Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

What does it do?

By reading the first paragraph of this article, It shows me that this article is as far away from the NPOV as it can get...Infraredeclipse 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you mean by "as far away from the NPOV as it can get" that it lacks verifiable references and citations, that it gives undue weight to minority POV, that it does not allow the facts to speak for themselves, and that it is a POV fork from an NPOV article. But, the article has numerous verifiable references, it does not give undue weight to a minority POV, it lets the facts speak for themselves, and it is not a POV fork. So it must be that your concern is focused on the fact numerous court cases and very intelligent individuals have uncovered the Discovery Institute's duplicitous and unconstitutional attempts to trick Boards of Education into trying to force our children from learning some Christian Creationist propaganda. Of course, also causing these foolish boards to pay untold millions of dollars in defending losing cases in Federal court, instead of spending that money on something useful like education. So, I guess all of those facts, followed with verified references, must violate DI's NPOV, because it doesn't violate Wiki's. Orangemarlin 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't accuse them of "manufacturing the controversy they want to teach" or promoting a "false perception" without attribution to a specific source. These are statements of opinion - even if they have a citation, they still need to be attributed to a speaker (not written as fact). And we certainly can't do that in the very first sentence, at all. Please wait until at least the second paragraph of the article to write about the scientific consensus and critical response to the Discovery Institute. I reworked the lead paragraph. Rhobite 05:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Odd nature that the Dover ruling supports the "manufacturing the controversy they want to teach" and "false perception" statements in the lead paragraph.Pasado 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhobite, don't make massive POV changes in an article like this without discussing it. All, and I mean ALL, of the references show that this is an attempt to force Creationism in schools. Can you prove otherwise? Orangemarlin 07:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Court rulings do not magically create facts. They are primary sources, and statements from court opinions still need to be attributed. I take issue with the first two sentences of this article, both of which state opinions as if they are facts. This article presents the scientific consensus extremely well, but it is a blemish on an otherwise well-written article to have these biased statements in its lead paragraph. It is a statement of opinion to say that Discovery Institute "manufactur[ed] the controversy they want to teach". It is a statement of opinion to say that "they promote the false perception that evolution is a theory in crisis". I share these opinions, but I recognize that they are opinions.

I also take issue with your characterization of my changes as "massive". Rewording two sentences in a large article cannot be considered "massive" changes. I also consolidated some redundant references, a change which you've inexplicably reverted. Please consider discussing this matter instead of reverting again. Rhobite 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the LEAD was well written, accurate and well-sourced. And in this instance, court rulings and findings of fact are VERY relevant. --Filll 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposed restructuring by Str1977 gives undue credibility to clearly fraudulent claims, so I've returned it to the previous version which made clear in the opening paragraph that the ploy by the ID has been described as false by a Fed. court as well as by the scientific community. The opinions are properly attributed, and need to be made clear at the outset. .. dave souza, talk 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The intro must be seen as a unit and it clearly contains the verdict of the court (which under wiki-rules is just a POV and not a fact - I don't dispute the view but so are our rules here). There is no rule that requires such a statement in the opening paragraph, especially if this leads to a reprise of the same stuff later on in the same section. If you can make it more concise, go ahead. The topic by the way is not a "ploy" but the phrase coined by the DI. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll grudgingly accept FeloniousMonk's restructuring of the lead paragraph, although I strongly believe that the job of a lead paragraph is to present the basic concept and criticism should be discussed, at the earliest, in the second paragraph of an article. It is disappointing to see that this article is controlled by single-issue editors with a specific POV. Rhobite 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked for reasons, so let me try to explain, assuming that you are making a legitimate request. The lead needs to be balanced and present verified and notable sources. For example, the article about Nazis does not start out utilizing Nazi propaganda in the lead. Microsoft can't write the lead and say that it produces the best and safest software. And in the case of this article, there is substantial evidence of what the real purpose is of DI, Intelligent Design and Teach the Controversy. It is balance by letting you or any other editor write what Teach the Controversy is, but other editors get to balance the lead with what it "really" is, using citations at every step of the way. And that's why calling us "single-issue" editors with a POV agenda is wrong. In fact, if someone wrote the lead as "this is an underhanded and disingenuous method of putting religion in the school" and that was it, I'd yell out POV too. It's balance and giving equal weight. Orangemarlin 23:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article about Nazism also doesn't claim that the Nazis created the false perception that there is a master race. I'll stop there since we seem to be at a compromise on the language. Rhobite 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It could contain such statements and they would be supportable and factual. If the Nazis then claimed that such remarks were disappointing POV statements, what then?Pasado 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "false perception" would be endorsing a POV - one that I agree with but still. WP adheres to NPOV.

