Talk:Expelled:Leader's Guide/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 28 June 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Laurel leaves and other kudos

I move to make this a huge super priority. And to thank sterile for starting it. May I help?-αmεσ (ninja) 18:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I hope we all help... It's in the mainspace, so GO! Sterile^xx 18:18, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

PS 10 points to whoever can find the extra </tr>. Sterile^xx 18:18, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm going after it now. human 21:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. human 21:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and yes, super-thanks to Sterile for finding it, and converting the "in your face" style of the original tract to an orderly procession of text. Nice work!! human 23:55, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Typos

Are the typos in the left side "sic" or were there mistakes in copying and pasting? human 21:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I have convinced myself through checking a couple that they are an artifact of the hard work of the copying, so any that are found should be corrected. human 23:53, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What Does The Evidence Say About These Theories?

I'm afraid of breaking this if I edit it, but with regard to the following section:

Despite what we continue to read in the popular press and textbooks, modern science is increasingly raising serious questions about Darwinism along with other key elements of the “materialistic” worldview. At the same time, new scientific research is revealing incredible support for the theory of intelligent design, especially in these key fundamental areas of science:

1. Cosmology (The Origin of the Universe)2. Molecular Biology (The Origin of Life)3. Paleontology (The History of Life)

ID, as a biological "theory" has nothing whatsoever to say about The Origin of the Universe, or the Origin of life. (Neither, for that matter, does the Theory of Evolution.)--Bob^{bing up} 18:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Bob-- I don't think you'll break it. That why the letter-number combos are there. Just find the one you want, click on the nearest section, and edit that part. Or edit the text you want. Sterile^xx 18:46, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

(Just don't delete any < or >... Sterile^xx 18:48, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Anthropic principle

Someone should probably precis this into the right hand side? (needs someone with more academic skills than me. --Marghanita Laski 20:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Title

1. This should be in the mainspace I think. human 21:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

2. And I'm going to move it soon, okay? human 23:53, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

3. I done did it. human 14:17, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Flat Earth

I wonder if a different example here would be good? Aside from the fact that the "flat earth" thing is horribly overused, the god-botherers seem to think they've put it to rest and don't even bother to read it. So how about something like believing that tomatoes were poisonous, or that women with birthmarks were witches? --Kels 21:18, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Umm, tomatoes ARE poisonous. Or at least American ones are. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:22, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

It was a medieval European belief, actually. Pretty widespread, as I recall. --Kels 21:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey, we have edible tomatoes 2-3 weeks a year! human 21:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

The "Tomatoes" on potato plants (related species) are poisonous.Marghanita Laski 21:28, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

And of course, some people are allergic to the whole nightshade family... human 23:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm allergic to the CP family. Perchance I should try devouring their flesh less often? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:54, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Molecular Biology

Reading the Leader Guide it looks like this section reads straight out of Kent Hovind. It's basically the 747 from a junkyard argument which is of course a ridiculous strawman. Stile4aly 01:16, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Confuzed, need an interpreter of ID speak

I don't get the overall message of the ID "guide", and maybe I just don't understand the ID message in general. The guide first slams Darwinian evolution; ID's argument is that organisms were created as they are now. OK, I get that; it's in line with creationism, including YEC. Then it says that big bang == beginning == designer. But big bang == old universe, so espousing the big bang but slamming evolution suggests that these folks think that the universe started billions of years ago, but organisms were created in their current form pretty recently. Still, OK, I get it, it's a version of OEC. Then they include stuff that suggests evolution happened, but it was directed by a designer, not by natural selection. That's a different version of OEC. Plus, some arguments in this guide clearly aren't just for any generic designer, but for God. Does anyone know exactly what "mainstream" IDers think "really" happened? Because I don't see how you can trash evolution and claim that organisms were created in their present form, and then claim that evolution happened (even with a designer involved). Evolution is wrong/evil to teach, but it suddenly becomes OK to teach if you say a designer directs it? Is there a contradiction there, or am I missing something? Or are IDers so diverse in their beliefs that this guide tries to cover all the bases?--Bayes_yikes 01:37, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, part of the reason for the contradictory nature of intelligent design is that it was designed (there's that word again...) to unite the disparate flavours of creationism under one banner. That way they could coordinate their assault on science together. Admittedly, as with any movement of this size, there are some people who truly do believe in intelligent design theory. But mostly, the movement/theory is a hodge-podge meant to keep everyone happy by being as vague as possible.

I hypothesize that if the IDers ever do succeed in pushing their agenda on society, the movement will start to fray, because those who truly believe in ID will be satisfied, and the movement will lose a faction, as well as the veneer of "we're just a bunch of honest academics" they've been using. Eventually, the young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists will start clashing, and the whole thing will fall apart from there.

Sorry. You didn't ask to hear all that. I hope the first paragraph, at least, was helpful? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:04, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

P.S. I also blame the confusion on RationalWiki. We have a tendency to conflate several issues, forming an almost-straw man, so long as we get to bash the other side. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually RA, your 2nd paragraph is helpful also. I think you have (more articulately) expressed what I was kind of hinting at--that ID is ultimately a convenient political marriage between many types of creationism. In a funny way, that becomes increasingly apparent in this article. In refuting the guide, it has to refute all kinds of occasionally contradictory creationist viewpoints at the same time.--Bayes_yikes 03:04, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Do you think we should address this in the article itself? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:15, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Assuming that it's an accurate characterization of ID, yeah, maybe, although devoting more than a sentence or two here could spoil the specific point-by-point spirit of this article. It might be better suited at intelligent design if it's not there already (I can check on that later...I'm up way past bedtime).--Bayes_yikes 04:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

It shows a problem here too: Paleontology Summary: New animal groups appear abruptly in the fossil record fully formed, requiring a massive increase in new genetic information to be produced—information that points to intelligent design. This is not arguing for clasic ID which is evolution guided by God, but is an argument for "Progressive Creationism".--Bob^{bing up} 04:33, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I've added a reference to some of this in the intelligent design article under "Scope and definition".--Bob^{bing up} 06:46, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Slight change of topic

We need to put links to this everywhere we can think of. Right now it's probably only linked from the movie article. Every ID and cretinism article should have 'see also's to the movie article and to this one. human 12:28, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Working on that. DogP 12:45, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Formatting conumdrum

The irreducibly complex formatting required has proved beyond my powers. I wanted to add the following opposite the second part of "the Mutation Conundrum", but can;t seem to get it to line up. Help! One need add only the word "most" before "new mutations" to change the sentence from a false statement to a true one. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 14:02, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if someone else made an extra table row for you to do this, but it was there. I added some text similar to what you say above... ah, the table formatting was a bit bunged up. Fixing, when it lines up feel free to fix my wording. human 14:26, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, human. Most of the sections had some placeholders to help with the formatting. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 14:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

No problem. This one might have been added later, or while someone was tired, since it didn't have an obvious "type here" letter, and was also formatted a bit wrong. Still, it was amazing how well the whole thing was set up and ready to go for non-html-table savvy editors to kick in and edit! PS, what I often do with these, since the text you are responding to usually disappears when editing the "right hand" side, is copy and paste it so I can work from it, then get rid of it when done. OK, I did that once. human 15:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I did my best to as make it editor friendly as possible, but it's so big.... (I may have overly segemented it in a few places as well!) Still, I think it's worked out OK. Kudos to all! Sterile^xx 20:46, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

You did a great job, except for like two typos in table code out of a hundred or so. I think the segmentation you set up was perfect, often these side-by-sides don't have enough of those intersection row breaks so comments line up properly. Again, nice work! human 22:06, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, this is really easy to edit and quite hard to break. Nice format.--Bob^{bing up} 11:02, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

questions

• Intelligent Design: all caps, or lowercase.
• When referring to RW'ians: I, we, RationalWiki...
• When referring to the authors: the authors, the guide, etc.
• "In final summary: the title Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has an ironic ring of truth to it." is kinda an unfair "swipe", bordering on ad hom. Tone down at least, or delete?

