI prior to the $750,000 commitment in 1996 that funded the CRSC and confuses the source of seed money for the fledgling movement, Ahmanson, with the Center, highlighted in the NYT article passage given above.
That's no improvement. FeloniousMonk 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk - Perhaps my first re-write can be modified. The problem is, the current Wiki still has serious problems:

"In 1993, having formed a plan for a think tank opposed to materialism with Stephen C. Meyer and George Gilder (Chapman's former Harvard roommate and his writing partner), Chapman secured seed money in the form of a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and $450,000 from the MacLellan Foundation. [2] These underwrote the earliest nucleus of intelligent design authors who titled themselves "The Wedge" [3]. Meyer had previously tutored Ahmanson's son in science and Meyer recalls being asked by Ahmanson "What could you do if you had some financial backing?"

  • The 1993 date in the first sentence is wrong. The source cited in the Wiki - NYT says that Chapman read a Meyers op-ed in late 1993, an met with him about a year later (could have been in 1994).
  • The first sentence wrongly states that "In 1993...Chapman secured seed money in the form of a grant from [Ahmanson and MacLellan]" That cannot be right. No matter how we interprit the very vague "small grant" language in the NYT article, it does not support at all the idea that in 1993 MacLellan had given 450,000. I think my version that you reverted is much more verifiable. You can give no quotation showing MacLellan money in 1993, and no plan in 1993.
  • I'm going to change the beginning of the second sentence, "These underwrote" to "Ahmanson and the MacLellan Foundation underwrote. . ." for clarity. Right now, it is unclear, and for some readers implies that the Discovery Institute, or the CRSC were the underwriters. As you point out above, the Cornerstone article does not speak of DI or CRSC. Also, I do not think the source cited says anything about the funding. It does talk about "the Wedge" - Philip Johnson writing, but nowhere does it provide verification that the two foundations supported it. I won't yet edit that part, but want to challenge the verification.

Veritasjohn 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, I also disagree with your reversion to the existing sentence. There is no documentation that a plan existed in 1993, the best sources say they did not meet until late 1994 at the earliest. Also, the current sentene wrongly claims that MaClellan Foundation gave money in 1993.Saint-George 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Saint-George concerning the revision. The only clear evidence that we have been provided so far is the late 1994 date. To try and set the timeline any earlier is only conjecture. While dates may be "small" things, accuracy helps keep the tenor of this discussion tight and focused. Cabanaman 18:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What specifically are you refering to? The dates in the article were changed yesterday to reflect the New York Times article. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Like Cabanaman, I did not see the dates updated. They are much better, though I think they can be improved even more. The current version tries to address the Ahmanson and MacLellan Foundation money as coming in the same year. The NYT article, I believe, makes clear that the MacLellan money was only secured in 1995, not in 1994, or earlier. It is ambigous on the Ahmanson money, which I am currently researching. Perhaps a split into two sentences could clarify when there is better information out there. Veritasjohn 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cascadia expansion

I expanded the Cascadia section of the page with more background and explanation of what the center does. The new version should provide more encyclopedia type information about Cascadia.

I did not remove existing material on Cascadia, but merely added the new information.Veritasjohn 22:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've pared it down somewhat, it read like a Discovery Institute Marketing Dept press release. FeloniousMonk 02:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You deleted legitimate information that contributed to the Discovery Wiki about Cascadia. Please justify this deletion. Your claim that "it read like a Discovery Institute Marketing Dept press release" is without basis.
  • You deleted valuable information about John Miller, a Washington State politician who was involved with Cascadia's founding. I even added a Wiki link to John Miller's wiki page. This is not POV.
  • You deleted information about the current managing director, Thomas Till, who used to work for the Amtrack Reform Council.
  • I'll compromise and not re-ad my third sentence about the other current senior fellows. Though, I think this should be included at some later time.
Perhaps you only have an interest in the ID aspects of Discovery (a fair inference from the current version of the article. However, to be a good Wiki, this page should include other aspects of Discovery, such as Cascadia.
Again, I'm willing to discuss, but I fail to see what aspect of these changes read like a press release? This is standard background facts about Cascadia. The CSC section includes quite a bit more about funding, and the people involved. Why should the article not even mention the people involved at the founding? Veritasjohn 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"In 2003, Thomas Till joined Agnew to serve as Managing Director, after leaving his post as Executive Director of the Amtrak Reform Council." - that is typical of press release language, but rarely appears in any other form of writing (except when journalists copy from press releases). Guettarda 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DI PR Firm

The DI recently hired the same PR firm that promoted the former Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Contract With America, Creative Response Concepts. Also, given CRC's history of using blogs and other online sources, we will to guard against their using this article as another channel to promote their employer's views. FeloniousMonk 02:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't be surprised if that's already happened. JoshuaZ 03:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I assume that FeloniousMonk's rule does not apply if it would censor legitimate information about Discovery Institute which objectively deserves to be known. I certainly hope that FeloniousMonk would not want legitimate information to be censored under any circumstances. EndScientificCensorship 19 September 2006
Why am I already thinking about the principal that "WP:AGF is not suicide pact"?JoshuaZ 04:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I find this a borderline personal attack on my editing of this page. This is not justified in the least. Do you have any evidence or reason to try and smear my editing? I plan on reporting this if it gets worse. I am not a notable wikipedian, and have been making edits to improve the article.
You do not have ownership of the current WIki. Your language of "guarding against thier uing this article" is revealing. Wikipedia is open to anybody to come and improve a page. Nobody has claimed that you must be employed by some anti-ID outfit, which "uses blogs and other online resournces" so why are you making such a personal attack.
Finally, while I am flattered to be compared to a professional PR firm employee - I am nothing of the sort.Veritasjohn 05:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Who is the ink blot? JoshuaZ 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Expanding on my above comment, I don't see anyone saying you were so the fact that you bring up now seems a bit odd. And in any event, we have had to deal with the DI and similar groups attempt to modify their articles before so concern in this regard is understandable.JoshuaZ 12:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Veritasjohn, chill out a little bit. These fine folks are just trying to make sure that nothing sketchy goes on here. I don't see anything so far to evidence their accusations, but they have a right to be vigilant.Saint-George 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That being said, I think Veritasjohn is right to interpret FeloniousMonk's posts as accusing him of working for a PR firm. As this is a pretty serious allegation, I would like it to be substantiated or withdrawn. Merely asserting that Veritasjohn's stuff looked like a press release (when the Cascadia section had previously lacked the level of detail present in the other sections) is not enough. FeloniousMonk looks like he's overreacting.Saint-George 17:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd kind of like to see where FeloniousMonk accused Veritasjohn of working for a PR firm, Saint-George. And I've read the communication here a few times and I'll admit I may have overlooked it, but for my benefit please quote where FeloniousMonk accused Veritasjohn of working for a PR firm. And saying someone's edits sounds like a PR release is ordinary editorial criticism (and not an accusation of what one does for a living nor does it suggest bad faith). If I got my panties in a bunch everytime an editor criticized my own writing my butt would sting for months. And on the topic at hand...The DI has already gone on record publicly asking their supporters to let Wiki know how they feel, they have admitted to having DI staffers try and manipulate Wiki articles, so I think the Monk's head's up about the DI's newly hired propaganda tool is quite appropriate (and noteworthy in the article). Thank you. Mr Christopher 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify my concerns, which perhaps were over reacting. I edited the Cascadia section, significantly expanding it. FelinousMonk cut out two sentences of my edit, and in the edit summary said:
  • “pare down the DI marketing dept boosterism in this section,”
Next, he started a new discussion about DI PR firm:
  • ” The DI recently hired the same PR firm that promoted the former Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Contract With America, Creative Response Concepts. Also, given CRC's history of using blogs and other online sources, we will to guard against their using this article as another channel to promote their employer's views.”
I took these comments together to be cutting my edit, as “DI marketing dept boosterism” and then warning about DI hiring a PR firm, as calling my work that of a DI hired “dept” or “PR firm.” In my defense, I asked for clarification, and Felinous never substantiated my inference, but rather a different Wiki contributor explained that my sentence sounded like a Press Release. So, Felinous did not directly say I worked for a PR firm, but take his edit summary with his next discussion, it seems to be strongly implying foul play. I’m glad that there is no accusation, and I plant to continue and contribute to this article.Veritasjohn 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you know in in creationism portal.

In case anyone cares, this article is now mentioned in Portal:Creationism's did you know section. JoshuaZ 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

technology & democracy

I added a subsection for the Technology and Democracy cause at DI. It was not previously mentioned in the Wiki, despite being a cause from the founding to the present (involving George Gilder). Veritasjohn 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I took out the "media complaints division" viewpoint. Even if it were cited, it would not be appropriate in the links section. No other link is editorialized in a similar fashion. Links should just have a fair description, not a critical jab.Saint-George 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, FeliniousMonk's edit summary re-adding the criticism called a "point of view." This is a link section, all other comments are purely descriptive. The Discovery Institute main link doesn't include a "point of view" attack it behind the link.Veritasjohn 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Please. It's descriptive; Evolution News is commonly called the "Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division" by institute observers and critics. Most of Panda's Thumb and Talk Design know it as simply the Complaints Division. It's a verfiable fact, not an editorialization. Since you have no objection to the likes of the institute's "The Wedge - So What?" attempt at spinning The Wedge document [20], I don't see why what others call Evolution News. Unless your demands for fairness only extend to pro-DI descriptions... FeloniousMonk 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It is "descriptive" in the same way that CNN could be described as the "Clinton News Network" during the 1990s by --Platonic Realm 14:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)right-wingers. That kind of stuff does not belong in the links section. The question of liking to "The Wedge - So What?" is a discrete issue of no relevance to this particular question.Saint-George 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
But speaking of the links changes made by FeloniousMonk, I reverted them because the changes do not improve the page. The "TW-SW" link removed points to a very topical article. The links added are to Panda's Thumb pages on a couple of trivial objections to specific issues rather than anything that cuts to the core of what DI is about. I don't think I'm being pro-DI, I'm just pro better content.Saint-George 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the media complains division note is unnecessarily POV in that context. I am less convinced of the need to include the rebuttal to the wedge document leak since the Wedge is only somewhat relevant here. It would make more sense as a link in the article about the Wedge itself. JoshuaZ 22:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Where it is already provided and given its due. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe that the removal of the DI's "The Wedge - So What" article has been adequately discussed, let alone justified. I remember the link being there before Felinious removed it a few days ago. I did some checking. Felinious removed the link on 19 Sept 2006. [21]
Now, I did some digging. The DI Wedge PDF was linked in May 2006 [22], October 2005 [23], and even back in May 2005 [24] – more than a year and a half ago. This was before most of the article development. In short, it had been there for a very long time. I do not have the time to locate when exactly it was entered. I know that something being in an article for a long time does not justify it staying it, but it at least means that deleting that material should be explained.
This deletion of the external link was not justified or defended by Felinious on the Discussion page. All we have is an edit summary. Why did it need to be deleted all of a sudden? There is no apparent reason. It is clearly relevant, as the article discussed the Wedge in depth, and other links discuss other POV's about the Wedge. It is not right for this link to be deleted, and then re-deleted multiple times with no discussion. It is for those against the link to make their case.Saint-George 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk – why did you delete the link to Discovery's Wedge reply? It is "external information that adds meaning to the subject." I remember this link being on the page for a long time. The Wedge is mentioned throughout the article, so readers may want to read more about what Discovery has to say, even if they don't go to the Wedge strategy Wikipedia article page. The Wedge is:
  • Mentioned twice in Organization / CSC
  • Mentioned as first bulleted point in Discovery Institute Causes
  • Whole paragraph in Criticism about The Wedge
Furthermore, there are two external links that you left which add further information and criticism of the Wedge Document:
  • "The Wedge at Work" (Barbara Forrest book chapter)
  • "Infidels.org article with further discussion and analysis of the Wedge strategy"
Wikipedia is to represent sides from a neutral point of view. You are allowing some viewpoints about The Wedge (infidels and Forrest) to be represented, but not the Discovery Institute's own view. This is an article about the Discovery Institute, it seems quite understandable to present their view in external links. Neither would the inclusion of the link be "undue weight" to the minority view, seeing as 10 of the 13 links currently on the page counter the claims of the Discovery Institute and its fellows. --Platonic Realm 14:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So, based on this (which I note has no copyright date, although it must be at least 2004 given one of its reference) how should the DI's view be presented? As near as I can see there's a denial that the document was a secret (a denial that appears to be lacking plausibity), a lot fluff about how DI cherishes science, followed by more fluff as to how a belief in a deity is not required to accept ID (little green men, right?), followed by reasons why God (capital G, only one deity it can refer to) must be brought into science, culture, and politics, backed up by the "Spiritual and Cultural Renewal" of America via ID as promoted by Christianity. Fair assessment? •Jim62sch• 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch - nobody proposed "presenting" the content of the Discovery Institute doc any more than including it as a link under External Links. It had been a link for quite some time. Your opinions about the viewpoint of the document don't disqualify it from being an external link do they? The criticism of The Wedge is readily represented by the other links in the section. Also, I'm confused on what you are saying, what exactly is your point? I understand that you do not believe the viewpoint presented in the DI document. But, the External Link section presents many competing viewpoints - so no wikipedian is going to believe everything in every external link. Hearing what DI has to say about The Wedge document is valuable, as your POV comment even shows. It is valuable to know that DI claims it was not "secret," as just one example.Veritasjohn 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


I removed two lings which do not seem to belong in the External Links section. They were both replaced, several times. In the discussion, I will now defend why at least the first link should be removed. The pandasthumb blog post titled “Correct This!” is badly out of date. It was written September 5th, 2005. I checked the history, an IP address added the link to the DI Wiki on 26 September 2005 [25] It may well have been linkspam added by the pandasthumb author of the blog post (though we cannot know).