Pasado, could you please point out what passages you mean by "The intro needs to be factual, not ID position statements" - the version you reverted is just as factual and neutral as the one you reverted to. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you as well, the changes you made favor the pov of the TTC/ID crowd by placing their partisan rhetoric before noting easily verifiable facts and more neutral accounts. I suggest you take the time to read all the relevant sources and stop favoring those that are demonstrably partisan, like the Discovery Institute's. FeloniousMonk 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Chesterfield County Public Schools

As reported at Creation and evolution in public education#Recent developments in state education programs, they now seem to have a "teach the controversy" policy, though they've shied away from textbooks mentioning ID..... dave souza, talk 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Ctrl+F this quote and you'll see it five times in the article. A little much, no? Can someone who works on it look at pruning it down a bit? Repeating a quote more than once should only be done if necessary, but by the fifth time I was really getting sick of seeing that one. Richard001 10:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this article is very redundant in it's quotations of the wedge document. My eyes started skipping around because I thought I was rereading the same paragraph.Vesperal 23:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New source

Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights:

• Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to "creation science," which became "intelligent design"

• Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator." The words are "strengths and weaknesses."

• Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.

Odd nature (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

What relevance to this does that have? 24.21.142.206 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The FSM was invented as a satirical response to the 'Teach the Controversy' position of the Kansas SBoE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy isn't on the Flying Spaghetti Monster page. The claimed "response" seems to be 3 years late.. Well, if it stays I want my column about the 2007 Boston bomb scare placed back on the Boston page. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in relation to the Kansas hearings mention. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which side is right?

The DI and other sources disagree about how much scientific controversy there is over evolution: indeed whether there is any such controversy at all.

• Discovery Institute view:

  there are some "current peer-reviewed scientific controversies over evolution"

• AAAS view:

  there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution.

  The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one

• NAS view:

  Such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution

Which viewpoint should this article take? And why?

1. The article should support the viewpoint that the scientific mainstream fully supports evolution, while dismissing DI's claim of the existence of "scientific controversy"
2. The article should point out that 99.9% of biologists support evolution, while acknowledging that a tiny minority of biologists have raised questions about the theory's validity

I am not sure what the latest incarnation of NPOV is, or how it's being interpreted these days. But I read somewhere recently that "truth" is not a criterion in this matter: only verifiability. So is it okay for me to mention the reasoning behind the DI claim that scientific controversy exists? Or must I as a contributor go along with the consensus here that there is no controversy: DI is only saying there is? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE. All the mainstream sources I've seen consider that the "controversy" over the existence of evolution and the validity of modern evolutionary theory in general has long been resolved, while the DI view is a fringe view shared with creationists – it's a theological controversy, not a scientific one. There are real controversies, such as debate about the relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in accounting for what is found in evolution. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the mainstream is right, and that there is no scientific controversy here? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that the DI's view is a fringe view in science, effectively nonexistent as they've failed to publish any scientific support for their view. . . dave souza, talk 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There most definitely are still scientific controversies over evolution. There are still scientists who hold on to group selection. There is still a great deal of controversy over evolutionary psychology. If the language used is just that there are scientific controversies over evolution, then that cannot be denied. If the language used is that there are scientific controversies over whether evolution occurs, then that's a fringe view indeed. DDSaeger (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" the DI wish to manufacture is over whether evolution occurs. They may tactically make use of peripheral controversies over how evolution occurs and its applicability to other subjects (e.g. psychology), in order to falsely give the impression that there is a scientific controversy over "whether". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

DI is attempting to "create" a controversy, so that they can push religious teaching in public schools. It's offensive and should be pointed out in an NPOV article. Welcome back Hrafn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Worries about source #53.

Having read the statement "...intelligent design groups have threatened and isolated high school science teachers, school board members and parents who opposed their efforts..." I was interested in the sources of this statement (quite a few given). Having read source 53: , I cannot find any part of the documents that applies to Ms. Smith to be in support of this statement. If any more experienced wikipedian can take a good look at it, it would be highly appreciated.