Sterile^xx 11:10, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

• ID: tough question. I think they "cap" it, I suppose it's clearer if we do. However, it doesn't "deserve" it.
• "Some RationalWiki editors" is best I think. Occasionally the responses are first person, which is a bit odd at this point. In at least one place, I refer to me as "one RW editor" and linked it.
• I like to use "The producers of this film" and similar constructs. The "producers" are the ones ultimately responsible. Also, specificalyy, we can refer to "the Leader's Guide" if that is really what is meant. IE, author = producer, document = LG.
• This is the toughest for me to address since I wrote it ;). I also wrote after proofreading the entire responses at that point. And I don't think it's ad hom - after an overview, you get the sense that no genuine intelligence has been allowed into the room while this leader's guide is being presented. I also don't think it's ad hom to point out the irony in the title of the film. It truly is a clear, simple summary of every refutation we have applied above - if they allowed "intelligence" into the "room", their case would fall apart faster than the decks of cards in some of the examples. I will, of course, yield to the mob if it is thought too strong. However, these IDiots do deserve a strong spanking.
• Final thought here, since we are discussing style - once we've got this "mostly finished" (maybe never?) I think we should have someone who hasn't edited it much read it straight through and copyedit it for a relatively consistent style/voice etc., if they can do that without mucking it up. human 12:25, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I concur with Human's final thought. Various people have contributed and made great points, but it does seem a tad stylistically uneven at the moment.--Bob^{bing up} 13:19, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Regarding massive desnarking - I think it goes too far. It's part of our style, and makes a more interesting read. Making sure the snark is high quality is good, but getting rid of it just "dries up" the article and makes it more like it was "written by committee". human 13:04, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

If you're referring to my recent efforts, I'm not trying to remove most of the snark - I love the snark. But I think you need to ease the reader into it - remember that people who've never read RW may come straight to the article, if our plan works out. I think the first few paras should be good, strong argument, with minimal snark. Then pile on the snark. I'm trying to remove the ad-homs and where I find it reads poorly. But you'll note I'm already adding more snark at the same time. It's a great article, and snark is good. But it should be: utterly demolishing argument first, followed by snark. Snark on its own isn't an argument. DogP 13:11, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, I agree fully. human

Can someone look again at the Paleontology Summary - particularly the second paragraph, and rewrite it? It's not clearly written. DogP 13:34, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

One tough thing with the "summaries" is that we are following "their" structure, but responding point-by-point. On most of the summaries, we have continued with a "point by point" rather than summarizing our comments. Which is no big deal. But that second section, about "gap creationism" and Behe, is rather opaque, I agree. human 13:40, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it asserts that gap creationism and common descent can't be squared, but doesn't explain why - and that explanation doesn't belong here. It's just a matter of clarity of argument, that's all, and I don't consider myself qualified to write it. DogP 13:49, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Human-- You know you're right about the last statement. It's just throwing their swipe back at 'em. Let's keep it.... Sterile^xx 13:55, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

One other note - we link to the Common descent article a few times, but that's not, ehm, a very strong article. Shouldn't we be linking to The incontrovertible evidence of common descent instead? DogP 14:02, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I also note that in the "beyond abortion" section we send people off-site to read two things. Can't we better summarize and footnote? (Is that my job?) human 14:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Not sure it's worth the effort, H. They're trying to cast Singer as a Darwin-inspired Mengel figure, which is too silly for words. I was going for a suitably dismissive "see for yourself" with the tone and ELs, rather than labouring the point and footnoting. And the point would have to be laboured, if you're going to say anything meaningful about a) his particular brand of utilitarianism; b) his specific takes on very premature/severely disabled babies and euthanasia in general; and c) how a) and b) are derived without any recourse to Darwin. --Robledo 15:35, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I guess you're probably right. I just have a neurosis over keeping readers on our page :) Perhaps what you wrote above would be a good intro to a line that says, "to research this in depth for yourself, try these sites..."? human 15:49, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Your job is to say "How high?" when I say "Jump!". :-)

But seriously, what do you think about switching the Common descent links? I wonder if it isn't best done by working on those two articles - merging them, etc? DogP 14:14, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Just high enough to clear the poop, usually ;) human 15:49, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

The bit about "my local squirrels" could be a bit, uhm, stronger, eh? It's not much of a refutation. DogP 15:22, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Is it late enough in the article that some light-heartedness works? How about adding some "better" refutes but keeping the observation (seriously, those things can almost fly, there was one that kept coming inside last summer, and any limb flap would be an advantage). human 15:49, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Squirrelz

Yes, it's late enough in the article for lulz, but it doesn't address the point properly. If someone can write something funny about bats, great. But squirrels can't fly, and making lulz around their near abilities is a distraction and makes the refutation weak. DogP 19:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Commented out line

"...earth was flat (though this is a common held myth due to the fact that most of the world's religions have taught a round earth existed^{[citation needed]} and a scientist named Cosmas declared these religious zealots were fools and the earth was flat because he could see it scriptures say so.[1] - so much for the free thinker)"

Someone commented this out in the introduction (after the aether part). I can see why, but it would have been better to delete or copy here. human 12:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

The Cambrian Explosion

He makes a big deal of this, but I'm sure I read a while back that the "explosion" is now felt to be not quite so dramatic. I've had a google, but I can't seem to back it up now though, so I've not put it in. Anyone got any ideas?--Bob^{bing up} 15:55, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I always thought one major factor in the "explosion" was the development of "hard parts", which suddenly made it so there were many more fossil remains. human 16:19, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

haha, you said "hard parts" --Huey gunna getcha 16:21, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes Human, that was my impression as well and that there was a lot of soft body evolution going on before and that some fossil evidence had been found to back this up, or something like that. Can't find it now though.--Bob^{bing up} 17:31, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Genetic information and complexity

I'm struggling at something here, probably due to my lack of ed in bio. Genetic information is somewhat of an analogy, right? It's more like an instruction set to "build" proteins and thus organisms. But it's just a sequence, where there is a three-to-one DNA base-to-protein ratio (with a ton of junk). Yes, there may be more nucleotides and hence a more complex protein and maybe a different organism, but it's really not information in the sense that it says "build a hand here." And longer or shorter proteins are irrelevant(?).