This link should now be removed. It is more than a year old. Much of the blog post is simply out of date. Here are just a few of the badly outdated parts:

  • 1)“an ad for Sermonti’s book, displaying Behe’s endorsement of it, continues to appear on their main page.” No longer current, add has long been removed.
  • 2)“In Kansas, thanks to the political maneuvering of the Discovery Institute and other Creationits, a biology teacher too lazy to check the sources may actually teach that to his students as “evidence against darwinian evolutionary theory”. Kansas Standards have changed since 2005, no longer critical teaching allowed
  • 3)“Ohio may even add this “controversy” to their evolution “lesson plans”, already riddled with gross biology errors gleaned from previous Intelligent Design literature (unless you people write enough letters to the Ohio media to reverse the course set by Ohio’s ID-friendly felon governor).” Ohio policy has been reversed.

Furthermore, this blog post is just that – a blog post. There are hundreds of blog posts back and forth between Discovery’s ENV and Pandasthumb. There is no reason to include this blog post as opposed to hundreds of other blog posts. The actual content of the blog post criticizes Michael Behe’s blurb supporting a book, which was plugged briefly on ENV. This is merely an outdated blog-war criticism of Michael Behe, not interesting information about the Discovery Institute (this Wiki page’s topic).Veritasjohn 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Veritasjohn, I agree that those links do seem to be out of date. I also agree that the link to the DI's Wedge Document: So what? should be kept. That is, if the wedge document continues to be referenced in the article. If the references to the wedge document are removed then so should the link. Bagginator 02:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I reverted Truthologist (talk · contribs)'s undiscussed changes to the article a second time now. His edits white washed ID's status within the DI by downplaying them and deleting a sourced passage of DI co-founder Gilder on the prominence of ID at the institute. Truthologist's changes also downplayed the conservative sources of funding of the DI while boosting the prominence of that of the Gates Foundation, which only funds work on transportation issues. Since sort of spinning and downplaying of the facts is not going to work when there are so many sources available. Considering the subject of this article has declared war on Wikipedia, [26] if there are specific things in the article that are inaccurate and need to be changed, they need to be discussed here first. FeloniousMonk 19:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Demanding that all changes be discussed in advance on the Wiki's talk page is contrary to established WP and therefore unnecessary.Truthologist 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong, it's policy: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Major_changes. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Feloniousmonk's whimsical reversion of edits

It is quickly becoming apparent why "Felon" is in the handle "Feloniousmonk". This user will not allow any changes to this article, regardless of sourced information, or the inaccurate nature of some content (See e.g. [27].) Furthermore, there is no "Whitewashing" taking place--and no information about "Gilder" was removed in that edit. If this rampant and biased behavior continues, I recommend this matter be referred to Wikipedia for appropriate arbitration.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.139.168 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 October 2006

Ya gotta do whatcha gotta do. Just make sure all yer ducks are in a row. •Jim62sch• 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, Chapman, not Gilder: [28] FeloniousMonk 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference--which you recently added. Like I said, my interest is in improving the current entry, not removing well-sourced information. As the quote was previously unattributed, according to wiki-policy, it was within my editing purvey to remove it. Similar edits will follow, though I think the overall structure of the entry also needs some revision to provide the current information more effectively. See e.g. my edit (reverted by JoshuaZ) here.Truthologist 02:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeking discussion on adding a link to article: "Institute Has Put Over $4 Million Towards Scientific and Academic Research into Evolution and Intelligent Design in the Past Decade ."

Is there any objection to placing the article in external links?

Actually maybe more about this belongs in the article itself but I'm not sure how best to address it. They claim they have invested 4 million into research and academia, yet their mum on exactly what that 4 million got them or where exactly it went. I wonder why they keep that information so secret. Mr Christopher 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
One should think the reason to be one of disingenuity. Lord Henry Wotton 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I did some digging and contrast that article with this one: The State of Scientific Research on Intelligent Design - Bruce Chapman On one hand they are celebrating all the research they claim has been done over the last 10 years, on the other hand they are exlaining why they are not divulging any details about this research (the Darwinists will "strangle the infant in the crib" if they make those details known, I just hate it when that happens). Chapman also suggests ID researchers risk their jobs by publicly talking about their work. Odd that not a single ID researcher in the entire world works for a ID friendly school. You'd think Dembski would be free to do ID research where he works and I thought Behe had tenure, so what does he have to hide or fear? And how about Wells, is his livelyhood at risk if he publicly discusses his ID research? Anyhow...
I think Chapman's article is very noteworthy, especially in view of no one really believes any actual ID related research or testing is going on yet Chapman indicates quite a bit of it is, they're just keeping it a secret. Chapman sounds as if the ID community is on the verge of some significant break throughs that we'll soon hear about. Does anyone else think this is noteworthy? Mr Christopher 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they actually saw the alien bodies at Area 51 and deciphered their book, How to Build Man. Or maybe they found the time-travelling biologist's time machine. Perhaps Gabriel agreed to appear on film explaining it all. In any case, they've been going on about this for some time, so the only notability it really has is that "that's their story and they're sticking to it". •Jim62sch• 01:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


they've been going on about this for some time, Jim, that's my point and now they are saying they've invested 4 million dollars in ID research and "science"...Yet they're keeping it a secret from the world because the Darwinists are out to get them. That is what makes it noteable to me. Anyhow, I don't want to sound like I'm trying to sell others on the idea, I might get some time and try and come up with something to present here for opinions. Cheers! Mr Christopher 02:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I knew that was your point, I was just being sarcastic. I suppose the money they say they've invested without released results is notable, although how to present it without making them seem like abject paranoiacs will be difficult if not impossible. •Jim62sch• 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing unsourced, POV material

I am removing strongly POV material from entry here, specifically this sentence:

It seeks to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis" and leave the scientific community looking closed-minded, opening the public school science curriculum to creation-based alternatives to evolution such as intelligent design, and thereby undermining "scientific materialism."

What is the source for this? Sounds like pure editorializing (or perhaps paraphrasing unsourced material) to me. Thoughts? Truthologist 03:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it with supporting cites. All the content of the article is accurate and easily supported. If you're genuinely that unaware of the motives and goals for ID of the Wedge members at the DI, perhaps you shouldn't be editing that content. FeloniousMonk 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I will be looking into the citations, and challenging any that fail to meet WP:NPOV, and general WAP muster. Furthermore, it is a simple fact that the bold claim being made was unsourced. That in and of itself justified removing the information from the posting. I'm a bit skeptical of your motive-mongering here, but as indicated above, I will look at the citations you provided and confer with you here if I think further changes are in order on this. Thanks! Truthologist 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do. Just be sure that objections to article content or sources are justified and not baseless. These cites were readily available to anyone bothering to look and cover what most with just a cursory reading on the topic consider to be common knowledge. Long-term contributors here are very knowledgeable on the subject at hand; we don't mind providing sources when necessary, but there isn't a lot of patience in the community for pov-deletionism or endless calls for cites. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I see a trend in many of the new citations added to this page (and also many of the older ones in this wiki-page), namely an over-reliance on citation to opinion articles, agenda-driven books, and other materials that either display a strong bias, or are otherwise expressing opinions and not facts. For instance, in this edit one editor apparently took umbrage when I included an explanatory note that the article was an opinion piece (i.e. POV rather than a more reliable, and NPOV news story). I would encourage editors to review current citations, consider their relevance and accuracy, and whether the claims being made conform to WP:Verifiability. Furthermore, I think that a major push to make the article NPOV requires moving existing criticisms located sporadically throughout the entry to the "criticisms of the Institute section" and suggest posting future criticism exclusively in that section, as well. Comments? Truthologist 05:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"a major push to make the article NPOV" Um, the article already fully complies with WP:NPOV; I don't think you understand the policy.
"Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other. In summary, controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism." -- Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure. I don't think you'll find much support for that here. FeloniousMonk 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think one of the problems here is a disagreement over the meaning WP:NPOV. From the Simplified Ruleset: "Write from a neutral point of view. This is a fundamental principle, which allows us to make a fair representation of the world around us. Even if material is verifiable, it is still important to put it into a balanced and representative form so that it conveys a fair impression of the views of the many significant viewpoints on a subject."WP:SR See also Simple Forumulation, and Fairness of Tone. The page as it currently sits does not accurately represent the Institute--instead it acts as one big gushing criticism, and a sounding board for critics. In fact, it appears some users prefer it this way, and have gone to great pains to monopolize the content of the page, keeping mainly negative views in place. This needs to change. I welcome any comments you all may have. Truthologist 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
The DI's viewpoint on ID being valid science is clearly not accepted by the scientific community, which is who determines what is and isn't valid science. All viewpoints in this article are cited, attributed and verifiable. The article presents the competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and points out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and the minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views. Yes, interested editors guard against the bowdlerizing of articles under the pretense of NPOV. You may choose to characterize them as "monopolizing the content," but before you go down that path realize that your own single-topic, single-viewpoint history at Wikipedia belies your motives in so doing. POV campaigning and promotion inevitably never succeeds at Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Media

The above were removed in this edit by Jim62sch citing this reason: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to be an outlet for DI sponsored events -- that [sic] what DI has its own web site for." I disagree, and believe the more information about the Institute and its program and events in this entry, the better. Please provide other justification for such a major deletion, and cite appropriate established WP if applicable. Truthologist 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim was right to remove them. Wikipedia is not a link farm or alternate channel for promotion of their viewpoint for the Discovery Institute, please read WP:NOT. FeloniousMonk 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."

Truthologist added an excessive number of links to DI material: [29] He then restored it when Jimsch62 rejected it as link spam: [30] 216.163.84.151 (talk · contribs) restored the links in the form of links to archives/search results: [31] User:216.163.84.151's IP just happens to be that of the Discovery Institute. Having the DI restore Truthologist's questionable edits calls into question whether there are editors here working on the Discovery Institute's behalf or that its PR firm, Creative Response Concepts. WP:AUTO provides for preventing editors from editing articles in which they are directly involved, particularly when done in a biased manner, as have been seen here. To avoid future conflict and disputes, anyone editing here who is an involved party with the DI should limit themselves to participating on this article's talk page and refrain from editing the article directly. FeloniousMonk 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to light, FeloniousMonk. Simply fascinating. Mr Christopher 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That is horribly depressing, but thanks as always for your perceptiveness. --Davril2020 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well now we know that Truthologist has been less than truthful. Editing all the Discovery Institute related articles, while moaning how POV they are, violating every policy, and hiding the fact you are associated with the Discovery Institute is not a good example of Christian truthology. Mr Christopher 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I havn't been at this page for a while. I'm glad to see that the DI IP was caught and properly reverted. However, I don't see why Truthologist has been also declared to be from the Discovery Institute. He made a lot of changes, and then the DI IP reverted some of his link changes - once. I don't think it is right to just declare that editor to be from the Discovery Institute. It doesn't even appear that he was asked on the discussion - someone just added the tag at the top of this page.Veritasjohn 21:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious where you get the info that his IP is the same as the Discovery Institute's? A simple WHOIS turns up that DI's IP is 64.246.188.3, and the 216.163.84.151 is owned by a webservices company so who knows what it's used for. Granted DI is probably using other IPs for their user machines, and you could be right, but I'd like to know how got that info. Headlouse 22:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering DI's efforts here, the number of WP:SPAs participating and the nature of their participation, there's consensus that WP:BEANS prevents us from going into too much detail. But I can say for certain that 216.163.84.151 is the Discovery Institute, you're simply not using the right sort of lookup. Everything you need is on 216.163.84.151's talk page, try a little harder, you'll figure it out. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Headlouse, an NSLOOKUP command from my desktop turns up 216.163.84.151 = firewall.discovery.org which is of course the Discovery Institute's network (www.discovery.org). Mr Christopher 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
My goodness, I should hope Headlouse and Veritasjohn are not considering engaging in computer security as a vocation. Virtually every event on the internet is tracable, you see, given the proper tools of course. Lord Henry Wotton 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually their response is to be expected. One day you return to the article to see the tag(s) above without any explanation as to why. Their questions make perfect sense to me. Mr Christopher 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The same methods for fighting sockpuppetry work just well ferreting out those with a conflict of interest. Inevitably it's their own actions that ultimately give them away: no matter how carefully they try to cloak the motive for their actions, the act of incessantly deleting only criticisms itself demonstrates their intent. FeloniousMonk 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
What about if this truthologist person just works for the discovry institute as a clerk or something? I work at Wal-Mart, does that mean I can't edit the Wal-Mart artical? It don't make sense. Alethos Logos 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Alethos Logos, I believe bubba speak would be more like "It don't make no sense" Try that. Also you'll do well to read these policies prior to editing the Walmart article - WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Mr Christopher 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Felinious - thanks for the explanation, but I'm still unclear on how we know that Truthologist is from DI. I just assued (it turns out correctly) that the 216.... IP was the DI's. Also, I see in the discussion that Truthologist clearly posted, under the heading "Feloniousmonk's whimsical reversion of edits" that the unsigned comment was from the 24.113.139.168. That's not the 216 IP. I read the WP:BEANS thing, and it didn't make any sense to me.Veritasjohn 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
His editing from the DI has been confirmed by a neutral 3rd party. Editors generally have more than one IP associated with their account, for example, one each for home, work and/or school. WP:BEANS is being invoked because we don't want to give scofflaws any ideas on how to further circumvent policy. FeloniousMonk 03:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just didn't understand how it was known that the user was from DI when there wasn't anything explaining such in the page. I'll take your word for it.Veritasjohn 01:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Christian Think Tank?

Although a source has been provided to the claim that it is a conservative Christian think tank, there are a few problems. One, there are no cited sources to the Discovery Institute itself that say it is a conservative Christian think tank. It has been my experience in controversial matters that hearsay is not always reliable. Second, if we go straight to the horse's mouth and see what the Discovery Institute says[32], we see,

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic.