References

--Fransw (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is problematic to claim that individual proponents of ID have engaged in this behaviour (the documentary evidence cited is fairly strong on this), however to state it as "groups" would require evidence of collective and/or coordinated efforts -- which I think is lacking. Also, where a citation is to a longer document, a page number or quote identifying where in the document it supports the statement would be useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetition

I can see the quoted text "Christian and theistic convictions" five times in the article. Isn't this a bit much for one quote? Richard001 (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is excessive. As it's a quote from the Wedge Document, it makes sense to have it in the 'Wedge Strategy' section and maybe the lead and/or 'Overview'. Elsewhere is just excess. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed two of the three copies from the 'Origin of the campaign' section. Thinking about it, as this is a prominent quote, the way to emphasise it should be to turn it into a pull quote, not to keep repeating it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A further point -- is the 'Origin of the campaign' section needed at all? It actually says nothing whatsoever about the campaign, it merely recaps Wedge strategy & Intelligent design movement. As such, it could be replaced by a short paragraph & a Further-template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and replaced the 'Origin of the campaign' section (which was misplaced at the middle of the article anyway), with a sentence at the top of the 'Overview' section drawing readers attention to the two articles that the section originally summarised. We are now down to only two repetitions of the quote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a worthwhile improvement. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article as a whole

The more I look at the article, the less happy I am with it. The structure is poor -- overly long lead and overview, and fairly cryptic section titles. And the prose is turgid -- take the opening sentence for instance: "Teach the Controversy is the name of a Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign to promote intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while discrediting evolution in United States public high school science courses."

I think the article needs to be structured around answers to the following questions:

1. Prelude: why was there a campaign?
   • Because of resistance to openly teaching ID in schools.
2. What were the aims of the campaign?
   • To get the same type of 'equal treatment' (that SCOTUS-struck-down laws sought for creation science) for ID.
3. How was the campaign conducted?
   • Through the DI, friendly politicians, including friendly SBOE members.
4. What was the reaction to it?
   • Scientific community & then KvD eviscerating it.
5. Epilogue: where did ID go from there?
   • Critical Analysis of Evolution

What do people think? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

naturalism

This article refers sveral times to "naturalism", but does not seem to define it. There are several WP articles on naturalism, but none of them seem to be in the same sense as the use here, so linking to them wouldnt be a good way. It should either be defined prominently or a new article, say Naturalism(theology) be written. DGG 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody can give a definition, perhaps the section should be deleted. it would appear to be a relatively minor point in the overall strategy of teaching this subject--it relates more to the different creationist theories and should probably be discussed on a more appropriate page.DGG 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. Naturalism, per the OED has four distinct yet related definitions. As with any English word with multiple senses/definitions, it is up to the reader to determne the sense based on context -- id est, the reader must use standard reading comprehension skills as taught in school and as teated from grade-school through SAT/ACT testing. Of those, the following two definitions should meet your needs: 1. Ethics. Action arising from or based on natural instincts, without spiritual guidance; a system of morality or religion derived only from human reason and having no basis in revelation. 2. Philos. The idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Also: the idea that moral concepts can be analysed in terms of concepts applicable to natural phenomena. •Jim62sch• 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Jim, it is up to the writer to make sure the reader gets the correct decision. it is really futile for a person to say that they wrote it clearly, and the other person is misreading. Effective writing means writing so that the reader can not misread. For example, which of the actually four quite different definitions you quote do you think is the appropriate one for the uses of this word here? Assuming the reader has a lesser education than oneself is a very poor tactic, even if true. DGG 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be a poor tactic in general, but in this case it seems like it was an accurate appraisal of the situation. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Parodies

Should reference be made to the parodies (re: Four Elements, astrology, stork, flat earth)? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not unless we can find a WP:RS for them. Most such parodies exist on the blogosphere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

This may actually be the most biased article I've ever read on Wikipedia. It is biased literally from the opening line. Instead of simply presenting the facts about Teach the Controversy, this article seems to attempt to prove why they are wrong about each fact presented. Who cares if they are right or wrong? This is not supposed to be an article debating the facts of creation vs evolution. This article should only give information about this group, and let the reader decide what to think of them. I skimmed this article and was about to begin removing biased information, and realized, I wouldn't know where to start. Someone really needs to take a long look at this article. To say that it dosen't reflect neutrality would be a gross understatement.Mk5384 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Unfortunately the elitist, militant liberals here have hijacked this page along with every intelligent design-related article, slanting them exclusively towards a biased evolutionary perspective. Encyclopedias are meant to have a completely neutral stance (just like a dictionary), but that is most certainly not the case with articles dealing with ID. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. We have a neutral point of view, that doesn't mean equal attention to all viewpoints. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal validity to the positions of pedophilia activists, conspiracy theorists, or indeed pseudoscientists. Hans Adler 07:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