Also, there seems to be some association with complexity and size (or "degree of humanness") on the part of the writer. How does one determine the "degree of complexity" of an animal? Yes, it's pretty clear that a one-cell organism would be less complex than one with who-knows-how-many, but at the trillions(?)-of-cells scale, does it really matter? And can anyone really say that a human is more "complex" than any other animal? Sterile^xx 16:11, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I remember reading somewhere that humans have only about 26,000 genes, whereas a rice plant has 40,000. Somewhat irrelevant but still interesting—I guess they can't be using the number of genes as a standard of "more complex". -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:53, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I also recall reading that gene number showed a surprising small correlation with, what I shall call for want of a better phrase, "evolutionary development". I suppose it's down to junk DNA? But does this fit in anywhere?--Bob^{bing up} 17:34, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

The Living cell

Under the Living cell they have this:Dr. Michael Behe (Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University) says, “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.” Can this be right? No publications? It seems improbable.--Bob^{bing up} 17:40, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

The best thing about unqualified statements like these is you only need one example to refute it. But for best results, I recommend digging up several. Not that I would know where to look. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:45, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I think he means at the sub-cell, or better yet, pre-cell stage - ie, how raw molecules in the "primordial soup" might have eventually "evolved" replication. It's cutting edge stuff mostly being done in computers. Biologists mostly work on things that are already alive. Either way, it's a weaselly over-generalization (like everything else they claim about science). human 19:14, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

So, trying to address Bob's question, does that mean there are no published studies? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:16, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Is he talking about the evolution of things like the immune system and such? I thought there were descriptions of that kind of thing out there in the literature.--Bayes_yikes 14:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

"Verbatim and Complete"

...appears at the top of this article, but actually, while most of the guide is here, not all of it is. Some quotemines thrown in as separate blocks of text aren't here, and an entire page (page 6 in the pdf--the one that has "Racism and Darwinism" on it) isn't here. Should we take "complete" out of the title, or are there plans to include the rest?--Bayes_yikes 21:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Bizarre, we must be communicating at super-luminal speeds. I was just checking the same myself. I think we need to be bulletproof on this article, so I say we add absolutely EVERYTHING, or else we stop claiming it's everything. As a side-by-sider, it should have everything. DogP 21:25, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. I'm in the process of collecting all the quote-boxes. Might be better if those are put on a subpage or something so they don't screw up the flow of the main article.--Bayes_yikes 22:00, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree. The only safe and sensible rational for copying all their text is "fair use", and I think as a group/mob, we all hate quote mining (and it was I who wrote the phrase quoted in the header). I think, the parts we don't have, we should copy into "talk" first, and indicate where they go (between section X and section Y). Then the table-happy geeks (like me) will paste them into the main article to be rebutted/refuted/mocked. Sound good? human 22:54, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

See Expelled:Leader's Guide/quotes for the quote box material.--Bayes_yikes 23:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, where does that stuff fit in the side-by-side? Do I have to go to that awful pdf again to figure it out? human 00:39, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess that this is going to be stuff from "The Descent of Man" rather than from "Origin of Species"? My understanding of the "Descent of Man" is that it can only be really understood in the light of the prejudices and preconceptions of that age and that we'll need to mention that. Actually, pointing out that we have moved forward in our understanding might not be a bad thing. (Do I sound like AKjeldsen?) --Bob^{bing up} 03:45, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yup. Glad to see I'm having a positive influence. :-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 11:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I have that special feeling

This article makes me feel all warm inside, or, as my wife's hair-dresser like to say, "it gives me a tickle in my potty".-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 23:37, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Gee, I think we thanks you, and your wife's stylist, for invoking that, um, tickly feeling down below. Does that mean you like this little joynt? human 23:39, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and it's great fun. I was thinking it might be fun to link more logical fallacies, for example, much of the first part likes to beg the question. It's pretty much a perfect article to demonstrate how logical fallacies are used by assholes to deceive. It's so nice. It's even better than watching Borat again.-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 23:41, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

And when I get that feeling

I want PalMD's Healing

PalMD's Healing, oh baby

Makes me feel so fine...

(Seriously, though - "tickle in my potty"? I'd ask my wife to visit less disturbing hair-dressers...) --Sid 23:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Racism & Darwinism

The missing part is here, but I'm not smat enough to figure out how to format the side by side. I see that a few of these come from this quote mine site.--Bob^{bing up} 05:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

• Robert N. Proctor (Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis [1988]) observed: “Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on the single creation of Adam and Eve. Darwin’s theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions. The impact of Darwin’s theory was enormous.”

Given such concepts as "chosen people" it is difficult to believe that people really believed that all mew were equal before Darwin. Apart form the word "race" there is little to object to in the rest of the sentence.

• Darwin spoke of the “gorilla” and the “Negro” [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the “Baboon” and the “civilized races of man” (“Caucasian”). “At some future period,” said Dar win, “…the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” American Darwinian biologist Edward East, a Harvard professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences, asserted in 1924 that “wherever the negro has been placed he has… failed miserably and utterly by the white man’s standards,” and that such a record supported the view of British evolutionist Karl Pearson that “the negro lies nearer to the common stem” of man’s evolutionary tree “than the European.”

• H. Klaatsch, a prominent German evolutionist, concluded that human races differ not only because of survival factors, but also for the reason that they evolved from different primates. The Blacks came from the gorillas, the Whites from the chimpanzees, and the Orientals from the orangutans, and it is for this reason that some races are superior. He concluded that “the gorilla and the Neanderthal man” have a close biological affinity to “a large number of the living African Blacks.”

• In the 1920s, an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading “Negro”, said that the inherent mental inferiority of the blacks was even more marked than their physical differences and that no full blooded Negro has ever been distinguished as a man of science, a poet, or an artist.

It is fortunate that society has evolved to a point where most people now regard these views as abhorrent. In a similar way most Christian religions ha e evolved in such a way that they now regard slavery as abhorrent.

• Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood, published articles from Adolf Hitler’s director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned “The Negro Project,” her strategy for eliminating the black population. She believed in removing what she called “the dead weight of human waste.”

• Recent IQ tests of people throughout the world have found that, with allowance for cultural differences, the IQ ranges of all extant identified races is extremely close. The pygmy population of Africa, supposedly the most backward race extant today, test close to average when acclimated to Western life.

Yes.

• Does This Still matter? In a Times interview October 17, 2007, James Watson (Nobel Laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) used evolution concepts in his racist remarks about the intelligence of Africans. Citing genetic differences, he claimed there is no reason to anticipate intellectual capacities have evolved equally if they are evolving in separate geographies. In the interview Dr. Watson also claimed that he hoped that everyone was equal but countered, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true.”

And he was roundly condemned for it.

I've put some responses in italic.--Bob^{bing up} 05:41, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

So you guys are saying you want pp 12, 13, maybe 17? I'll get to it Sun, MonSterile^xx 10:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I figured that was the thrust of the "Verbatim and Complete" discussion above. --Bob^{bing up} 11:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Formatting

As we build this wonderful beast, the formatting is getting wigged out, and mere mortals like I are unable to maintain the visual beauty. Could someone with the chops to do so keep an eye on the side-by-side nature of the thing, and keep improving the formatting? It works so wonderfully well when the point sits exactly to the left of the response. DogP 11:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Where is the section(s) that needs help? human 12:03, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey Human! Well, kind of everywhere, really. Help definitely needed. Some of these sections appear to be done as one table, others are done as two separate sections. And simply adding carriage returns doesn't seem to make things line up? Can you dive in and apply some neatness, get back the elegant side-by-sideism you had originally set up? DogP 12:54, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Everywhere, really? Dang. What was done in this sbs was more elegant than most, in that lots of "subsections" were set up as their own row, making the other guys' and our comments line up no matter how long or short each is. Guess I'll have to look at the whole thing and see where it got busted. It's not very intuitive for people to add new rows, since one part of the code goes on the left and the other on the right, neither being complete on their own. human 12:59, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, exactly - they never line up. Any help appreciated, now and continuing as the thing grows. But it's getting better and better, eh?! DogP 13:04, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually there is another point. It's getting a bit on the big side. Should we cut it up into different pages? Or would that fragment it too much? It's just that I rather doubt that anybody would actually read the thing from top to bottom. Or maybe put an index on top?--Bob^{bing up} 13:13, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Let's let it grow out fully and then see if we need to carve it up? If we divide it now, I'm worried there wouldn't be one article to focus on. DogP 13:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I just fixed one section ("The Facts") and a I see few more that need similar help. It's not that hard, and I'll do one chunk at a time between saves. But I do have to say, if I get EC'd while doing one, I'm gonna override it so my head doesn't explode ;) So if anyone adds content, they should save it somewhere in case I accidentally vape it. Better yet, I suppose if I knuckle down right now and fix the thing, everyone hang on and wait for the "all clear" before adding more content? human 13:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