For specific examples, note that David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute [33] and is an Orthodox Jew[34]--not a conservative Christian. Another example, David Berlinksi is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (in the CSC branch)[35] and is an agnostic[36][37]. --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your purposeful campaign promoting dissembling continues apace. There is no shortage of sources that the DI promotes a conservative Christian agenda (which is readily apparent in their actions and manifest in the Wedge Document); it's a simple matter of just adding them to the article, which we'll now do. Please don't start disrupting this article as well with more partisan, baseless objections. FeloniousMonk 15:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Felinous - I don't think you responded to the point about the Board not being Christian. If an organization promotes some causes which Christians promote, that does not make it a Christian organization. Furthermore, where is the "purposeful campaign promoting dissembling continues apace." I don't see what you are referring to. The user provided useful citations of Discovery Institute board members who are clearly not "conservative Christian." I will look forward to seeing your sources. According to your logic, the Wedge and intelligent design issue are "Christian" and therefore DI is a "Christian organization." That seems flawed. presume Pro-life is a "Christian" issue, that would make the atheists for life a "Christian organization" [38]Veritasjohn 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to use bad logic I have a few examples I'd like to offer, and they're true and not made up. I have a liberal friend who more often than not votes Republican. This proves the Republican party is not conservative. And a prominant black civil rights activist once supported David Duke's run for governor. That proves David Duke is not a racist. See where this line of thinking goes?
The Discovery Institute also is chummy with at least one known Moonie. That does not make them a Moonie Think Tank nor does it negate the fact they are a Christian think tank. Perhaps the Discovery Instiutute's denial of their blatant Christian agenda might be noteworthy though. Thoughts? Mr Christopher 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
How about the following,
Some have claimed that the Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank.[39] The Discovery Institute contradicts this claim, pointing out that "until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish."[40] It also points out the existence of current Board members who are not conservative Christians.[41] Two examples of this are David Klinghoffer--a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute [42] who is an Orthodox Jew[43]. Another example us David Berlinksi, also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (in the CSC branch)[44] and is an agnostic[45][46].
Here we have both sides represented and sources cited, in compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:CITE.
Regarding your statement Mr Christopher on "bad logic," unless your liberal friend is a Board member of the Republican party I don't think that particular analogy quite applies. Unless David Duke is a Board member of a major civil rights organization I don't think that analogy quite applies either (I suggest you visit the false analogy Wikipedia entry). If it the Institute were really a conservative Christian think tank, why is an Orthodox Jew a Board member? Why is an agnostic a Board member? Why was a Jewish man the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors? It just doesn’t make sense. I think the fact that a number of Board members are not conservative Christians does constitute at least some legitimate evidence against the claim that it is a conservative Christian think tank. [Last edited 18:24, October 2006 (UTC)] --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure people confuse an organizations agenda with the make up of one or two of their fellows. And the Discovery Institute has political and strategic reasons who support fellows who are not christians. They go out of their way to advertise their token Jew and token "atheist" (whatever). This does not change the reality that their agenda is religiously motivated, specifically conservative, right wing christian agenda. So if they offered a fellowship to the president of Iran (a muslim with a funny accent) that would not change the reality of their overall christian agenda. Mr Christopher 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Christopher, your examples and contentions do nothing to establish that the DI is a "Christian think tank."
The burden of proof when authoring is not on the one showing that what another wrote is wrong. The burden of proof is on the one asserting the label. Saying that "they are a Christian think tank" does not make them Christian. I could be wrong, but "it looks that way to me" shouldn't suffice to apply a label.
Your comment about a Moonie (Jonathan Wells) makes no sense. Why does that not make Discovery a Moonie Think Thank? Because Discovery does not possess the necessary properties of being Moonie. What is baffling is why you think this does not undermine DI's alledged "Christian" identity. How many Christian churches do you know who have Moonies on their leadership? None. Look at the logic of what you are saying. DI has a Moonie Fellow. This does not make the DI a Moonie think tank. Replace "Christian" for "Moonie." The DI has a Christian fellow. This does not make the DI a Christian think tank. The DI has an agnostic fellow. This does not make the DI an agnstic think tank.
So it seems the questions are:
  • How, on Wikipedia, should we properly apply a label to a diverse group? Is a label based on:
  • What they do
  • Who their membership/leadership consists of
  • How a group identifies themselves
  • How they are identified in media sources
  • What happens if there is conflict between possible sources of establishing a label?
  • Does the DI possess the necessary properties of being "Christian"? If yes, what are they?
  • Does the DI possess properties that makes them secular? (As they claim they are secular.) If yes, what are they?
--Platonic Realm 19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Deciding this issue is, I think, beyond the scope of the entry. I think the best thing to do is just to present both points of view (one side says their Christian, the other does not) like my proposal above. Though perhaps the proposal might be more appropriate in the body of the article rather than the introduction (similar to what you said below). --Wade A. Tisthammer 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm usure about the proposal by Wade. My opinion is that such indecisiveness might be more appropriate in the body of the article. The introduction should be plain and simple facts, not a contentious clump of argumentation. If the label "Christian" does not fit and is not substantiated, just go with what is well-established on the facts. --Platonic Realm 19:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The DI in promoting ID is promoting an explicitely Christian goal: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[47] This fact was recognized in the Dover ruling which said "ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science"[48] ... "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."[49] And as the article details and is supported by multiple sources the vast majority of the DI's funding comes wealthy conservative Christians and explicitely Christian organizations. DI members are overwhelmingly Christian, the few exceptions are touted by the DI as part of their "Big Tent" strategy. The DI's "natural constituency" (their own term) are Christians. So you've got a think tank that's 98%+ conservative Christian (the other <2% being conservative theists of other flavors which share the same goals) with a documented explicitely Christian agenda, funded largely by conservative Christians, catering to a Christian constituency. It's safe to say they're Christian. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of editing, the name of the person quoted in the first footnote, Patricia O’Connell Killen, does not even appear in the hyperlinked-reference. Why does this baseless footnote even exist? I would look it up myself right now, but I'm on my way to a meeting. If it's not taken care of by tonight, I'll be glad to find a suitable recommendation and post it here for approval. --Platonic Realm 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's there, you just have to read beyond the first page in the source article: [50] "Although it purports to be a secular organization, its religious moorings are clearly recognizable. Patricia O'Connell Killen, a religion professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma whose work centers around the regional religious identity of the Pacific Northwest, recently wrote that "religiously inspired think tanks such as the conservative evangelical Discovery Institute" are part of the "religious landscape" of that area." BTW, this fully supports the passage in the article and is by defintion is verifiable and a reliable source per our guidelines. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Felonious, there is a difference between an organization that espouses a major viewpoint consonant with conservative Christianity and an conservative Christian organization. A quick example (as someone pointed out) is this organization which is ardently pro-life (clearly a major part of conservative Christianity) and yet is atheistic. By your own admission there are "conservative theists of other flavors [i.e. not Christian] which share the same goals." These goals may very well be consonant with conservative Christian dogma, but they are clearly not the same thing as Christianity itself. Otherwise, why would an agnostic and an orthodox Jew be Board members? The best answer seems to be that the Discovery Institute has goals that--while very conistent with Christiantiy--aren't unique to it. To the very least, it seems we should point out certain facts like the DI's statement contradicting the claim of being a conservative Christian think tank, and especially the part of a Jewish man having been the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors. [Last edited: 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)] --Wade A. Tisthammer 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I am well aware of the WP:NOR policy. That being said, I think your “proof” needs to be discussed. Your arguments seem to break down to these:

  • Discovery promotes ID, and ID is “explicitly Christian” (citing Wedge Doc, and Kitzmiller). Later you refer to a “documented explicitly Christian agenda”
  • “vast majority of DI’s funding comes from wealthy conservative Christians and explicitly Christian organizations You sum this up by claiming (wrongly) that the group is “98%+ conservative Christian” with the other “<2% being conservative theists who share the same goals.”
  • DI members are overwhelmingly Christian
  • Discovery’s “natural constituency” is Christians

I know you are going to object to this, but I think it is important to consider - the Discovery Institute itself publicly describes itself as a “secular think tank.” Even more, the Institute expressly denies being a “Christina think tank.” [[51]] I suspect many will object to the Discovery Institute being biased in this claim. However, I think it is standard for simple, factual claims, to cite and defer to a public organizations claims. We take Discovery’s word at who their Board members are, for example. (I will address later how the sources currently cited are not neutral third parties).

I find it simply astounding that Discovery’s reasonable, public, explanation of this fact will be entirely ignored by the wiki article. Here are some additional, verifiable facts about the Discovery Institute.

  • Congressman John Miller was the long time chair of the Discovery Board of Directors. John Miller is Jewish (not Christian) (1999-2003)
  • David Klinghoffer is a fellow of Discovery Institute and a widely syndicated Jewish author and writer, who even wrote a book entitled '“Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”' (patently non-Christian book).
  • Senior Fellow David Berlinski is an agnostic, or Jewish, but clearly not a “conservative Christian”
  • There is no religions test to be a Board Member, Fellow, or staff at the Discovery Institute
  • There is no “statement of faith” or any expression of religious doctrine by the Discovery Institute
  • The Discovery Institute never describes itself as “Christian” (and in fact expressly explains that it is not).
  • Jonathan Wells is publicly known to not be “conservative Christian.”

Is it reasonable to label an institution “Conservative Christian” in the first sentence when they employ, at a high level, the author of “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”? I think not. Furthermore, Felon, you make up your numbers, which I’ll be charitable and presume were estimates (98% and 2%). Be honest, you have no idea how many % of the Discovery fellows or staff are “conservative Christians.” Furthermore, there is no evidence that the publicly identified non-Christian members are “token” members. There are in fact several publicly verifiable Christians at Discovery (Dembski, etc.). However, there is no verifiable document saying what precise percentage of Fellows, staff, or board members are any particular religion.

Your claim would categorize John Miller, chairman of the Board for four years, as “token.” What sort of “Christian organization” employs a “token Jew” as the chairman of its board? You make a claim that the non-conservative Christian members of Discovery are “conservative theists who share the same goals.” This is a fascinating admission. Conservative theists is not the same thing as Conservative Christians. Theist is a much broader category than Christian. Indeed, many who fit “theists” would vehemently object to being labeled “Christian” (which you seem to do). Jews and Moslems, to name just two, should not be wrongly labeled Christian just because they are theists.

Wikipedia is not obliged to follow POV name-calling as verifiable fact. I suspect an interested reader would be shocked to find out that what the Wiki article calls a “conservative Christian” organization engaged in many non-Christian causes (Cascadia, for example), was lead by a Jewish Chairman of the Board, and has a Senior Fellow who has written a book that is exceedingly non-Christian. Not to mention that the organization will readily employ any agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, or person of whatever religious affiliation.Veritasjohn 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Veritas, you might want to take these arguements and see if you can get the press and other sources to believe you. Or at least contact all the sources that are cited in the article that recognize the Discovery Institute as a Christian think tank/organization/agenda that are used in the article. Tell them the DI is not a Christian think tank and point out that since they have a few Jews, atheists and Moonies they are cannot be a Christian organization with a Christian agenda. Perhaps they'll believe you and then take back every word they've ever said on the subject. That would be more effective than trying to argue here with editors who are actually well read on the subject and are already fully aware of the Christian agenda promoted by the Discovery Institute. Best of luck to you. Mr Christopher 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The DI's flacks have been doing just that for some time now: [52] The problem is, no one other than ID fellow travelers is buying it. FeloniousMonk 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument made by User:FeloniousMonk relies largely on Intelligent Design being "explicitly Christian" and thus, the Discovery Institute which advances ID must also be "explicitly Christian." This argument proves too much. Even if Intelligent Design is religious (a contentious POV claim made by Kitzmiller, and disagreed with by many), this does not make the Discovery Institute "explicitly Christian"

Mustafa Aykol at The White Path is a devout Moslem supporting Intelligent Design. According to User:FeloniousMonks logical fallacy, anybody who supports intelligent design becomes "explicitly Christian." That would make Mr. Aykol a "Christian" – which he is clearly not. Even if you assume ID has the property of being "Christian" that property does not transfer to those who support intelligent design.