But neutrality does mean that entire articles should not be compeltely devoted to criticism (as is obviously the case with ID related articles). This article (along with every other article related to this topic) is mainly devoted to giving criticism of ID, rather than describing what it is that creationists believe. There is definitely a difference between the two. Unfortunately, anybody who doesn't believe in intelligent design won't bother to amend this! This is clearly a fundamental problem with WP. Every article I've read on WP regarding ID/creation talks about the criticism of the topic, and not what the topic is about. Does the abortion article talk mainly about criticism of abortion? No. It discusses what it is. Sure, if the majority of scientists supports one side or another, then state that in the article - but we shouldn't devote the article to that. From WP:POV A Wikipedian contributor might be unaware that his writing is biased, if he harbors (possibly unconscious) assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc. Unlike the flat earth theory, there is absolutely no tangible, scientific evidence that disprooves intelligent design. One might think it's unlikely or not probable, but there is no proof. This type of bias is definitely being displayed throughout several articles on WP. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that ID isn't science, there can be no proof that it's wrong – any more than there can be disproof of Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. However, ID is claimed to be science and its proponents have made specific claims which have not stood up to scientific examination. We properly show mainstream scientific views of ID, and well sourced third party views of what it is. If you have other secondary sources saying what ID is, do please present them for discussion. As ever, care has to be taken with self-published or primary material preented by ID proponents. . . dave souza, talk 23:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can someone give a specific example of what they disagree with in this article.--mboverload@ 02:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Duncharris reverted twice to FM's "neutral" version. I don't know why his version is any more neutral than mine. Perhaps he'll explain here. --Uncle Ed 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm guessing its because ID proponents have made a lot of statements and published a lot of documents/articles about what they're doing and the purpose, including the wedge document, and you seem to want to take all that out of the article and leave the misleading statement that all they want to do is oppose "dogmatism". This is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want any of that taken out. If I have removed anything like that, it was a mistake.

I do want added to the article the proponents' statement that they want to oppose dogmatism. If this needs to be balanced with a statement from opponents that the statement of proponents is misleading, then I'd L-O-V-E to see that put in. (Insert picture of dopy-looking St. Bernard with tongue hanging out and panting!) --Uncle Ed 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem this time Ed? What statement, which sources are you proposing we use to show that they say this and where do you want it to go in the article?FeloniousMonk 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This one:

Advocates of this campaign say they want to counter a "dogmatic approach" to classroom instruction about evolution

And right in the intro, where I had it before.

References

--Uncle Ed 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that your source still doesn't support the passage for the same reasons given you before. As pointed out to you above, Taylor is merely a parent, a private citizen involved in a local county campaign; he is neither significant nor central to the ID/TTC movement. Taylor's statement cannot in any way be considered to be representative of the entire movement. You're going to have come up with a better supporting source than this: [2]. Provide a better source from Meyer, Dembski or another leading proponent. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken down the NPOV tag; there's been no further evidence of actual issues presented since the 17th, and no effort to provide a proper source for the proposed content. FeloniousMonk 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And I've put it right back up. The dispute is not resolved merely because you declare the matter settled. Moreover, I have made effort to provide a proper source, but it was reverted.

Strangely, my reverted addition was then used by JoshuaZ's as evidence of "POV pushing". I will add it again now. --Uncle Ed 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one making the assertions that the article is POV; the burden is yours to show that it is, something you've consistently failed to do here and elsewhere, which is what prompts people to allege you're misusing the NPOV tag and POV pushing, Ed. You've also failed to make the case here for your recent changes, so, I've rv'd them. Several looked pretty POV to me... FeloniousMonk 16:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement to "make the case" that an article is biased before putting up the tag. But there is a requirement not to remove it more than twice. I hope you'll abide by our community's agreed-upon guidelines and suggestions.