(undent)@ Bob - I agree it needs some TOC. How about I play with building one for the major sections? We can't use a "natural" wiki TOC because we have a zillion headers and it would be a mess. human 13:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

AOK, I need to go outside and have a life anyway. DogP 13:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Cool. I've got a film to watch anyway.--Bob^{bing up} 13:22, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

(undent)OK, I think I done did it. If you do see any sections that aren't tablified enough, just let me know & I'll fix them. It was mostly the new sections that weren't done (although some were), and one that the bad guys bulleted that needed alignment for teh pretty. Maybe I'll try to cobble together a TOC now. human 14:03, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

By the way, we should add a link to "top" at the bottom of each major (or even minor) section, on the RW response side. Like this:

<div align=right><small>[[#top|''Return to top'']]</small></div>

Return to top

You see above how the link looks, over at the right of the page. human 14:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the formatting some might be referring to results from the table. Sometimes you have to click the section header on the right to edit text on the left, and vice versa. It's because of wiki formatting (the "edit" part is association with the section, not with the table cells). It should, however, appear OK on your screen. If not, what does it look like? Sterile^xx 14:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

You should be able to use section linking to make a toc with <a> and </a>. er... you did that sorta... Sterile^xx 14:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I added a bunch of "return to top" links. Also diminished a few headers that look like subsections. Not sure if the Darwin's words section belongs in the middle of mol. bio. though. The formatting you mention (where to click to edit) shouldn't matter, as we shouldn't be "editing" the left side. It's more a matter of having rows for each paragraph, so paragraph by paragraph rebuttals line up nicely (which this thing needs, their paragraphs are each separate sections of argument, really). Anyway, if anyone wants to add more "top" links, go for it. human 15:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

break

Re. style, we should agree on a style for quotes - currently the article has at least three different quote formats. Opinions? DogP 15:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I like how the blockquotes look--they sort of separate the quotes from the main text, as the original pdf does--but I'm obviously biased as the person who put them in, so whatever the majority thinks is fine with me.--Bayes_yikes 15:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I think I kinda prefer them too. Others? DogP 15:55, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I jumped in and blockquoted all 'statements', and chose to leave other quotes - like reviews or commentary - within quotation marks. Seems to work well, although the Dr.Schnoer quoteboxen screwed up the formatting. DogP 16:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Did you break the formatting again, DP? I'll go look... human 16:37, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

No, it's not so much broken as that the quotes don't line up,due to the comments above them. Would be nice if we can organise them to line up all proper like. DogP 16:45, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Nah, don't worry about it. As long as sections on the same topic start at the same point we're fine. human 16:58, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Good Christ I wish I could stop and go outside. I'm trapped by this damn article. DogP 16:59, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey Human, can you work your magic on the Cosmology, Molecular Biology and Paleontology Summary sections - it would be nice if the bullet points lined up, as these summaries make for an easy digest of all the arguments for and against? I want to watch and learn how you do this too. DogP 18:11, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, Paleo is already done, and the other two aren't that bad, are they? Our sections are only a line longer in some places. Oh, wait, I forget my really wide screen might be affecting that. Yeah, sure, I'll dig in and makes rows for each bullet point... watch for ECs whenever I randomly decide to do it!human 18:41, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Done. human 18:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Style guide per above for final copyediting

Open to discussion, of course.

• Wedge Document - always capped, should it also be italics (as a publication)?
• wedge strategy - not capped. (except at the at beginning of sentences).
• intelligent design - not capped.
• theory of evolution - not capped.
• "author" of style guide = "producers of the movie"?
• "statement" quotes - in quoteboxen, copy the formatting. Book reviews, etc - in quotation marks? - General style is that short quotes are in line in text in quotemarks, any that run past three lines (hard to judge on a 'puter screen!) get set in indented boxen. Shall we make the cutoff, say, roughly two sentences? Oh, and all require refs.

Feel free to add any other stylistic issues we need to make consistent, and let's end up with an agreed-upon list of how to handle these things. human 15:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

CP ID article

CP's new Intelligent Design mumblings should help us better understand their arguments as we build our own response. DogP 15:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Increasing Massivosity of Article

Soon, this wonderful article will begin to cause it's own gravitational effects, and your computer screens will dim as light struggles to escape its vast enormityness. Put your thoughts here as to how we might - now or later - cope with its hugosity. DogP 17:43, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

It's fine, I think. It's at about 80k or so, no bigger than a lousy 800 x 1000 jpg. Sure, there is lots of text, but that's "content". Do you think we need a more detailed TOC? Because that is easy. Also, I think the "return to top" links help make it manageable for the bits and pieces reader. It's also a lot easier to navigate than that POS pdf we are discussing! human 18:12, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

How about using this style for the TOC?--Bayes_yikes 19:04, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Contents by major section:
Introductory material
Introduction – The Facts

Cosmology Cosmology Summary

Molecular Biology Irreducible Complexity Darwin in his own words Molecular Biology Summary

Paleontology Paleontology Summary Another Summary

So Where Does the Science Lead? Racism & Darwinism Why Does It Matter? What does it matter?

Conclusions
Putting It All Together – FAQs: Evolution & Intelligent Design – RationalWiki's final commentary

I think that's really good Bayes. I like how it clearly breaks the thing down into 'Chapters', then sections. I say yes. DogP 19:06, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, I'll put it in for now but obviously everyone's free to play with it. Dunno about the size issue, I think that splitting it into multiple articles would dilute the message. At least we can still brag that we're smaller than the pdf! ...until we start pasting in 400k worth of pictures like this.--Bayes_yikes 19:22, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Looks good, the only problem is that "another summary" is kind of a summary to the whole science section, I think - it should not be grouped under paleontology. The layout is certainly more attractive than what I hacked together and centered. One problem with structure is we are knackered by the spray-paint graffiti style of the original work, which is not so much organized as thrown in the reader's face. Let's keep working on the TOC. How about left alignment, bold major sections, with "small" subsections in a row to their right? human 19:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Something like this?--Bayes_yikes 19:45, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Contents by major section

Introductory material:	Introduction – The Facts
Cosmology:	Cosmology Summary
Molecular Biology:	Irreducible Complexity – Darwin in his own words – Molecular Biology Summary
Paleontology:	Paleontology Summary
Summary of the Science
So Where Does the Science Lead?:	Racism & Darwinism – Why Does It Matter? – What does it matter?
Conclusions:	Putting It All Together – FAQs: Evolution & Intelligent Design – RationalWiki's final commentary

Yes, like that, only include all the subsections, kinda like I did here:

Table of Contents

Introduction Darwinian Evolution Intelligent Design Examine the Evidence

Cosmology Origin of the Universe Galaxy Motion Elegance of Physical Laws The Physical Universe Summary

Molecular Biology The Living Cell Genetics Mutation Irreducible Complexity Quoting Darwin Summary

Paleontology The Fossil Record Transitional Gaps The Cambrian Explosion Summary Science Summary

Where Does Science Lead? Ignoring the facts Scientists Sign Lists! Racism & Darwinism Why Does It Matter? Relativism Dehumanization Abortion Blaming Darwinism