User:FeloniousMonks argument hangs the hat entirely on the intelligent design peg. By that logic anybody and everybody who supports intelligent design should be described as "explicitly Christian." That makes no sense. Jkaplan 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And as far as statistics go, the DI has said 85% of their overall budget is ID related, no? And the second goal in the wedge stategy is:
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Hmmmm...Theism...Created...God...That doesn't sound like a secular agenda to me, does it to you, Veritasjon? And if 85% of their budget is ID related, and we all know ID is recycled creationism, I guess that makes them an 85% Christian think tank with 15% left over for transportation. Also, a Christian agenda can include Jews, if you read your bible you'll note Christians read the same book that Jews do. No kidding, read it and you'll see for yourself. In fact Jews and Christians share the same bibical creation myth. I'm not making this stuff up, please refer to your Christian bible for proof of this. Mr Christopher 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Christopher, is your claim that 85% of DI's budget is ID related speculation? Is that a claim made by DI, based on IRS records, or? Can you please point me to where you found that statistic? Thanks! Jkaplan 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Mr Christopher 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why their latest attempt to require teaching that is critical of evolutionary biology without running afoul of the Constitution's prohibition against government promotion of religious views was rejected in the Dover ruling. If "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"[53] then neither can those who started and promote ID uncouple themselves from their creationist, and thus religious, ideological motives. FeloniousMonk 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I must admit I find it dubious that the concept of life being artificially created is "religious." Note also that saying a theory is religious because it's adherents have religious motives is a variation of the ad hominem fallacy. We then ought to be careful what we think is "obvious" regarding religion in matters like these.--Wade A. Tisthammer 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, you already know but conveniently forget we've already got the DI fellows each saying they believe the designer is God to a man, so I think we're covered on that FeloniousMonk 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, that's attacking the adherent, not the theory itself (please confer the ad hominem fallacy I mentioned above).
Um, you conveniently ignore the fact that the Discovery Institute comprises its fellows, and so musings of its fellows on the topic is not only relevant, but necessary in determining what Discovery Institute fellows believe. FeloniousMonk 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You conveniently ignore what I was talking about. I expressed my skepticism regarding the concept of life being artificiallly created "religious", you then say I "forget we've already got the DI fellows each saying they believe the designer is God to a man" the point I was making in my previous post is that this is not relevant, becuase that is attacking the adherent and not the theory, i.e. what you said does not imply that life being artificially created is "religious." --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm ignoring nothing, I simply don't find your reasoning here persuasive, that's all. Most reasonable people are going to find the public statements of members of a think tank on the very topic the think tank promotes relevant, regardless of what you think. FeloniousMonk 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Most reasonable people know the ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy. Even if the adherents of a theory are guilty of unsavory motives and misdeeds, that has no bearing on the theory. Newton's stated motive in promoting some of his theories was to promote belief in God. The stated motive of Enlightenment thinkers in promoting Newtonian theories was to destroy religion (got this info from Del Ratzsch; I suggest you read Battle of Beginnings). Neither of these contradictory motivations have any bearing on whether a theory itself is religious. Even if the adherents of ID have religious motivations, that does not imply that life being artificially created is a religious concept. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Veritas made a good point when he said, "I suspect an interested reader would be shocked to find out that what the Wiki article calls a “conservative Christian” organization engaged in many non-Christian causes (Cascadia, for example), was lead by a Jewish Chairman of the Board, and has a Senior Fellow who has written a book that is exceedingly non-Christian." A person reading a Wikipedia article should not find such "surprises" like this because important relevant info was deliberately left out. To the very least, it seems we should point out certain facts like the DI's statement contradicting the claim of being a conservative Christian think tank, and especially the part of a Jewish man having been the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wade, I find most of what the DI engages in very shocking. No doubt many Wiki readers have similar experiences. We cannot be responsible for the shock factor induced by the DI's behaviour, practices and policies. In fact I even find much of this talk page shocking. Being shocked by the facts is not lethal nor does it cause cancer. No big deal is what I'm trying to say. Adults are shocked every time they open the newspaper, we need not worry our heads about the shocking facts of life or the DI. Mr Christopher 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"We cannot be responsible for the shock factor induced by the DI's behaviour" true, but we can be responsible when that "shock" is due to us deliberately leaving out relevant information. Stating as fact the claim of the Discovery Institute being a conservative Christian think tank, and then leaving out facts like the Chairman of the Board of Directors was Jewish and that the organization denies the claim is, I think, a bit irresponsible. We should present both points of view here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If the DI wants to disassociate itself with its religous foundation it's going to have to either jetison its connections to C.S. Lewis or get Lewis recategorized as a ' secular apologist': [54], [55] FeloniousMonk 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well and their leadership such as the "father of ID" should stop their well documented campaign of deception captured in this shocking Phillip Johnson quote "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools"
Now THAT is shocking! What Johnson is saying is that they are going to use smoke and mirrors as a means to get God into the schools. Shocking! And this is from a secular think tank. Gosh, veritasjon and Wade, something fishy is going on with what the DI tells the public and what they actually do, isn't it? Mr Christopher 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You wouldn't mind providing a source so I could verify that Johnson is indeed speaking for the Discovery Institute would you? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, all-too-predictable Wade "have a source for that?" Before you waste any more of your time and ours arguing whether Johnson is speaking on behalf the Discovery Institute, let's just be up front it is not necessary for any source to identify it as such. That is because a major reason why Johnson's views on ID are notable and relevant is attributable to the fact that he is Program Adviser of the DI. Any publication is going consider any public statement on his part on the topic ID in that framework. Here's the source. It's a Christian source, BTW, and note that it makes a clear connection between Johnson's statement and the DI. [56] FeloniousMonk 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"let's just be up front it is not necessary for any source to identify it as such" Indeed, I've seen you willfully ignore and flagrantly violate WP:CITE in the past[57][58], why should I expect you to feel complied to do cite valid sources to justify your questionable claims here? Johnson is affiliated with the DI, but nowhere does it say whether the statement represents the official position of the Discovery Institute. Maybe it does represent the Discovery Institute; I'm a little uncomfortable about what they've done myself. But I'd still like a valid source before I swallow it. I've seen too many misrepresentations in Wikipedia about ID in the past. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wade, your ridiculous hair-splitting over sources that are not even in the article is killing me. Really. You've walked us all so far down your path there that your not even bothering to address the 5 sources that support your initial objection. Talk about wasting your time (as well as ours). And before you hit 'reset' and have a go at those sources too, let me warn you you'd be wasting your time there as well since I've literally a dozen sources that all say the same thing from many different perspectives, recognizing the Discovery Institute as a "Christian think tank", on both sides of the debate: Christian conservative Bryan College, named after William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Evolution Trial fame no less, identifies the Discovery Institute as "a great Christian think tank that deals with various cultural, ethical, scientific, political, and economic issues" [59] and the Metanexus Institute: "the Discovery Institute, the conservative Christian think tank that serves as the primary promoter of "intelligent design." [60] While Internet Infidels calls it "The institute is a conservative Christian thinktank of sorts located in Seattle." [61] Not to mention the 5 sources cited in the article now, there's also Cybercast News Service which we can assume has no pro/con ID agenda and yet still correctly identifies the Discovery Institute as "the Discovery Institute, a Christian thinktank that campaigns for the teaching of Intelligent Design." [62] Same with Jacksonville University ("the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based Christian think tank.") [63] and the
So on one hand we have dozens of sources from both sides of the debate that identify the DI as a Christian think tank, and on the other, we have an organized campaign by the DI to protray themselves as not a 'Christian' think tank, but a scientific think tank that has lead to them denying Christ more times than did Peter. FeloniousMonk 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn’t address those sources because I didn’t deny that some people claimed they are a conservative Christian think tank. I’m saying that stating as fact the claim of the Discovery Institute being a conservative Christian think tank, and then leaving out facts like the Chairman of the Board of Directors was Jewish and that the Institute itself contradicts the claim is, I think, a bit irresponsible. We should present both points of view here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, because there's something like less than 2% of DI fellows are not Christian but other forms of theists? In other words, you're splitting hairs. FeloniousMonk 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it splitting hairs in pointing out that this allegedly conservative Christian think tank contradicts the claim of being a conservative Christian think tank? Is it splitting hairs in pointing out that this allegedly conservative Christian think tank had a Chairman Board of Directors who was Jewish? Whether they are a conservative Christian think tank (and I'm an agnostic in that area), it seems we ought to present both sides here as I said earlier given the circumstances. [Last edited: 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)]--Wade A. Tisthammer 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The DI's manifesto clearly states its aims: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [64] What the DI does and says goes a lot further to determining what the DI is than what flavor of theist its members are. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
True, design theory is indeed consonant with theism. The Wedge Document admits that. So what? How does the admission that design is consonant with theism imply that the Institute is religious? You seem to be overstating your case a bit; notice what the quote actually says. Can you provide a solid quote from the Discovery Institute that actually says its aims are religious? Or can you only find an admission that design theory is consonant with religion? "Consonant" means "harmonious," not "same as." Still, I can see your POV and even promoting a theory they expressly admit is consonant with Christian views makes some suspicious--until perhaps one realizes that the very same document you quoted was when the Chairman of the Discovery Institute was Jewish (also check your cited link; it doesn’t seem to be working). Also, see what I said earlier about an organization being merely consonant with Christianity as opposed it being a Christian organization.
There's a subtle, but real difference here we should not ignore. In any case, this is a type of issue where both sides need to be represented—as one side claiming it is a Christian think tank, and noting that the Discovery Institute itself contradicts this claim and points out they had a Jewish Chairman of the Board. Presenting one side as fact while completely omitting the significant minority view does not seem consistent with WP:NPOV. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you not been paying attention? We've changed the article to present both sides since the DI insists on trying to hide their Christian agenda. FeloniousMonk 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have been paying attention and I knew the DI side was presented (albeit feebly, mentioning only that it denies the claim and leaves out the fact that this allegedly "conservative Christian think tank" had a Jewish Chairman of the Board). I thought I'd respond to your post anyway, mentioning again that your desire to omit the minority viewpoint was wrong.
Speaking of paying attention, have you noticed that one of your citations does not actually contain the claim associated with it?[65] It seems more proper for me to ask you if you have been paying attention. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


You wouldn't mind providing a source so I could verify that Johnson is indeed speaking for the Discovery Institute would you? Wade you are too funny for words. If you don't work for the Discovery Institute you should. I'm being serious and not sarcastic. Take that as a compliment.  :-) You'd fit right in! Oh, and I have full confidence in your ability to do your own research on the subject so there is no need to ask me to do your research for you. Mr Christopher 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to do my research for me, I'm asking you to back up your claim. I'm asking you to do your own research instead of me doing it for you. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't making a claim, Wade, I was asking if you found Phillip E Johnson's (the father of the intelligent design movement)comments about using deception as a means of getting God into the classroom shocking. Are you familiar with what the word deception means? Does deception bother you at all? You avoided answering my question and instead started yapping about cites. You are familiar with Phillip E Johnson, yes? You've heard of him? Are you aware he is significant not just to the DI but the entire intelligent design movement? I'll give you a hint, he's not a token jew, atheist or moonie. He is Mr Big when it comes to intelligent design. Mr Christopher 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"I wasn't making a claim, Wade," yes you were. You claimed Johnson said something, then evaded responsibility for finding a verfiable source in which he said that. "I was asking if you found Phillip E Johnson's (the father of the intelligent design movement)comments about using deception as a means of getting God into the classroom shocking" I'm not yet convinced that he is. “Deception” is a strong word. I would like to see the quote more in context before I swallow your claim. Why? As I've said before, I've seen too many misrepresentations of ID. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ever heard of Google, Wade? Ever heard of Phillip E Johnson? Mr Christopher 20:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
So have we Wade, so have we... FeloniousMonk 20:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, Wade, you owe FeloniousMonk a thank you for all the personal intelligent design turoring he provides you on these talk pages at no cost. I am amazed at his scholarship, patience and willingness to educate you. Amazed. You should be one of the most well read and up to date individuals on any of these subjects just from the research he does on your behalf. Holy cow man you owe him a big thank you. Mr Christopher 20:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What you guys fail to realize is the fact that the discovery institute being a christian think tank is well supported by the evidence. Have you bothered to read the cites? Have you even read the article? Mr Christopher 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I did read the cites; yes a number of people claim the Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank. Did you read my cites? Why do you think we shouldn't mention that the Discovery Institute contradicts the claim of being a conservative Christian think tank? Why do you think we shouldn't mention the Discovery Institute had a Jewish Board of Directors? The "evidence" isn't all one-sided here and I think it's a good idea to mention both sides in this case. Why? For one, I just don't see why we shouldn't explain what the Discovery Institute thinks of its own organization. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
All I have to say is, "Del Ratzsch"? ROFL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why the mention of Del Ratzsch is funny? --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Christian Think Tank? II

Sorry for the delay in my reply here.

FM, Thanks for pointing out that the first footnote does support the claim. There's so much ad-spam I could barely find the words of the article, much less the little page links under the Google AdWords.

So as far as the application of a label in a Wikipedia article, from what the admins here have stated it seems that how the DI is identified in media sources is more important than the full spectrum of what they do, who their membership/leadership consists of, and how the organization identifies themselves, even when there is conflict between these possible sources of establishing a label.

Very well. Media supersedes all. Seems very shallow to me and assumes that media sources always give reliable information and have a pragmatic omniscience. While I disagree with this methodology, if this is the way that Wikipedia has established its policy, then I suppose, "it is what it is." If anyone wishes to dispute a label applied by media sources, never mind what the group does, one must provide other media sources stating that the DI is indeed a secular organization. Anybody have any sources? --Platonic Realm 17:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The DI's religious manifesto would be ground zero. You have read that, yes? Mr Christopher 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

First, to address the media argument briefly. I don't believe this has been established as Wiki policy in the status quo. [WP:V] does not say that a critic's claim about an organization must be taken as fact. It would be absurd for Wiki articles to blindly follow critic's claims about something as a verifiable fact. If that were the case, the Evolution page might as well say that Darwinism led to Nazi's - since some critics of Darwinism make this claim in the media.

I think we need to set a much higher standard, especially when dealing in issues of academia in which credible information and sources should be the point of origin. As we have seen, just over the past yr, the media has occasionally embellished information for airtime that later turned out to be false. First, we all remember the Jayson Blair incident, in which a journalist for one of the most respected papers, was proven to have fabricated evidence over a number of years. Second, during the Katrina recovery reports of "thousands dead" turned out to be false. In addition, in interviews with the media, both Mayor Nagin and Police Chief Compass reported "rapes of 'babies,' Nagin spoke of 'hundreds of armed gang members killing and raping people' inside the Dome. Other unidentified evacuees told of children stepping over so many bodies 'we couldn't count.'" All of this information turned out to be false. We all remember these claims well because they were trumpeted in the media. However, as you may note, there was not a similar quick jump to correct this false information. Using media sources for information leaves much to be desired especially in an academic discussion when the Media claims are expressly denied by the source.

Second, briefly to the point of DI being a "Christian Think Tank." When you compare DI to many notable self-proclaimed think tanks, I think you see a real difference. Look for example at FRC(Family Research Council www.FRC.org), CWA (Concerned Women for America www.cwfa.org), The Christian Coalition (www.cc.org), Focus on the Family (www.family.org), and the Acton Institute (. When you look at the principles of these organizations you will see that they are all distinctly Christian in focus, mission, membership, and identity. Note, for instance the principles of FRC. 

  : * God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights.
   * Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family. 
   * Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
   * The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
   * American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations.

This does sound like a very Christian organization and well it should. The vision, mission, membership, and identity of the aforementioned Christian think tanks seem to be very different than that of DI. DI's Vision, mission, membership, and identity encompass many issues, realms, and members. While DI's membership may include Christians and Christians may have some interest in certain areas of DI's research this in no way makes it a 'Christian' organization. The Discovery Institute does not have any Christian statement of faith equivalent to what these actual Christian think thanks have. To say DI is Christian would mean that since I know some members of the ACLU who are Christians and know that the ACLU has partnered with Christian organizations (both verifiable facts), therefore, the ACLU a 'Christian organization.' This claim would be dishonest both intellectually and academically and such is the same of labeling DI a 'Christian' think tank.Cabanaman 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the DI does not pursue Christian agenda or promote a Christian POV is belied by the DI's own programs [66] and manifesto. [67] How any group can run a program whose theme is "What is the proper role of religion in a free society? This is the animating question behind Discovery's program on religion and civic life" and another which states "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and yet come here and insist that they are not a Christian organization is beyond belief. Furthermore, WP:NPOV calls for "all significant published points of view are to be presented." When a preponderance of those significant published points of view all say the same thing, as they do here, then it can safely taken to be the case. The footnotes already cover the DI's objection to be being considered a Christian organization, despite the overwhelmingly Christian nature of their own programs and members. As the sources in the article attest, there's no shortage of evidence that the DI tries to spin their orientation. I see no reason why we should help them. FeloniousMonk 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be overstating your case a bit. Consider that they admitted that design theory is consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. So what? How does the admission that design is consonant with theism imply that the Institute is religious? Can you provide a solid quote from the Discovery Institute that actually says its aims are religious? Or can you only find an admission that design theory is consonant with religion? "Consonant" means "harmonious," not "same as."
Still, I can see your POV and even promoting a theory they expressly admit is consonant with Christian views makes some suspicious--until perhaps one realizes that the very same document you quoted was when the Chairman of the Discovery Institute was Jewish (also check your cited link; it doesn’t seem to be working). Also, see what I said earlier about an organization being merely consonant with Christianity as opposed it being a Christian organization. It is true, as the Discovery Institute itself admits, "the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society,"[68] but being in support of such religious freedoms does not necessarily imply being a Christian think tank (note that a senior fellow of the religious department is Jewish). You said,
Furthermore, WP:NPOV calls for "all significant published points of view are to be presented." When a preponderance of those significant published points of view all say the same thing, as they do here, then it can safely taken to be the case.
But this is a clear misrepresentation of the situation. The Discovery Institute explicitly contradicts the claim of being a Christian think tank[69]. Whether or not they are right here, their viewpoint should not be omitted. The Discovery Institute is not only a significant minority, it is also the subject of this very entry. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, Wade, the article now presents the DI's veiwpoint now that they are "secular think tank." FeloniousMonk 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm posting my response to your post anyway. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, let us clarify, none of the Wiki editors discussion this issue, are representing their own reasoning and judgment on this particular issue. Felinious at one point seemed to imply that DI has “come here and insist that they (Discovery Institute) are not a Christian organization.” It is not the DI insisting that they are not, it is a good number of Wiki editors who fail to see how DI can be fairly described as a Christian think thank, as if they are one and the same with Family Research Council and the like.

Second, the Jewish members of Discovery should not be denegraded with slurs of “token” status. In two places, Mr. Christopher makes this claim:

  • “They go out of their way to advertise their token Jew and token "atheist" (whatever). This does not change the reality that their agenda is religiously motivated, specifically conservative, right wing christian agenda. So if they offered a fellowship to the president of Iran (a muslim with a funny accent) that would not change the reality of their overall christian agenda.” Mr Christopher 19:14, 25 October 2006
  • “he's not a token jew, atheist or moonie.” – (Mr. Christopher 20:20, 27 October 2006)

The verifiable fact that John Miller was chairman of the Board for Discovery for many years does not seem to support a “token” claim. Furthermore, the tone of these comments appear to me to be an insult to the several public non-Christian members. This “token” argument looks a lot like a personal insult to the non-Christian members. David Klinghoffer, who wrote Why the Jews Rejected Jesus is not just some “token” member, but rather a well publicized Jewish columnist. What is more problematic about this point, having several high profile Jewish members should give everyone pause before declaring that DI is “conservative Christian.” I’m sure both John Miller and David Klinghoffer would object to be described as part of a “Christian” agenda and organization.

Third, “Christian” and “theists” are not the same thing. In many places, the argument advanced was that “theists” have the same agenda as the Christians, so this whole discussion is moot. However, accuracy is important with religious terms. Christians are theists, as are Moslems and Jews. That does BOLDnotBOLD make Jews or Moslems Christians. It is simply confounding that the article, or arguments in discussion, would imply that Moslems and Jews can be categorized as “Christians” simply because they support a similar cause.

  • “So you've got a think tank that's 98%+ conservative Christian (the other <2% being conservative theists of other flavors which share the same goals)” FeloniousMonk 17:55, 26 October 2006
  • “because there's something like less than 2% of DI fellows are not Christian but other forms of theists? In other words, you're splitting hairs.” FeloniousMonk 20:46, 27 October 2006
  • “Also, a Christian agenda can include Jews, if you read your bible you'll note Christians read the same book that Jews do. No kidding, read it and you'll see for yourself. In fact Jews and Christians share the same bibical creation myth. I'm not making this stuff up, please refer to your Christian bible for proof of this. Mr Christopher 15:40, 27 October 2006

The problem with these statements can be found in another comment from FeliniousMonk: “What the DI does and says goes a lot further to determining what the DI is than what flavor of theist its members are.”FeloniousMonk 22:43, 27 October 2006 If that claim is true, then the Christian, personal religious “flavor” of “its members” should not justify labeling DI as “Christian.” I agree with FeliniousMonk on this point. Look – if Klinghoff’ers book BOLDWhy the Jews Rejected JesusBOLD does not make DI an anti-Christian Jewish think tank, then Dembski’s believes about God and the designer does not make DI Christian. If Well’s Moonie status does not make DI a “Moonie think tank” then Philip Johnson’s personal views and books does not make Discovery a Christian think tank. However, later, Felinious seems to change his position on the status of fellows: “Um, you conveniently ignore the fact that the Discovery Institute comprises its fellows, and so musings of its fellows on the topic is not only relevant, but necessary in determining what Discovery Institute fellows believe.” FeloniousMonk 18:43, 27 October 2006. This looks a lot like the Christian believes of the fellows matters, but the Jewish, Moonie or Agnostic views of fellows do not matter. That is not neutral.

Furtermore, there was never any analysis of how, if intelligent design is such a blatenly Christian cause, there can be devout Moslems, such as “Mustafa Aykol at The White Path is a devout Moslem supporting Intelligent Design” Jkaplan 20:58, 27 October 2006, who are not also wrongly labeled as “Christian” for supporting intelligent design.

Fourth, the Wedge Document was repeatedly touted as Discovery’s “Manifesto.” While the Wedge Document does show that many Christians have reason to support intelligent design, the fact remians that the Wedge Document was a fund raising letter, and at most, relevant to what the CS(r)C believes. The document does not address the Discovery Board, or any programs other than CSC. Remember, CSC came later, first came social programs, foreign policy, Cascadia, and the like. None of these programs are implicated, even if we take Wedge = Christian as gospel.

Fifth, Discovery lacks many common (necessary?) attributes of Christian think tanks. This argument has not been addressed by either the discussion of Christian members, or the ID/Wedge issue. There is no religious test or even standard for members. Atheists, agnostics, jews, anybody is welcome. They are welcome, because unlike expressly Christian organizations (Focus on the Family, for example) the organization does not consider itself Christian. They have no statement of faith for the organization. Even presuming the Wedge is some sort of proxy for that, it would only work for CS(r)C, not the whole Institute. Furthermore, the high-profile non-Christian members belie the Christian label for the whole institute. There is no David Klinghoffer working for the Acton Institute, or the Family Research Council – since those organizations actually have religious standards and mandatory beliefs.

While I think all these points are important to note in the discussion, it does appear at this time that many news organizations and published sources (some biased) call Discovery a “Christian think tank.” That label, in all the sources I have looked up, has no justification – it is simply a label given to Discovery. None of the cited sources adaquately addresses the facts highlighted in this discussion. However, Wiki seems to be off track with standards, so the labels given (without supporting reason) trump the verifiable facts about the organization. I hope, and suspect, the Wiki article will continue to point out that Discovery Itself does not consider the institute to be a “Christian think tank.” Veritasjohn 17:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Many problems with the above. We have sources that call it as such. If you want to argue those sources aren't reliable that's one thing but as long as we have sources the above is essentially original research. Furthermore, this isn't a large number of Wikipedia editors but a large number of single purpose accounts who don't seem to edit much outside the DI related stuff. JoshuaZ 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And regarding the participation of these single purpose accounts, whether the are not officially tied to the DI is beside the point. If they are seen to originate with university IDEA clubs, then they are clearly acting on the DI's behalf, and we're back to dealing with involved parties flouting WP:AUTO and WP:COI. The more they argue the more transparent their aims become, and the less likely they'll fool anyone with their pretext. Given the history of the DI trying to use this article to promote it's POV, the recent threats it's made to the project, and the clearly partisan nature of the objections being made, I think we need to be very circumspect about any changes or proposals moving forward. FeloniousMonk 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a baseless allegation. Editors who disagree with you are not automatically employees of DI or IDEA club members. Suspect all you want, but the views of all editors are entitled to be heard. I'll be charitable and presume you're making some general observation - rather than attacking specific editors. I'll say for myself that your insinuations that I have been violating WP:AUTO are entirely without merit. I disagree with your opinions often, but don't go around alleging without basis that you work for NCSE or something of the like.Veritasjohn 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to confirm what Veritasjohn said; I am not DI or IDEA. Therefore, my edits are not WP:AUTO and insinuations thereto are entirely inappropriate. Saint-George 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it fascinating that after a one-month hiatus from this article Saint-George pops up just in time to slay the dragon confonting TruthIoannes. Rather mysterious, no? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the challenges of trying to work with the ID promoters here is how easily they ignore overwhelming evidence as well as their attempts to mitigate that evidence is not only unproductive, it's insulting. For instance the notion that the Wedge Document is only a fund raising letter. Well here's what the father of intelligent design had to say about it:
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' - Phillip E. Johnson
Does that sound like a fund raising strategy to you. Veritasjon? And what's this about "Jesus" that Philip E Johnson, the father of intelligent design is talking about? I thought ID was science and the DI was a secular think tank? Golly jeepers something smells fishy here. I could go on and on with more examples and waste more of my time providing cites but I have better things to do that argue with those who want to promote the DI POV here. Mr Christopher 18:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Can I have a source to see the Johnson quote in context so that I may verify Johnson was indeed speaking of the Discovery Institute's strategy (as opposed to e.g. his own personal objectives)? I would like to see for myself if the bracketed insertion is justified. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's yet another gem: Fourth, the Wedge Document was repeatedly touted as Discovery’s “Manifesto.” While the Wedge Document does show that many Christians have reason to support intelligent design, the fact remians that the Wedge Document was a fund raising letter, and at most, relevant to what the CS(r)C believes. The document does not address the Discovery Board, or any programs other than CSC.
I think Phillip Johnson's comments have already corrected you on the purpose and significance of the wedge document and strategy, Veritasjohn. Now, keep in mind Bruce Chapman the founder of the DI has gone on record saying the CSC "our No. 1 project". Note he did not say it was their number two project, or a close number three, right after Cascadia or subordinate to the C.S. Lewis project, he calls it their number one project. Yet Veritasjohn, for some reason you want to downgrade the significance of the wedge document and strategy to a fund raising event and also downgrade the significance given to the CSC by the DI. You do this in spite of what the DI members such as Chapman and Johnson say on the subject themselves. Your opinion on the significance of the CSC and the significance of meaning of the wedge does not conform to what Johnson and Chapman have said publicly on the subject. This makes working with you a challenge to say the least. This is also why folks like you keep getting asked if you're even familiar with the subject matter. Your comments suggest you are not. Mr Christopher 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Your comments do not refute my quote. Look, I do not deny that CSC is the most publically noteworthy division of Discovery. Never have. My point is that CSC is not the only part of Discovery. It is wrong to take an institute with multiple causes, including Cascadia and foreign policy, for example, and completely ignore those other divisions. I am well aware that Chapman called CSC the "number 1" - but that does not mean that all other cases do not matter. Furthermore, Johnson wrote a book about the Wedge of Truth - so his statements about the importance of his own ideas are not the same as statements about the Discovery Institute Wedge document. I'll ignore the personal attacks in your comment and just say that I am amazed that my reasoned arguments are being ignored. Jews and Moslems are not Christians - that point has gone basically un-answered. "theists" are not the same as Christians. These are important distinctions.Veritasjohn 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It was said, "If you want to argue those sources aren't reliable that's one thing but as long as we have sources the above is essentially original research." The problem, as I have been saying for some time now, that the denial of Discovery Institute being a Christian think tank is not original research. The belief that the Institute is a conservative Christian think tank is contradicted by the Institute itself.[70] Completely omitting this significant viewpoint is why I (and others) are objecting. Saying the Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank while deliberately omitting facts like (1)the Institute contradicts this claim and (2) the Institute had a Jewish Chairman of the Board, is not quite in line with WP:NPOV. It might even be misleading. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Gee, it's not as if the DI is running a PR campaign promoting claims rejected by the vast majority of relevent parties or anything. Once again you seek to give undue weight to partisan viewpoints while ignoring or dismissing more neutral which has considered and found the claims of the partisan view less than convincing. FeloniousMonk 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Undue weight does not equal a complete omission of the minority view, as I pointed out above, nor does it entail the omission of important relevant facts (e.g. that this allegedly "conservative Christian think tank" had a Jewish Chairman of the Board). --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

FM, I, for myself, am not arguing that, at times, "the DI does not pursue Christian agenda or promote a Christian POV." Some of the members do. The fact remains that the organization is far more than simply "Christian." I am arguing that their secular programs precede and go far beyond their claimed "Christian agenda." Your argument, FM, that the DI is "Christian" because of their involvement with ID and their fellows, is belied by the fact that there is alot more to the DI than ID, the Wedge doc, and what some of their member do sometimes. The other activity I am speaking of here includes:

Activities -

  • Cascadia Project (focusing on NW US and SW Canadian transportation)
  • Russia Blog
  • Technology and Democracy Project
  • Economic initiatives
  • Foreign policy analysis
  • Environmental initiative
  • Disco-Tech: commentary and analysis on issues pertaining to technology, telecommunications deregulation, broadband deployment and new technologies
  • Letter From the Capitol: events and analysis pertaining to war, security, economic and cultural issues.
  • Bandwidth: cyber-report on technology

Hierarchical -

  • There is no "statement of faith" or any expression of religious doctrine by the Discovery Institute
  • The Discovery Institute never describes itself as "Christian" (and in fact expressly explains that it is not)

Leadership -

  • Congressman John Miller was the long time chair of the Discovery Board of Directors. John Miller is Jewish (not Christian) (1999-2003)
  • David Klinghoffer is a fellow of Discovery Institute and a widely syndicated Jewish author and writer, who even wrote a book entitled '"Why The Jews Rejected Jesus"' (patently non-Christian book).
  • Senior Fellow David Berlinski is a Jewish agnostic but clearly not a "conservative Christian"
  • There is no religions test to be a Board Member, Fellow, or staff at the Discovery Institute
  • Jonathan Wells is publicly known to not be "conservative Christian."
  • ...and other expressly non-religious and non-Christian projects

The claim that the DI does not pursue Christian agenda or promote a Christian POV is belied by the DI's own programs [71] and manifesto. [72] -FM

So one program, and one document, with media sources, justifies an all-encompassing adjective in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article?