Conclusions What does it matter? Putting It All Together FAQs: Evolution & Intelligent Design RationalWiki's final commentary

human 20:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

ok, I'll get on it.--Bayes_yikes 20:06, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, cool, thanks... and note that "Why does it matter" gets to be its own row. And "Conclusions" should probably be "Wrapping it all up" or something. human 20:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Version 2.1, submitted for approval.--Bayes_yikes 20:29, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Table of Contents

Introduction:	Darwinian Evolution - Intelligent Design - Examine the Evidence
Cosmology:	Origin of the Universe - Galaxy Motion - Elegance of Physical Laws - The Physical Universe - Summary
Molecular Biology:	The Living Cell - Genetics - Mutation - Irreducible Complexity - Quoting Darwin - Summary
Paleontology:	The Fossil Record - Transitional Gaps - The Cambrian Explosion - Summary

Science Summary

So Where Does the Science Lead?:	Ignoring the facts - Scientists Sign Lists! - Racism & Darwinism
Why Does It Matter?:	Relativism - Dehumanization - Abortion - Blaming Darwinism
Wrapping it all up:	What does it matter? - Putting It All Together - FAQs: Evolution & Intelligent Design - RationalWiki's final commentary

A slightly different version, with the left column of the table right-justified, is now on the article. Personally, I prefer that one.--Bayes_yikes 20:58, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it looks good. I had to mess with it a bit, of course, but I didn't really change much, except to move that "Science Summary" header to the left side. Got rid of a lot of tags that weren't really doing anything, though. I wish there were a way to reduce the white space between rows! It could be half as tall if we could do that. Oh, and thanks for doing the grunt work on this! human 23:46, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Facebook group

I just posted this on the Expelled facebook group. Ought we e-mail people, like PZ Myers and more, to see if they would like to link to it? Is the time ripe for that yet? Perhaps as a Kalends of March surprise?-αmεσ (ninja) 18:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I don't think it's ready for prime time yet. I'd love to see it get properly bulletproof before it gets widely circulated. DogP 18:34, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Good good. I imagine that posting it to the Facebook group will bring only support, but yeah, before anything further...-αmεσ (ninja) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Bit late for the Kalends of March anyway, isn't it? ;-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:37, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't Kalends the end? Shit. I suck at this. Law is making me actively forget history, and I don't like it one bit.-αmεσ (ninja) 18:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Nah, it's the first day. But I know! I haven't been doing "real" history since Christmas, and I've started forgetting things already. Maybe it's old age. :-( --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:02, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, we should hold back on promoting this until we at least have an answer for every paragraph - we still need an "Answer to James Shapiro", and F2 through F5 towards the end. DogP 20:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Once we get this filled in, we should send a link to the NCSE. Maybe they'd be interested in pimping us here.--Bayes_yikes 21:02, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely! We might genuinely be creating something useful here, and there's no harm whatsoever in promoting it out into the community at large. But again, let's wait until we're bulletproof. DogP 21:07, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

BTW, on that front - the more lulzy we make this, the less likely it is to be taken up by more MSM and authoritative sources, like the NCSE. Just a thought. DogP 21:50, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Unforch, I concur. If you want me to lawyer it up (i.e., suck the fun out of it), let me know.-αmεσ (ninja) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I say, let's us be us. The rest of the site colors our articles anyway. This isn't a PhD thesis, it's a bunch of appalled geeks and assorted funzies ripping apart a farcical piece of propaganda. Let Dawkins or someone write the boring version :) human 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Human.--Bob^{bing up} 14:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

How about getting it to the NCSE now? It's almost ready I reckon? DogP 15:57, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

ad words

We've done it before - should we do it again? Ad words cost for 'expelled' is $0.40 cost per click, while 'expelled movie' is $0.05 cost per click. --Shagie 19:42, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, absolutely, I'd be down for that. How about a separate Pi Pledge for the ad campaign? DogP 19:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sponsoring it at the moment. Let me know when it gets shown in your neighbourhood. Poison Ivy 11:05, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Superb, Poison Ivy. I just got a showing right now. Excellent! One thing -you've got a typo on one of your ads - "RationawlWiki". DogP 11:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you Mr. Persistence. I have updated it. Poison Ivy 11:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Sweet! Nice work, M. Ivy! human 13:35, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Joining in the fray, I'm also running a campaign. Should help share the costs. Incidentally, others are piggybacking AdWords campaigns on the movie too - ads for this and this came up while I was checking. DogP 13:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry be be unbelievably not hip here - but could somebody explain this "ad words" thing?--Bob^{bing up} 14:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Google "Expelled the movie", or "expelled movie" or "expelled ben stein" - you should see a small ad-box on the right of the search results linking to this article. That is a paid ad. DogP 14:45, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

It would seem to me that the only reason to do that would be if, in fact, we also had ads, so that we could make some support money. OTW, it's just vanity (not that there's anything wrong with that).-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 14:50, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

In fairness, I don't think it's just vanity - there's plenty of money, good design chops (the Leader's Guide is full of crap, but is a nicely designed document, which goes a LONG way toward gaining credibility in today's world), and fancy websites behind this movie, and the movie looks very professionally shot and made. And you can bet your ass that Ben Stein is going to be all over the media when (if?) it comes out, and I think it's very much on mission to try to make alternative opinion available to those who seek opinion or information about it. If not, we might as well accept that almost no-one who matters (read: those who trying to learn about ID) will read this article. DogP 15:52, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of when/if it "comes out", what do you think the odds are that its distribution will be unconventional and tightly controlled? IOW, preach to the faithful rather than allow a wide release where opponents will hang around outside handing out sanity packets? human 16:18, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Promotion

Let me know when you think this is ready for prime time.-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 14:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, what do you think? Your valued opinion is hereby sought. Personally, I still think we need more references when we make claims of 'facts'. It doesn't look good when we accuse them of assertions when we do the same back. DogP 14:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, we could drop a shitload of "citation needed" templates in their at let people have at it.-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 14:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Sure! Let's have at it! DogP 14:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I'd say we are running a decent B - B+ or so on that. For instance, most of our addressing of quote mining includes at least titles, if not actual links. But, I agree, once this is "almost" ready, we need to fact-check it and make sure our references are well done. I disagree with adding a zillion fact tags, let's just go through it and get it right. human 14:57, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

'K-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 15:04, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Sure. Are we going to be happy with Wikipedia refs for many things? Do we consider that bulletproof? I only say that as I can just see Andy & Co. having a field day on that issue. DogP 15:10, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy can kiss my ass. Any ref that looks good should do it, whether it's from a well-referenced Panda's Thumb article, WP, etc.-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 15:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

As long as the WP article is reasonably stable, I see reffing it as no problem, especially if it's to describe a topic we haven't written about yet. Oh yeah, and as long as it supports what we are saying in a clear fashion! Of course, "books", "journals" and such "scientific" stuff are teh awesomer refs. human 15:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Prepare for traffic. Since it's almost ready, I'm gonna start sending some this way and see what happens.-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 15:45, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Bring 'em on! DogP 15:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I would say it's pretty solid by now. No empty sections, lots of refs, good quotes, etc. Sure, we might make it better, but it's past 90% now I think. Who thinks like I do, that we should make a hard link on the main page (either at the top of "according to" or just above the actual "featured article") to it for a bit, before relaxing back to "cover story"? human 14:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Lynn Margulis quote

...in the mutations section is from "UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory," Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (Feb 3, 2006). That newspaper's archives are here but you gotta shell out 3 bucks to get one article. Think it's worth that much to chase down the context?--Bayes_yikes 15:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I was getting somewhere on this but I've been called away. This might be of use.--Bob^{bing up} 15:46, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

As long as it's your money, I think it's worth it. However, perhaps Doc has access due to his various memberships? If not, I have a friend in academia who might be able to get to it via a library. Ping Doc, let me know on my talk page if you need me to pursue it. human 15:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Wait a minute, I already researched that and provided context and a link - oh, yeah, to her UmAss bio. By the way, from what I saw, it's a classic mined quote, since it appears all over fundie websites. human 15:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

ok, I used some magical connections and found it. Full quote text coming soon...--Bayes_yikes 15:57, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

haha, You're right Human, it's pretty blatant. She trashes ID itself in the very next sentence. Unbelievable. I can get more of the surrounding context if needed.--Bayes_yikes 16:05, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Symbiogenesis, an idea that originated with Russian biologist Konstantin Mereschkowsky in the 1920s, argues that Darwinian tenets of evolution do not account for the full realm of evolutionary possibility. In fact, Margulis says that symbiogenesis is a primary force in evolution. Symbiogenesis, basically, is evolution that is not inherited variation and not natural selection. It's an example of inter-species genetic exchange . An example Margulis uses is that of a slug which is photosynthetic, drawing energy from the sun's light. This is the result of the slug's eating algae under starvation conditions. It is a frequent misconception that this is "cooperation," as opposed to Darwinian "competition." "Competition and cooperation are words for basketball games, and maybe capitalism, not science," said Margulis. Neo-Darwinism includes a theory of random mutation of genes. "Random mutation indisputably exists," said Margulis in an interview Thursday. "But I claim that new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired." "Intelligent design says that random mutation could not account for the sophisticated life around us. It had to have a designer," said Margulis. "Well, between 1850 and 1950, in what we now think of as southern California, skyscrapers and highways and a movie industry rose out of nothing and it all fits together -- well, sort of. And they'd say, 'Oh my God -- it had to be designed, it just came out of nowhere.' But that doesn't take any history into account, like the geographic background of southern California or the origin of electricity." "I wouldn't suppress [intelligent design proponents'] argument. But you have to be aware of the agenda," she said.

Remaining Questionable points

Here's some areas I still have problems with:

• We still need a response to Shapiro
• Margulis is confusingly discussed
• Squirrelz - should be batz
• Can't find a working ref for "A Scientific Support for Darwinism" and its seven thousand signatories
• Project Steve - is it a distraction?
• We need a much stronger response to Racism - e.g. Sanger, etc.
• We need a stronger wrap up.
• Need a ref for the Einstein "World As I See It" quote - I couldn't easily find one.

DogP 15:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

• Margulis could use a direct quote, yes, but she is covered with a cited reference at least.
• Bats? But.. but... flying squirlz!
• 7,000, yeah, where is that? (It's in now --Bob^{bing up} 16:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT))
• Steve - absolutely not, it's right on target.
• wrap up - what do you suggest?
• Einstein - google the quote mine, it's all over. I hand typed the longer quote from a google books result, a book written about him, containing the quote. By the way, reffing a print resource is perfectly good, but what we need is an edition and page numbers. - local library?

Shapiro

human 15:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

HAHA I googled the entire shapiro quote and got one hit: http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design !!! human 15:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I clicked on "more of the same" and got a total of 17 hits, all quote miners (& handful of CPartiklz) - this one: Michael Behe on The Edge of Evolution, even, at http://calitreview.com/topics/science/260/ !!!!!! human 15:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

"In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996)" - from http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.kurzweil_reply.htm so now we know where to look. human 16:04, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/index3.html?content=genome.html human 16:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

It's funny then that this site contains this quote "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." , attributed to one Franklin Harold, "in an Oxford University Press monograph." Did Franklin plagiarize Shaprio or is this dross in the quote-mine tailings? CЯacke® 16:14, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. BTW, the Shapiro quote comes from a review of Behe's Black Box book. 1.95 for a copy at NatRev. Surely I can find that in a library, though? human 16:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

My local friendly college librarian just emailed me the article ;) We're so good! human 16:39, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

(PS, if anyone else wants a copy, it's a 3MB pdf attachment, email me and I'll send it along) human 17:07, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Just for fun, here's how it starts:

"VANNEVAR Bush had it right. Science is an "endless frontier." The sun replaces the earth at the center ofthe solar system. Microbiology supplants spontaneous generation. The concept of evolution makes it possible to invoke natural processes as the source of biological diversity. The indivisible atom yields to quantum physics, and relativity stretches Newtonian ideas of space and time out of all recognition. Into this recurring intellectual revolution arrives Professor Michael J. Behe with the claim that random genetic change, natural selection, and gradual evolution must move aside in favor of intelligent design as an explanatory paradigm for biological adaptations. Is this book a serious critique of orthodox Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge io Evolution, hy Michael J. Behe (Free Press, 292 pp., $20) evolutionary theory? Or is it a mLsguided attempt to bring religion back into biology? Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is yes."

I am tempted to just call Dr. Shapiro and see if things have changed much in the last dozen years relative to his quote-mined statement. human 17:10, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Shapiro's quote is also here. I think a better quote is:

"Darwin's Black Box has the merit of showing us that evolution remains a mystery. Its fundamental driving forces have not been resolved either in detail or in principle. Where Darwin's Black Box undermines itself is in abandoning the effort to treat the question of intelligent design within science's own ongoing evolution. Professor Behe unfortunately expresses a static view of science. The accomplishments of molecular biology are presented as ultimate triumphs (". . . the bedrock of nature. Lower we cannot go . . .") rather than as one stage in a continuous process of questioning, discovery, and reconceptualization. Science repeatedly cycles back to basic issues."

That is, just because something hasn't been addressed, doesn't mean it can't be explained. Sterile^xx 18:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

It doesn't seem to be that easy to get stuff on Shapiro. His own website is dead for example. WP says that it his ideas present "a 'third way' between darwinism and creationism, however, is not agreed upon within academia." | This QaA session may shed some light.--Bob^{bing up} 05:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Having done some more research into Professor Shapiro (I wonder if his professorship is recognized at CP?) I find that he works at the University of Chicago. One of his most interesting articles is A Third Way which does indeed look for a synthesis of New-Darwinism and Creationism. A concept which looks rather ID-friendly to me. It is rather ironic that "Expelled" - which apparently wishes to demonstrate that believers in ID are systematically excluded from universities - should use a quote from an ID -friendly professor to somehow further its cause. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 05:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Here'd by my Shapiro refutation:

Just as not every transitional fossil has not been found, not every aspect of biology has been discovered. However, that does not mean that it will ever be discovered. Intelligent design is a default response, that suggests "we don't understand, therefore it must be design." It is the equivalent of chemists not investigating the nature of matter (and hence no atomic theory) or doctors and biologists not investigating disease (hence no knowledge of germs). Furthermore, Intelligent design does not describe a mechanism by which the designer generates the variety of life nor any legitamite evidence for design other than "it looks like it".

Sterile^xx 08:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

In addition, a more detailed response related to Behe is at Panda's Thumb. Sterile^xx 08:46, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Or how about this quote:

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'"[2]

Basically Behe and the design folks not only aren't looking for evidence, they're ignoring evidence. Sterile^xx 08:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I like what Sterile came up with, and put in the article. Basically what some of this comes down to is that int he last dozen years, real scientists have addressed a lot of the ID claims - like every time Behe comes up with a new "irreducibly complex" structure, within a year or two it has been shown to be reducible - with examples found. So the Dover case refutation is perfect. human 12:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

"nah, duplication"

One comment re that edit comment - the left side is full of duplication, especially in terms of what they get wrong (and bluntly, lie about). Yes, it means we will get repetitive, but that's because they are wrong the same way over and over and over again. Just a general comment, not a critique of what exactly was removed. human 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Good point, human. A little repetion might help the truth sink in. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 09:28, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

ID and Creationism separate concepts?