This is my point: The Discovery Institute does much more than "Christian" activity. In order for this article to be accurate, it should report something besides, "The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank structured as a non-profit educational foundation, founded in 1990 and based in Seattle, Washington, USA" in its first sentence.

My comment here is that sticking an adjective in an article and citing media sources does not mean the adjective is accurate, especially if the organization is involved in many more projects that have nothing to do with their efforts to promote ID, or their "Christian" activity.

Equivocation will not suffice for an accurate presentation of what the Discovery Institute actually is and does. If what the organization actually is, does, and says is irrelevant to the article because it is "original research" according to Wikipedia standards, then so be it. But the facts remain that there is much more to the DI than merely a "Christian agenda," which is basically what the first sentence says to anyone reading between the lines.

I will concede that most of the media attention they get is through the intelligent design issue. It seems that many agree with the inaccurate label for this very reason (including the continual assertions of manifestos by Mr Christopher and FM). This does not change the fact that there is a lot more to this organization than "Christian" activity, the fact remains that most of what they do is political, technological, and economic, not religious or “Christian.”

"...come here and insist that they..." -FM

I think here you're insinuating that individuals discussing this topic, that disagree with you, are employed by the DI or IDEA. I now inform you that in my case you are sadly mistaken. I would also observe that this is a shallow attempt by you to discredit a legitimate point by making assertions with no evidence whatsoever. JoshuaZ and FM, disparaging me, or anyone else, about a single purpose account doesn't make it so.

I happen to disagree with the ID community on many points. For example, I find intolerable those who insist that ID should be taught in the public science classroom. I think they need peer-reviewed work and more support from the scientific community at large.

I also find it intolerable that JoshuaZ and FM would disparage users with baseless assertions. I am a new Wikipedia user who peruses and occasionally makes corrections and suggestions when I think they are warranted. [73] This article does not accurately reflect what the DI is, and so I am making comments that I think are warranted on this point. I am not employed by the DI nor by IDEA. If I am breaking any rules by commenting on a point of accuracy, please let me know and I will immediately desist.

Otherwise, I will continue making comments and suggestions that I think are important for this article, and others, to be accurate and worth reading for the visitors here.

If media sources are trump, and referencing the DI website in the first sentence is original research, then this DI article is at Wikipedia standards, and I have no arguments worth discussing. I will cease this discussion if that is the case; I certainly have better things to do than argue with Wikipedia how it should run itself.

But if that is not the case, I think there should be efforts to make this article more accurate regarding this first sentence. --Platonic Realm 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christopher, the DI's multiplicity of programs predate and go far beyond what you and others think is a "religious manifesto." You have read about their programs on their website, yes? --Platonic Realm 21:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Platonic, I'm familiar with the DI's programs and I read their website often, yes. Mr Christopher 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
None of which come even slightly close in size or scope to the DI's ID campaign: [74] [75] Ever hear of the term 'undue weight'? FeloniousMonk 21:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To piggy back slightly - Platonic, my personal POV is that the DI is not a "Conservative Christian Think Tank" and to say so somewhat misses the point. But we have reliable sources that think it is. Now, if for example, the DI had said otherwise then we might be able to say "_ says they are a CCTT the DI claims otherwise" or something like that. But right now we don't have much choice in the matter. JoshuaZ 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ - you said if "the DI had said otherwise then we might be able to say "_says they are a CCTT the DI claims otherwise." THe DI does, in fact, say otherwise. [76] as pointed about above, DI, says "Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish." (question 3 - is Discovery a religious organization). That's the whole point of much of this debate - DI expressy denies, with reasons, being called a Christian think tank. I too agree, this should at least be noted in the gaudy 5 footnotes (none of which show the DI POV).Veritasjohn 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The DI has said they are not a Christian think tank (aside from on this page), that's nothing new. The DI's primary activity is running a PR campaign that a religious notion is good science, too. What the DI claims, having been shown to be factually incorrect and driven by their agenda so many times now, is not going to carry as much weight as what observers say about it. FeloniousMonk
Platonic Realm is absolutely right, equivocation will not suffice for an accurate presentation of what the Discovery Institute actually is and does, that's why the aritcle relies upon many different sources. And they all say the same thing. And it's not that the assertions by Mr Christopher and myself are the cause of the DI being identified as Christian, but that so many sources recognize the DI words and actions for what they are. FeloniousMonk 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
FM, in order to clarify what I'm saying here; I'm not talking about "what observers say about it." I'm talking about what the organization actually is and does.
FM and JoshuaZ, in order to clarify what we're saying here; what I see as an inaccurate adjective (inaccurate based on what the organization is, does, and says) is justified based on the application of the term "undue weight" given what media sources say. I just read the policy explanation.[77] But what I cannot figure out is how the facts about what organization is, does, and says is a "minority view." Please explain how this is the case. Is it that the "minority view" is the clear minority of media sources saying that the DI has more than a Christian agenda? I am unfamiliar, like I said, I'm new. --Platonic Realm 21:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
PR may have a point here. It is hard to see how there own viewpoint would be such a minority view as to not merit mention. Possibly something along the lines of the "DI says that in their FAQ that they are not Christian however _, _, _ among others have called it a Christian Conservative Think Tank" or something like that. JoshuaZ 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Nah, that's too weasely. Other than themselves, who doesn't consider them a CCTT? (I realise that's almost asking to "prove a negative", but how do other reliable sources describe them? Guettarda 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved it all to a controversy section where the duelling viewpoints will be presented. Anyone who disagrees with my doing should feel free to revert me. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you introduced it well. The reader is told up front it is controversial and then they read the two competing view points. Seems reasonable to me. Mr Christopher 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the change is preferable. A more accurate reflection of the discussion and resources.Veritasjohn 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a quote to the second sentence from the cited source. I think it lends some clarity. Let me know if you think I'm smoking crack. Mr Christopher 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A small point re "There is no religions test to be a Board Member, Fellow, or staff at the Discovery Institute " -- of course they don't, the IRS would revoke their 501(c) status. Trust me on this one. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting this: PR points to a whole cascade of programs with which the DI has aligned itself, yet those not supporting a conservative Christian agenda are significantly under-represented on the DI site. On ther other hand, the inducements (offered in the form of free books/DVDs) for joining DI are all anti-evolution Christian/Creationist tracts. Now, one must wonder, why would that be? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think giving the controversy about the DI's religious nature it's own space was a good move. Although I get all their press releases and read most of what they put online I am having a hard time finding a quote where they explicitly deny they have a religious/Christian agenda. I'm sure such denials exist I just don't have one handy. Does anyone have a source we could use so both viewpoints are represented? Mr Christopher 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Christopher, the primary DI source has been cited multiple times in the discussion. I'm surprised you havn't read it already. It is even referenced as footnote 29 in the current Wiki article [[78]] - where the DI has a paragraph addressing the religious or not-religious question. It is already cited in the Wiki.Veritasjohn 15:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this part of the controversy section interesting. "At the foundation of most criticism of the Discovery Institute is the charge that the institute and its Center for Science and Culture intentionally misrepresent or omit many important facts in promoting their agenda." Hmm, does the omission of the fact that this allegedly "conservative Christian think tank" had a Jewish chairman of the board constitute an example? This statement in the Wikipedia article strikes me as a tad tu quoque. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a fine red herring. FeloniousMonk 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Red herring how? You don't think this is a fact worth mentioning? (See also what I told JoshuaZ below.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, whether or not it has had an ethnically Jewish chairman is not substantially relevant- we have multiple non-partisan sources which call them a conservative Christian think tank. Futhermore, (this is a bit WP:OR) it isn't uncommon at this point for certain theological sympathetic Jews to work with conservative Christians. You see this more often in matters related to Israel but the bottom line is that being a Christian think tank is consistent with having a nominally Jewish chairman. JoshuaZ 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is indeed not uncommon for Jews to work with Christians, but how many Jewish people are leaders of conservative Christian think tanks? Yes, we have sources that call DI a conservative Christian think tank, but DI denies the claim, makes no statement of faith anywhere, has no religions test for a person to be a Board Member, Fellow, or staff; and even makes the same point I did about the Jewish Chairman of the Board. It can’t be that various sources misconstrued the situation? This would certainly not be the first time multiple sources misconstrue a position or a group of people, particularly when it comes to the creation-evolution controversy (see Del Ratzsch's Battle of Beginnings for a plethora of examples). It almost seems we're tossing common sense out the window here. Consider this: if the situation were reversed, no one would object to inserting arguments against a pro-evolution organization being atheist under the same circumstances (the organization denying being an atheistic think tank, the Chairman of the Board being a theist etc.). To the very least, the point I made about omitting the fact that they had a Jewish chairman seems to be valid. It does seem like an omission of an important fact here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Wade, please spend less time rehashing what we've already hashed over and find some citations. --Platonic Realm 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Replying here to: "Does anyone have a source we could use so both viewpoints are represented? Mr Christopher 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"
  • Possible citation is from an ABC News article, "The Discovery Institute denies allegations that its true agenda is religious." [79] --Platonic Realm 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the DI's claims, their website has an FAQ where they answer a directly relevant question "3. Is Discovery Institute a religious organization? Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state." --Platonic Realm 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, this source is already provided in the article. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the ABC cite already provided in the article, but as a reference about funding. In my understanding, we are not talking about funding right now. We are looking for a media citation that can back up the claim that there is more to the DI than a Christian agenda.
Can we not use the same citation in two different references about two different topics? If that is not permitted, why not?
If it is permitted to use the same source twice, this citation provides an instance of the DI making such a claim. --Platonic Realm 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to the DI FAQ source, but sure we can reuse the ABC News source alongside the DI's FAQs as a supporting source. FeloniousMonk 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that looks really good. Thanks for adding the cite FM. Nice superscript letters. I really like discussing contributions on this page: we discuss changes and I don't have to do any of the fancy editing work. :-) --Platonic Realm 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The DI in involved in "public school education"?

The article states

Its areas of interest include intelligent design, public school education...

Does anyone have any evidence of the DI doing anything for public school education, unrelated to undermining science standards (which comes under the intelligent design umbrella). Unless we can validate they have any active program(s) that is dedicated to public school education and is not intelligent design related we should remove this. I'll give it a day or so before removing it in case someone knows something about the DI having a legitimate "public school education" component that I am obviously unaware of. Mr Christopher 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you for not letting me be alone in enforcing WP:CITE on an intelligent design article. One time I did the same thing, waited for nearly a month, and my removal of the challenged material was reverted even though no citation was provided.[80] --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not advocating we cite every sentence. This was glaring to me because it paints the DI as an organization who is conerned with public education and to my knowledge they have never done anything for public education, well other than try to take science standards and run them in the toilet (but that is their intelligent design effort and not public education). So what I am looking for here is not a cite but a reality check. Do they have a public school education program or component that is not teach the controversy/ID related? And I am not saying they are not involved in public education, I'm saying I have never heard of them doing that and asking if anyone else knows one way or the other. Mr Christopher 19:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Cute attempt at a dig Wade. Alas, it failed. Note the tone Mr C used in asking his question: it was not accusatory, not overly-demanding, not obstinate, not tendentious, etc. Variatio delectat!
Yes, the DI has indicated its interest in public education (mostly as a nice way of saying "by the hel-pa of the Lawd-a, we're gonna get yer chil-drun-a to believe as all us brethren do". I just have to find it on their mindnumbingly inane webpage (a place I like to visit as much as the dentist, as a visit to that page is like an intellectual root canal). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
If you'll recall, I was "not accusatory, not overly-demanding, not obstinate, not tendentious" when I tried to enforce WP:CITE for challenged claims. I admit that I did become accusatory against FeloniousMonk, but that was after he showed a willful disregard for Wikipedia policy (see here for a specific example) --Wade A. Tisthammer 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
From the Discovery Institute's splash page you see a link to "Other Programs" then you find this:
Education
Discovery's education program produces articles and occasional studies of school choice, the growth in home schooling and how we can better educate students at all levels. The program holds periodic public events annually to explore these subjects.
The program includes Discovery Senior Fellow Patricia Lines"
The Patricia Lines link is broken and they don't have anything else about public education. I have been unable to find any evidence that the DI have been involved in any public education work (unrelated to intelligent design that is). Therefore I'm going to remove the part about the DI doing work in that area. If we find evidence to the contrary we'll just add it back. Mr Christopher
The only notable Discovery Institute 'education programs' has been their Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution campaigns, both of which are adjuncts to their ID campaign, itself a stalking horse for their ideological goals described in the Wedge document. Their 'education program' is as immaterial as their ID science research program. There is simply no evidence of the DI promoting in any significant way a genuinely comprehensive education program in comparison to their efforts aimed at science classes and standards. FeloniousMonk 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this relevant?

In 1971, Chapman was elected to the Seattle City Council. His best known accomplishment on the council was spearheading a campaign to save the Pike Place Market from destruction.

Co-founder and Senior Fellow George Gilder proceded to write several books addressing culture, technology, and poverty. The issue of poverty dominated his early work, starting with his 1978 book, “Visible Man,” which critiqued American culture for its failure to promote the ideals of the traditional nuclear family. Gilder’s next work, “Wealth and Poverty,” 1981, was widely cited by President Ronald Reagan. Gilder’s later books have dealt more with developments in technology, such as “Microcosm” (1990) and “Life After Television” (1994).

I've reverted them: They seem appropriate for a biography, but I can't at all see how they deal with the Discovery Institute. Correct me if I'm wrong? Adam Cuerden talk 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for questioning their relevance, but I think that they are just as relevant as the rest of the biographical content on Chapman. Either we should remove that bio stuff, or add the stuff on Gilder to balance the presentation.Saint-George 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Looking it over, I'd say the Seattle City Council work is irrelevant, but the Gilder biography is much more relevant. Sorry! But I think we should cut the Chapman biography down: He has his own article, after all, and so only things directly related to the aims of the Discovery Institute or controversies surrounding it should appear here. I'm not quite sure what to cut, though. Adam Cuerden talk 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't apologize, I think that you make a fair point. The Gilder stuff goes back in and we look for ways to pare down the Chapman stuff. Cheers. Saint-George 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I copy-edited the Gilder stuff as it was too long and too much like a PR bio. Also, citations are needed to support the paragraph. They need to be supplied, or the paragraph will have to go. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I added citations for the paragraph, after making a citation format mistake on a first try.Veritasjohn 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's also true of the Chapman bio as well, though: That whole section needs citing up. There's a good list of possible cites at George Gilder, luckily. (However, we really should mention the anti-feminist content of the books (presuming his main article is accurate) if we mention them.) However, it's not a bad start. Adam Cuerden talk 12:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you're correct on both points. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the two goals of the wedge strategy

This article touches on the wedge document/strategy but obviously the real meat of that subject is covered in the wedge article. Since that document represents the origins of a significant amount of criticism, would it be helpful to elaborate on it in this article (without going overboard of course)? I think we should consider at least outlining the two goals:

  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

We now have:

The Wedge document, a widely circulated 1998 internal memo laid out Discovery's original, ambitious plan to "drive a wedge" into the heart of "scientific materialism," "thereby divorcing science from its purely observational and naturalistic methodology and reversing the deleterious effects of evolution on Western culture." Meyer says that the Wedge document "was stolen from our offices and placed on the Web without permission."[50] The central item of this agenda - establishing intelligent design as legitimate science through conducting actual scientific research - has not been achieved.[51]

I propose we do the following:

The Wedge document, a widely circulated 1998 internal memo laid out Discovery's original, ambitious plan to "drive a wedge" into the heart of "scientific materialism," "thereby divorcing science from its purely observational and naturalistic methodology and reversing the deleterious effects of evolution on Western culture." The two primary goals outlined in the Wedge document are:

*To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. *To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Meyer says that the Wedge document "was stolen from our offices and placed on the Web without permission."[50] The central item of this agenda - establishing intelligent design as legitimate science through conducting actual scientific research - has not been achieved.[51]

My formatting stinks but I think you can see where I'm going with this. I think capturing the goals here would help the reader understand what some of the fuss is about as well as put some of the controversy in perspective. It also puts the DI's perspective in perspective so to speak. Any thoughts? Mr Christopher 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that some additional information may help give this part of the article more context. However, as you note, at some point, it starts to look like material already present on the Wedge Document page, which could become redundant. I think the explanation of the goals you propose looks reasonable. I'm not certian that these two goals are the best two to list in the article, but they are perhaps a good start.
As I re-read this section of the article, I would like to know how footnote 51 relates to the claim. The central item of this agenda - establishing intelligent design as legitimate science through conducting actual scientific research - has not been achieved.[51] The footnote mearly is for the "ID is not Science" section of Kitzmiller. Without opening some debate on the merits of that judicial opinion, it does not appear to clearly support the claim. While Kitzmiller does say that ID is not science, in the context of an Establishment Clause case, I do not believe this source backs up that "actual scientific research" has not been achieved. Perhaps there is a better source for this?Veritasjohn 23:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Veritasjohn, the two goals I quoted represent the top level "governing goals" that shape the 5 and 20 year goals. Thus I thought they were the most relevant and we agree that we need not create a whole Wedge section, I am proposing only documenting the the two governing goals. I did not add the cite you mention but it may benefit from a more clear cite. Mr Christopher 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
And for those who cannot get enough of channel Discovery Institute, here are all their goals (per the wedge document)

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

But as far as the article does, I think the two governing goals will do nicely. Mr Christopher 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Lead

I think the lead, by sidestepping all the controversy until the last sentence, may be NPOV, but I'm not sure. Does anyone else think so, or is my vague dislike better off suppressed? Adam Cuerden talk 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Valid point, I think. FeloniousMonk 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. I'm probably not going to have time to do it very quickly, but I'll do what I can. Adam Cuerden talk 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I was able to do a first draft. However, it really should be longer: Anyone else have ideas? Adam Cuerden talk 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the wiki link inserted for Nina Shapiro. The writer does not appear to be a candidate for a wiki biography, and thus I do not think a red link to no page is appropriate.Veritasjohn 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute and Global Warming

It appears that the DI has now added global warming skepticism to their list of causes: [81]. JoshuaZ 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else roll their eyes and snicker when they read something like this from the DI link above "compile peer-reviewed data from scientists all over the world" Now, are they real scientists or gym teachers? And are those papers really peer reviewed, or nonsense like the intelligent design "peer reviewed" papers. Mr Christopher 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Avery is an economist by training. What think is actually going on here is twofold 1) as ID becomes less viable post Kitzmiller the DI trying to branch out to other conservative(for lack of a better term) causes 2) in some of the recent legislative attempts to "teach the controversy" legislators have included global warming as something they are explicitly skeptical about presumably to help mask the religious nature of the anti-evolution material. Having the DI get involved in that helps matters. At this point the DI is now involved in not only creationism/ID but also global warming skepticism, AIDS denial (two senior fellows) and arguably Holocaust denial (one of their token Muslims). JoshuaZ 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Amazing. Well from a DI perspective it makes sense that an economist is considered an expert on global warming, much the same that they promote english majors and and lawyers as experts in biology. I'll admit I have not paid as close attention to the DI's non-ID related efforts as I have their creationist agenda. Interesting how they trump up the "peer review" buzz words as a means of lending credibility to their ideas on global warming. I wonder how long until they start promoting opinion polls and signatures from gym teachers, lawyers and book keepers as evidence that global warming is a myth. I doubt they get too carried away with global warming since there's nothing there to lead people to Jesus. The notion that global warming is a myth primarily benefits commerical interests (I suppose that includes commercial financial donors) and does not create an obvious path to salvation so it will be interesting to see how deep they dive into the subject. What a fascinating group of people. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, JoshuaZ. Mr Christopher 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The DI doesn't have a problem with evolution in particular; it's main goal has always been to alter the way all science is done to include their theological beliefs. The idea that scientists are an identifiable elite with a particular set of values and a religion (atheism, usually coupled with a form of left-wing social liberalism and sometimes economic socialism) has always been a key plank of this. Trying to argue that scientists working on global warming are trying to control society with scare tactics feeds into this, in the same way that claiming scientists working on evolution miss blatantly obvious evidence that evolution is impossible does. It's not a particularly surprising move since creating the sense that scientists are partisan and biased erodes all scientific claims made in any scientific field since any particular claim can be dismissed on the basis that said scientist is biased. --Davril2020 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent analysis, that. Would you mind contributing to the Denialism article? FeloniousMonk 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!

More DI "legal" antics Mr Christopher 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again...Study Shows Discovery Institute Copied Book For Law Review Article here is the conclusion:

Professor Irons concluded his study with these comments: "It seems to me the height of hypocrisy for the Discovery Institute to accuse Judge Jones of copying 90 percent of one section of his opinion (just 16 percent of its total length) from the proposed findings of fact by the plaintiff's lawyers, when the DI itself tried to palm off as 'original' work a law review article that was copied 95 percent from the authors' own book. Concealing this fact from the law review editors, until I discovered and documented this effort, seriously undercuts the credibility of the DI on this or any other issue."

According to that article , Irons isn't some clown pretending to be a "legal scholar", he is a "Harvard Law School graduate and member of the United States Supreme Court bar, is a noted authority on First Amendment law and has published more than a dozen books on constitutional litigation, as well as numerous articles in the Harvard Law Review and other prestigious journals." Should this latest DI controversy be mentioned in the article. Does it seem noteworthy to others? Under the circumtstances it seems highly relevant to me. Mr Christopher 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to mention the Judge Jones thing, I think we should mention that as well. Adam Cuerden talk 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The law review editors say that the mass copying thing was just a problem with communication among the editors. The real copying issue involving the DI is that of how much of Stephen C. Meyer's "peer-reviewed" article was copied from previous versions, including previous published versions. Note that the "Complete List" section of the DI's "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications article lists three published versions of the very same article, with a 72% match between the 2003 and 2004a versions, a higher match than I found between the Jones decision section on whether ID was science and the plaintiffs's brief that the DI complained mightily about. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"study"

I've been re-acquainting myself with the DI page after a little Wiki break. Though people who follow the Discovery Institute and intelligent design may know what "study" refers to, the title is very ambigous. I suggest that some more descriptive name be used. I'm not commenting on the merits or content of the section at this point, just suggesting a more usable title for Wiki readers. Especially in the TOC at the top of the DI page, I don't think "study" is descriptive enough. Cheers! Veritasjohn 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

veritasjohn, how the heck are ya? Well I'm sure you're aware this was not an actual study (though they presented it that way), it's more of a poorly planned smear campaign based of a false premise. Calling it a smear campaign would not be good. What would you suggest we call it? Mr Christopher 17:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Since I seem to recall making that a subsection, I've expanded the title a bit to read "Study" criticizing Judge Jones. Any better title welcome. .. dave souza, talk 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been re-reading the "study" section and have a few problems with the current version. First, the final sentence about the counter-study seems to be confusing, and not adaquately sourced.

A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of a text comparison program approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science with the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed.[64][65]

I have two problems:

  • 1) the first citation goes to Ed Brayton's blog, for the "35%" figure. However, when you follow the link, the one paragraph blog post lists "48%" as the figure. Now, before you freak out, I read the comments to the blog, and a comment lower down says, "In plain language, Judge Jones constructed an opinion that is 38% plaintiffs's proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The judge used about 35% of the plaintiffs's proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law to do so." That makes a blog comment' as the source for this statistic of 35% which is cited as verifiable fact. I do not think this is adaquate, especially given the confusing nature of the blog comment. The other link goes to Mr. Elsberry's files, which are source files. When you click them, they are incomprehensable. They are not self-explanatory. I think citing to these files violates WP:NOR
  • 2) The Elsberry study looks at a different number! As best I can tell, the Discovery "study" draws the 90% figure as a percentage of Judge Jones opinion which was virtually verbatum. The Elsberry study, however, appears to look at the percentage of the ACLU brief which was incorporated. The Discovery study was not claiming that 90% of the ACLU brief was incorporated, it was claiming that 90% of that section in Judge Jones opinion was copied. There is a huge difference. Clearly, if the ACLU brief is larger than Judge Jones opinion, then changing the nominator is going to change the study.