I don't think this is correct, and if not, it weakens the anti-ID argument. I'd suggest ID and creationism are identical in their underlying assumptions, but that IDers are careful not to state what they really believe, being content to argue against the theory of evolution and couch their language in scientific terms. IDers actually believe all life was created in 6 days, was reduced during the flood and repopulated afterwards. But they avoid saying so as part of the wedge strategy. So IDers suggest that life was "orchestrated" and is not "happenstance" as code words for a 6-day creation scenario. They walk a tightrope of avoiding a statement of their beliefs in an attempt to make the concept seem more "scientific". Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 09:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Do we err in letting them get away with this, or do we make the mistake ourselves somewhere? human 12:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

We make that argument in the third section of the introduction: "However, creationism and ID are two separate concepts. Creationism considers that all life, mass, and the universe were built by a divine creator, whereas ID usually asserts that the progression of life on Earth was orchestrated and not random happenstance." I'd suggest just deleting this paragraph. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 12:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Far be it from me to support IDers but I think that most - perhaps the majority - would go for some from of Old Earth Creationism and not for a six day creation.--Bob^{bing up} 13:11, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

yup! don't think there is any conflation (?) between Young Earthers & IDers SusanG 13:16, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I see your point. Old Earth IDers see God's hand in guiding events over the eons. Do they believe any new species have appeared since the beginning (created by God, of course)? Rational Ed^faith 13:25, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Doh, that's correct. They are OEC, agree with common descent, but they think that every new species (basically) was an "intelligent" intervention to create the "new information". human 13:27, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

As I understand it they either imagine evolution being nudged along by god in which case common descent isn't a problem; or they imagine god periodically making more significant changes in which case common descent is out. My impression is that common descent is the split between the two camps.--Bob^{bing up} 13:33, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I think they are the same, however, in the belief that design (or God's hand in things, depending on the language) is empirically detectable. The specific methods of the designer might be a point of contention for them, but in broad terms they sort of agree. That's why the guide is intentionally ambiguous as to what form of creationism it espouses--do draw in as many people as possible.--Bayes_yikes 14:10, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

It is interesting, though, that if they accept evolution but see God's Hand guiding it, they nevertheless accept evolution to some degree. The only issue remains, to what degree does God intervene? Maybe while he was busy with creation in another galaxy, speciation occurred on Earth without her intervention... Rational Ed^faith 14:17, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

And then when She came back, She thought "Wow, I never thought of that! I think I'll tinker with that "evolution" thing myself and see if I can't build some interesting company for myself eventually!" human 14:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure, it gets boring being in charge and controlling events all the time. God decided to watch a few random events for lulz. Rational Ed^faith 14:28, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

DNA digital code?

Under "Is ID science?", IDers make the claim that DNA is "digital code". Wouldn't have to be analog code, since the RNA lines up along the DNA and makes an analog copy? Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 10:41, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, it is a digital code in a sense - it's a base four series of "ons"" and "offs". A-C-G-T = 0,1,2,3. But I remember feeling there was something fishy about the way they invoked that word. human 12:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

You're right, it is a digital code, but it's not binary - it's base 4. The information in DNA is conveyed by means of triplets of base pairs for each of the 20 amino acids DNA give instructions to make (not an "on" "off" message per se). Anyway, more information than needed for the article, it is correct as it stands. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 12:39, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I didn't say it was binary (and I don't know if they are trying to "imply" it to compare to computer programming), but anyway, if it's always 3 pairs, then it's base 12 - 3 x 4 possibilities for each codon, right? As you say, TMI for the article, though ;) human 13:24, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I guess I assumed "on" "off" implied a binary code. Anyway, for what it's worth, I got my information here. Rational Ed^faith 13:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Oldid Wikipedia links?

Hey RA, why would you prefer fixed links to Wikipedia articles? Surely the whole point of Wiki's is that the latest version is 'the' version? Don't your fixed links just freeze the ref in time? Just a question? DogP 16:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

It's actually a good idea to use permalinks to a wiki. An article says what you see when you go there, so you link to it. It might change over time and lose what was linked to (at worst), or at any given view might be vandalized or in the middle of a difficult edit warring period. The permalink avoids those issues. human 16:15, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, yes, I see that, but doesn't it also mean there's a risk some new editor's excellent contributions are completely missed? Or that some expert (Andy, for example?) comes along and blows loads of holes in the arguments presented? I know this is a real problem with wikilinks, which was why I thought we maybe shouldn't link to Wikipedia, but if you use fixed links, you've essentially become a 'Page-Locker' on that very article. DogP 16:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, hopefully people are savvy enough (or will be someday, reporting on "how to use WP" is very scarce) to click on "current version" if they are curious. And, obviously links to sources that are more fixed than WP would be better, but we're mostly using them for overview type refs, like "who is Fred Hoyle", aren't we? Alternatively, we could double them up, like this: ref/Fred Hoyle at Wikipedia: (link:accessed 3/31/08) (link:current version)/ref ? human 16:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

As I said on my talk page, it's standard practice to use static links. I know "standard format" won't satisfy you, so the "good" reason is that when someone reads the Wikipedia article, there is always a chance that they will find it at a moment when it's vandalized or when someone is in the middle of a rewrite, and it looks really ugly. Addtionally, there is always a possibility that the "intereresting" Wikipedia article will be butchered so it's not interesting anymore, or that the specific fact you're citing is removed. All these possibilities are par for the course on Wikipedia, hence the static links. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:27, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely, I get that. But do you also get my point? By creating a difflink, you have become the final arbiter of that 'bunch-a-knowledge', and who's to say there isn't some horrendous glaring error in that link, that was later corrected? Whatever, it's OK, I don't mind, I just wanted an explanation, and I guess I've come down the opinion that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's definitely a problem with wiki sources, fer sure. Thanks for the discussion guys. DogP 17:56, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

It's a good point DP. We certainly do the same with WIGO. We highlight something at a particular point in time. Now sometimes some sneaky, lurking CP sysop (yes DanH, I'm referring to you amongst others) comes along and changes those particular articles even though they may have been originated by a parodist, in which case they are not representative of the truth. But other times they are posted by the resident wackos so it is probably 50/50 whether the fossilized link is an accurate portrayal of the situation. I certainly feel that some WIGOists make the mistake of portraying the parody as being an accurate representation of CP. It's much better to leave the parody and just focus on the real batshit insanity. Genghis ^Marauding 18:27, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Cosmology

From the RW (right side): Cosmology has indeed shown that the universe had a beginning and that it is filled with exquisite order.

Being human beings we're going to look for patterns and see "order" where, in fact what we are seeing is the chaotic immensity of the universe on such a scale that our puny minds have no recourse but to fashion an "order" out of it. "Locally", yes, there is a certain "orderliness" about it. To concede to "exquisite order" can bring trouble down the road...2nd Law of thermodynamics sort of stuff, "Who, pray, made the universe to have ORDER?" Just a thought. CЯacke® 01:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Good point, I suppose. But, even given that we are "pattern recognition machines", the order we see isn't exactly Mary on a grilled cheese. The endless repetition of objects and patterns of objects is really there. Not because a god keeps corralling them into pretty shapes, but because the fundamental laws apply universally.

However... we could also argue against both points. Cosomology "suspects" the universe had a "beginning", but certainly does not claim to know that. Even if the Big Bang erupted from a non-existence as a singularity of some sort, what came "before" is simply unknown. And, as you say, the argument about "exquisite order" can be run both ways. Sure, we see a lot of repetition of forms, but we also only see a tiny percentage of what is out there. The part we evolved to see... human 13:23, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually in Cosmology: Summary we have "[O]rder is a human interpretation of the universe, which has matter and energy irregularly distributed throughout it." Perhaps change the earlier ref...? Sterile^xx 13:33, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, my point was (mainly) if there is "order" there might be an "orderer" if order was taken to mean an external event(age) rather than an internal, human, thing. CЯacke® 15:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

How about: "Cosmology has indeed shown that the universe has existed for an apparently finite time, and that it is filled with objects and events which humans interpret as having order."? human 15:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Type >>expelled leader's guide<< into google....

... and see what you get. Also, >>expelled: No Intelligence allowed leader's guide<< gives the same. Mind you, I'm not sure why someone'd be typing that in, but .... Sterile^xx 11:31, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

The better known the ELG is, the more likely, right? How did you find it in the first place? Sadly, we don't really turn up at all when googling "E: NIA". I wonder how well that ranking will hold up? (That was part of why I wanted it linked to heavily on-site, btw, although I suspect blog-seeding might have mattered more) human 13:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I was looking at their downloads, just out of curiosity. Their marketing is rather broad... Sterile^xx 13:32, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

plz clarify

"This is relatively correct."--from this spot. That sounds like we're hedging. Is it correct or isn't it?--Bayes_yikes 14:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I think it means "This statement is basically true". We need to change it though. I go rewrite now, see if it gets better or worse. human 14:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

That's better. They do say, though, that evolution is two separate ideas--I read it as them wanting to distinguish common descent from mutation/natural selection. We do call them out later on for doing that, but it might be useful to mention it here also.--Bayes_yikes 15:06, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Glad it helped a bit. The way it got split up, aren't they mostly differentiating between common and scientific usage in that line? Do we call them out over the next few paragraphs, or much later in another section? human 15:15, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

It comes up here in some detail. I was sort of maniacally obsessing over the "evolution centers on two ideas" bit, but now that I look at it again, I think it's cool as it is now. Chalk it up to too much coffee this morning.--Bayes_yikes 15:42, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Big Ogre sez...

There are two issues to address here:

1) While there have been questions raised in the scientific community with regard to whether the universe as we know it could have been different, i.e. whether other universes (laws of nature / physical constants) were possible we are not in a position to declare this possibility a scientific fact. We do not know whether the laws of the universe (and its constants) could have been different or have to be the way they are. If the universal constants could vary, we do not know within what range (limited or unlimited) they could. As such, any assesment of probability on this issue is meaningless.

2) Even allowing for the idea that the universe with it known laws is improbable or rare, this would still not be an argument for ID. ^{— Unsigned, by: PFoster / talk / contribs}

I have no back up for this, but unless there were a consistent set of laws of how matter behaved and interacted, then there would be no order in the universe and we would not exist. The universe would then be the ultimate improbability drive (see H2G2). Genghis ^Marauding 18:45, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I think the question here is more, "if the laws were different", not inconsistent. I'm sure one could "invent" a new set of physical constants, or even basic laws, and once in a while come up some that could form a functional universe "of some sort". And the big question is, having thought of it, would it spring into existence "somewhere"? Anyway, I've never had much patience for the whole "the universe is exactly right for us to exist" line of discussion - of course it is! Since we evolved in this universe. (Not one where the speed of light varied wildly in order to cover Ussher's timetable and radioactive decay is also inconstant in order to fool us about old rocks... hmmm... I sense an interesting idea worth developing there) human 19:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Cover Story?

Well? DogP 20:52, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Discussing at #cover story, see above. human 20:55, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Linkage Check

This checks Google for pages that link to the article - sadly, it turns up nuthin' at present? DogP 17:33, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

TOC on Main Page

Re. the TOC appearing on the cover story spot, what do we think we should do? The TOC by itself isn't great, the first two lines are good, but even if we bypassed the TOC, the side-by-side nature of the article wouldn't work there. Should it just be the opening two lines? Or is there a way we can write separate summary paragraph which can be bolted onto the cover story item instead of the TOC? DogP 20:18, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

See User talk:Human SusanG 20:21, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Bye for a second or two - logging off & on again. SusanG 20:22, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

back on but onie - firefox dun died SusanG 20:28, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

It doesn't matter. Leave cover story alone; see what I did on the main page. human 20:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Yup! I cleaned up after me. :) SusanG 20:44, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Movie clips online

Thanks again to Sterile for finding these clips. Time to go to work again folks! DogP 12:01, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Google

number 3, 4, 5, 6

SusanG 18:57, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Are we to standby to await major news of an exciting new breakthrough for this article? DogP 19:06, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Cheerio! Howdydoody guv'nor! And other stereotypical catchphrases! Stand by for a very important announcement!-αmεσ (ninja) 19:15, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

It's a pity that the Google hits don't actually come up with the article itself. :( Genghis ^Marauding 19:25, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Some pictures in the article would be nice. CЯacke® 19:50, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Dunno what we're doing, but every time I put Expelled Leaders Guide into Google, using varying punctuations I get a different set of responses. the best so far is the Fork page @ number 2 (that's why I've de-goated the Fork page)with the main page @ number 3. SusanG 19:55, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if the reason the article itself doesn't appear in that search is because the phrase "Expelled: Leader's Guide" doesn't appear in the text for a while. The main page does have that text, and it's on there.--Bayes_yikes 20:10, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Will you folks please allow thumbs on talk pages to go to the right? Putting them "left" flattens all the indenting :( Anyway... comments.

• Degoating without discussion? Are we to give up all our fun just because someone might drop by? What will we feed them?
• Pictures in ELG - while graphics are nice (Susan's been adding a quite a few lately), they might be hard on the format. And, since we are gonna be famous (ha!), please, at least don't break the thing for long.
• Title. It might be an issue that there's no space after the colon? Should we fix that?
• Very few people are gonna search for ELG anyway - they'll search for "Expelled", "movie expelled", the actual title, or "expelled intelligent design". Right? No one has ever heard of the LG (that's why our article ranks so high). human 21:20, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Copied from Talk:E:LG/quotes

Old page was vaped cuz all the quotes are in the article.--Bayes_yikes 20:05, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

I made this to go after the quote boxes and possibly other stuff that isn't in the main article.--Bayes_yikes 22:42, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Anthony Flew

The is some debate about the state of MR Flew's mental health when he made his conversion. See here. But I rather feel that putting it in the article would be sort of cheap. Any thoughts?--Bob^{bing up} 15:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I'd feel better if it wasn't included, at least not directly. Even the appearance of a cheap shot (even if it really wasn't one) might hurt the article's credibility. A simple link to that NY Times article could be okay though, maybe along with "see here for more a more complete description about Flew's attitude change".--Bayes_yikes 18:15, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that was exactly the conclusion I came to last night. Link to the NY Times article for those who are interested.--Bob^{bing up} 03:43, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Can we delete this now?

They're all in the main article... Sterile^xx 11:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, please, if it hasn't been by now. (or redirect it back to E:LG?) human 21:24, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Archive?

Should we archive the various debates here on the Talk Page that we had while we built this, to prepare a clean sheet for the new debates that are probably going to arise soon as new visitors arrive? We're starting to pick a few new hits, and we're getting Digg'ed too. DogP 19:35, 9 April 2008 (EDT)