I think the sentence should be modified in some way to fix these problems.Veritasjohn 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some modification of the statements in the article should be done. There seems to be some confusion over what numbers go with what comparisons. Please see my article and comment concerning recent statements from the DI about their "study". Note that you don't have to take my word for anything -- I have provided links to the source documents, the complete set of text matches per analysis, and side by side comparisons for the section concerning whether ID is science. Anyone can confirm my results by reference to those materials. --Wesley R. Elsberry 06:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
How would you re-word it? Mind giving us an idea? FeloniousMonk 06:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Current:
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of a text comparison program approved for use and considered authoritative in Federal court, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science with the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 35% of the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed.
Suggested:
A subsequent study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program used in analysis of the drafts of Of Pandas and People in the Kitzmiller v. DASD case, on the section of the plaintiffs proposed findings of fact regarding whether ID is science with the section of the ruling on the same subject indicated that Judge Jones actually only incorporated 48% of the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate. In total, Elsberry found that 35% of the plaintiffs's entire proposed findings of fact was used by Judge Jones in his decision in the case. The subjective nature of matching used by the Discovery Institute to say that 90.9% of the decision's section on whether ID is science was copied from the plaintiffs's brief was not supported; Elsberry's program found a figure of 66% using the same parameters as were used for comparing versions of the Of Pandas and People drafts in the case.
See my page on text comparisons for a brief description of each analysis and the percentage due to copying.
As to comprehensibility, this is what Judge Jones had to say about the documentation provided to him:
"As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post [141]Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in [142]Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-[143]Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.)."
I think that is the opinion that counts. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

i just read the wedge document

to "drive a wedge" into the heart of "scientific materialism". it does not say the above. where is the cite for the above?

and why is it evil to be against "scientific materialism"???

raspor 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessarily evil. It is just destructive of the scientific enterprise and very foolhardy. It is basically what someone does when they are really really really aggressively stupid. And dangerous. But not necessarily evil.--01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
so it is "really really really aggressively stupid and dangerous" to be against "scientific materialism"??? Can you explain why??? raspor 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
where is the cite for the above? i thought we have to have referenced material not opinions??? raspor 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the "fact" tag you've added. The sentence is amply supported by cites already provided in the Wedge strategy article, please read it and them as well. FeloniousMonk 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


"should be placed directly after the quotation" you have misguoted. i agree with this. why do you keep removing my suggestion??? raspor 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
show me the cites. it simply does not say that in the wedge document raspor 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What, you want us to do your homework for you now too? FeloniousMonk 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you've only just now read the wedge document, I suggest that you take some more time to read up more on the topic before trying to contribute here; this is a complex subject that covers a professional PR campaign dealing in disinformation. Long term contributors do not always have the time or patience to bring the unread up to speed. FeloniousMonk 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When you quote someone You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quotation' as an example." For long quotes, you may wish to use Template:Quotation. (an unsigned comment by Raspor)

When they talk about destroying scientific materialism, what they are saying is they want the divinity in the definition of science. I have explained to you about 5 times why the supernatural will ruin science. You want it again? You never absorb this stuff do you? So do you want to ruin science ? Do you want to have drugs to take when you get sick? Do you like to have car to drive and an airplane to fly in ? Do you like your computer and the internet and your refrigerator and your clean water? If you like all that stuff, why would you destroy the system that brought it to you? Now if you hate that stuff and want to live in a cave, then fine, get off Wikipedia.--Filll 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
so if we dont have materialsim we wont have drugs, airplanes and computers? why cant you think straight? i have explained this a dozen times. raspor 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok then raspor, what authority do you have for that statement? How much do you know about science?--Filll 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
obviouly more than you. why are you avoiding the point? you are making the ridiculous statement the if one believes in god that we wont have drugs. who the heck do you think discovered penicillin etc? theists! look to think raspor 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? How widespread do you think believe in strict creationism is among scientists?--Filll 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
plese dont be rude and use colons! they are many creationists scientists who do great work. people who believe in god can be good scientists. and can make discoveries. how many times do i have to tell you??? raspor 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont think you understand about colons. You have to use them or not use them so your posts do not all line up with the posts above and below. That is all.--Filll 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
plese dont be rude and use colons! they are many creationists scientists who do great work. people who believe in god can be good scientists. and can make discoveries. how many times do i have to tell you??? raspor 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok tell me 5 great famous creationist scientists.--Filll 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
He may have read the Wedge document, but apparently he missed the part that says "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points." Wedge strategy, five year Strategic Plan Summary FeloniousMonk 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
duh i read that. where is the part where they say they will drive it into the 'heart'???
Are you serious? FeloniousMonk 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
are you?? first of all they never mentioned heart. it is a misquote. this is dishonest raspor 02:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You're being ridiculous. Give it a rest and do not start disrupting this article and this talk page. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
the quote is erroneous. and it is not cited. this is against the rules. there for this is not a 'disruption' it is valid critism. who wrote that non-truth?? raspor 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As blindly ignorant and annoying as raspor is, he does seem to have a point here. This article seems to quote the Wedge document as containing the words "drive a wedge". It shouldn't, as those words are not in the document. Not literally.
Quoting from the document: "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points."
Quoting from the article: "internal memo laying out the Discovery Institute's original, ambitious plan to 'drive a wedge' into the heart of 'scientific materialism' have placed it at the center of numerous controversies."
The spirit of the quote certainly seems accurate, but the quotation marks are misleading at best. -- Ec5618 13:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ecch:
"""As blindly ignorant and annoying as raspor is, he does seem to have a point here. This article seems to quote the Wedge document as containing the words "drive a wedge". It shouldn't, as those words are not in the document. Not literally"""
Damn. Raspor made a valid point here. I did a LexisNexis search and I couldn't find where a Discovery Institute document or interview ever said drive a wedge into the heart. But Raspor, I hope that there's a lesson to be learned. The way you come across invalidates most of your points, even if they are right. I would suggest a less belligerent attitude. Like you're going to listen. Sad. Orangemarlin 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


hey if people hear cannot understand logic and go only by feelings i cant help them. you people are very annoying also. and unethical for the most part. and belligerent. i am right most of the time. and thats what bugs the atheists here. raspor 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried. Sigh. Orangemarlin 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. And "the Discovery Institute's original, ambitious plan to 'drive a wedge' into the heart of 'scientific materialism' " properly and accurately summarizes "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points." [82] FeloniousMonk 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
blindly ignorant and annoying? well at least its creative fellatio is so boring with his insults. i appreciate a litte creativity. anyhow. yes this is obvious against a lot of guidelines there is spitting a tree with a wedge is much different that driving a wedge into a heart. and i would not matter if just one word was wrong it should be corrected. and it should be cited. well lets see if ANY of the other darwinists have any integrity. is it wrong for an organization to try to "wedge" in its ideas? thats what clinton did masterfully. if someone wants the US to be a theocracy they have the right to try to promote it. keep up the creative insults. keeps things fresh raspor 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor is correct (in a sense) that without naturalism and evolution we wouldn't have drugs - or rather, we would have the sort of drygs you can buy on infomercials. If we cannot rule out the supernatural, we can never demonstrate the one drug works better than the other. Consequently, the FDA (and similar bodies in other countries) couldn't approve any mor drugs. If we can't rule out the supernatural we can't say that it was penicillin that killed the bacteria and not a supernatural event. Without common descent we have no grounds for animal testing, since inferences are only valid on the basis of the phylogenetic relationships between species. Without the assumption that the phylogeny is basically correct, animal testing is simply animal cruelty. Guettarda 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did Raspor say this? Orangemarlin 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No I said it. Raspor disagreed.--Filll 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor said "so if we dont have materialsim we wont have drugs, airplanes and computers".  ;) Guettarda 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
With a question mark. He was repeating my claim and questioning it.--Filll 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

""If we cannot rule out the supernatural, we can never demonstrate the one drug works better than the other"" oh bull! of course you can test regardless of whether one believes in the supernatural or not. didnt you ever hear of a double blind study? are you guys aware of how this testing works at all? where do you get this stuff??? raspor 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a scientist. If I add an extra variable in my work, the supernatural, all my work is @#$%^ and I should just throw it out. If I cannot count on the natural world and natural laws and no intervention of the supernatural, then it is impossible to know anything for sure. Like in drug testing.--Filll 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
youre a scientst? what do you do? you know about double blind studies right? no you are not getting it. again is prayer supernatural? and you dont HAVE to add the supernatural. of you have never defined is to its hard so know what you mean. are you like someone who likes science and thats why you think you are a scientist? how do you define scientist? raspor 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
raspor, think about it. You're right in saying that we can use double blind studies to test the usefulness of prayer, certainly. In such a case, we assume that there is only one variable: one group prays, one group doesn't. But what use is a study on the longevity of lightbulbs when we assume a supernatural force is manipulating the data? In science, we must assume that there is only one variable. If a supernatural force is manipulating the data, we can't trust data. -- Ec5618 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
so you are agreeing we can have the supernatural in science. well with the light bulb test of course we limit our factors. we could test for the effect of prayer on the life of light bulbs? right? or not. we dont NECESSARILY have to have the supernatural as a factor any more that we have to have say humidity as a factor. do you get it??? raspor 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You really do not know much about science. And I am a scientists because I have 2 undergraduate degrees and 4 graduate degrees in science, and have made my living being paid to do science for years. So I think I know what a scientist is. You are clueless. If I have the supernatural that can intervene mysteriously at any time and any place and ruin the results then I can know nothing. Now I can test for the effect of prayer. We have done so several times, in controlled studies, and we have found NO effect of prayer. Prayer itself might change brain chemistry so I will not say prayer is worthless. But expecting a supernatural response to prayer is more pseudoscience than science at least as far as we can tell.--Filll 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

i dont think YOU know much about scienced. sure i can say i won a noble prize there is no way to check. do you work at science. are those mail order degrees? or just play degrees? you cannot defined scientists or supernatural.
and you are not getting it. we can measure the 'supernatural' scientifically. but you wont define it. and there have been tests on prayer that show significance. you really have to come up with a operational def for supernatural. do you know what that means mr. scientist? raspor 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We have tried to measure supernatural things like the effect of prayer but failed to find any effects in most studies. So you are incorrect. You just will reject whatever I say, that is clear. From your writing style, I would doubt strongly that you are a Nobel Prize holder unless you are not a native English speaker.--Filll 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

honestly do you have a hard time reading. did i say all the studies showed significance?? duh NO! i said a few do. and i never said i had a nobel prize. are you all right? where are you getting this stuff? really
define operation defintion. you never used it i can tell raspor 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. Any regular experiment is done by assuming only a single variable. We run two sets of virtually identical experiments. In order for the experiments to have meaningful results, ideally we eliminate any factor but the one we're investigating. You know this, don't you?
However, when we assume that some unknown supernatural effect may be present, outside of control, then our results are completely invalidated. Thusfar, science seems to have yielded some great results while assuming the supernatural doesn't exist.
Naturally, we can scientifically test the usefulness of prayer, but only when the only variable is prayer. -- Ec5618 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic

Though first a reminder: this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for telling each other ghost stories. Anyway, if raspor's correct about the "citation" from the wedge document, that's a valuable point and the statement should be revised to match what the document actually says. Thanks for picking that up, raspor. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks dave, are you serious are they going to change it? i done good, huh?? and seriously if i am supposed to be a stupid noobie why does fill keep taunting me? isnt he supposed to be the mature, experienced scientist here? why doesnt he stop his taunting? raspor 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure looks like you're right, and it will be changed, or properly cited if someone did say it. If you'd raised the point without all the drama and pantomime it would probably have been changed quicker, but in the end verifiable accuracy is what it's all about. Ta, dave souza, talk 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Raspor's point was inaccurate. Nevertheless, I've reworded it to more accurately reflect the actual source of the controversies it describes, which is the institute's goal of defeating the materialist worldview and "to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." I've used direct quotes and cited the sources for this. Back to Raspor's point, Wikipedia articles do not need to always use direct quotes, in fact our guidelines are that summaries of views are preferred. FeloniousMonk 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to appearances, I am not taunting. I am trying to engage raspor in productive discussions. I have done the same with adlac and others who hold different views than mine. Sometimes useful information emerges. I am not so sure this is possible in raspor's case.--Filll 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Wedge into the heart

I found it on a parody of Barbara Forrest on the DI site:

The wedge is really a stake about to be plunged into the heart of the scientific process. here

From a book by Barbara Forrest:

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, to be published next year, cites a widely circulated 1998 internal memo laying out Discovery's ambitious plan to "drive a wedge" into the heart of "scientific materialism," found here

Other people might have picked up on Forrest's wording. It might be in other DI materials: I am not sure.--Filll 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

well fel***** changed it and 'you are welcome' it is fortunate you have me around to point out these inaccuracies. there are dozens of them. what is with this thing that fel***** seems to be able to change anything any way he wants. is he the boss? well the ID, evolution and discovery articles are bobjobs. frankly the intro paragraphs on all of them should be scrapped and started over. who wrote those fel****? raspor 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, gee, thanks. Please read WP:POINT and WP:V next time before you decide to help. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Since it was from a WP:V source, Chris Mooney no less, we could have just cited it, but I've already rewritten it to better reflect the issues. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
bobjob raspor 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bobjob:A bobjob is a job well done... bobjob--Filll 19:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


well you cant believe everything you read on the internet. look at the wiki intelligent design article. its a bobjob. so fill you tink fel******* is bobjob or not? raspor 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to remember to

--Filll 20:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

why cant you use colons? are you above that. and see you just 'fed a troll' just stick to the subjects instead of all this petty stuff. i got that horrible quote out of there. i am for the truth. i wish more here were raspor 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Please see WP:V, specifically, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Striving for "Truth" is specifically against Wikipedia policy, because the truth is inherently a matter of personal opinion. Your personal opinion is valid, as your personal opinion, but only the verifiably accurate is desired on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, until you wrote that, I did equate science with truth. I may still do so internally, but this really makes sense. But now I have to ask a more important question. If we are supposed to add only verifiable information, who defines the veracity of the verifiable? Or does 10,000 verifiable articles about evolution trump 1 marginally verifiable article about ID? I think I know the answer to that, but when someone lectures another person about WP:NPOV, what is the "right" answer? In the end does verifiable science beat Genesis? I wish we could come to a consensus of the rules--then put it up on every controversial page from the Historicity of Jesus to Abortion. I think the current rules mean different things to different people, and in the case of Evolution, the consensus is usually the last person to revert a page! Orangemarlin 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce) In that case, WP:NPOV#Undue weight kicks in. Apply the three pillars of NPOV, NOR, and V, and you can't go wrong. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This section looks like it could use some more sub-headers or something that logically organizes the flow of information a little better. Opinions? Mr Christopher 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

for clarity and discussion, the controversy section (whtout a sub header like the Jones Study) is primarily comprised of these areas:

  • Religious agenda
  • Intellectual dishonesty (per their many critics within the scientific community)
  • Wedge document (war on science)
  • Political and not scientific agenda (per the Templeton foundation)

I'm thinking we'd do our readers a favor if we somehow organized these subjects within the Controversy section. I'm not sure how best to do that yet. Mr Christopher 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant quote/source for religious nature of the DI?

See the quote by the DI about itself at the end of this article [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54176] JoshuaZ 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

categories

Why is this page in Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors? The discovery institute is not fellow or advisor in itself. Should perhaps a Category:Discovery Institute be created to go between Category:Intelligent design and Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors.--ZayZayEM 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discovery_Institute/Archive_1&oldid=1142437795"