I assume when you use "POV" as an adjective you mean biased. Can you tell me in what direction you feel my latest round of edits has "biased" the article. I wonder if you even had time to review them yet. --Uncle Ed 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and your edits today [3] are largely the same as the ones you made last week [4], which were rejected by 4 different editors.

If you mean reverted without reason by 4 different editors, that's just what I'm talking about: you guys need to give reasons instead of just backing each other up. --Uncle Ed 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So the same objections made last week, above, apply today.

No, they don't. No reasons were given for them. Additions to an article that you disagree with shouldn't just be reverted, but improved.

Failing to make an effort to earnestly make a strong case for your changes, instead ignoring talk page discussion and repeatedly insisting on just reverting and edit warring to make your case is what landed you in hot water and does not make long-term contributors here more open to your opinions, Ed. FeloniousMonk 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good description of what you yourself have done. You have made no case at all for your reversions, let alone a strong one; you and 3 others simply banded together to enforce your preferences for no reason. --Uncle Ed 19:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I have no opinion on this matter whatsoever. This is not an opinion board like Everything2, but an encyclopedia. We should be reporting the ideas of others, supported by references, not giving our own opinions, Felonious. --Uncle Ed 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have tagged the article with the NPOV tag. Please see further discussion and RfC at parent article's talk page. PL290 (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested move

This article should be called Teach the controversy per WP:LOWERCASE, which is policy. --Nigelj (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is about the DI strategy of that name with an upper case, not just any controversy.--Charles (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Rules are good, but "Teach the Controversy" seems more helpful than "Teach the controversy". Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy, post-Dover

The lead claims, without citation:

Thus, the Teach the Controversy strategy has become the primary thrust of the Discovery Institute in promoting its aims. Just as intelligent design is a stalking horse for the campaign against what its proponents claim is a materialist foundation in science that precludes God, Teach the Controversy has become a stalking horse for intelligent design.

This does not gel with what I've seen. TtC was at its height at the Kansas evolution hearings. Post-Dover it has largely been replaced by Critical Analysis of Evolution (during the big Ohio push), then Strengths and weaknesses of evolution and 'Academic freedom' arguments. TtC was largely a pre-Dover strategy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Overview section

Given that we've already got a 3-paragraph lead, I think an 'Overview' section is superfluous. I'm therefore going to roll it into the 'Development of the strategy' section (and possibly split out a section on the strategy's 'Time in the Spotlight'), and hopefully put some chronological order into the combined section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edits

1. Should we rewrite The intelligent design movement and the Teach the Controversy campaign are directed and supported largely by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian[12][13] think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." to reflect, as reported later in the article, that the campaign is largely over?

2. Current footnote #49 should be replaced with http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf.

I don't have time to do any of this right now, and would want consensus on #1, anyway. Yopienso (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor Hrafn, I see, commented on point 1 several weeks ago. Off and running. . . Yopienso (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Re #2, the Kitzmiller decision is available on Wikisource & liberally linked-to in the references -- so I don't think a link to an external source for it is really necessary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias

- This article is very biased against ID. It is also not truly researching the true feeling of the Scientific community and the threats, loss of job/ tenure/ etc if one is brave enough to tear a part The Theory of Evolution, as there are truly many holes of missing data, fossils, not to mention never visualized or reproduced. I suggest that you watch a documentary by Ben Stein, on Netflix, called "Expelled", and include a more accurate picture of evolution and how it is being pushed as fact, thus promoting the religion of Atheism (even stated by Richard Dawkins, that this was the reason). added 10/13/2012

Of course it's biased against ID; ID is an ideology supported by extremely little evidence, much like the surviving remnants of flat-Earth theorists. Expelled is a rubbish documentary that preys mostly on peoples emotions rather than addressing actual science, and what little science he discusses is inaccurate, fraudulent, or has already been addressed by scientists. The Theory of Evolution is "pushed" as fact just as hard as the Theory of General Relativity; you can choose to ignore it if you want, but don't try to impose your ignorance on Wikipedia. HMman (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Wiki articles are to remain neutral. State all facts. Science has not come close to proving anything related to the creation of the universe, and the Theory (actually, Hypothesis by the true scientific definition) of Evolution is riddled with so many holes and missing data, it is a travesty that it is being taught in our schools, let alone being taught as if it were fact. Both should be taught in a Philosophy class as possible ideas, but neither should be taught in Science and as proven/ fact. HLM (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Evolution/FAQ. HMman (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

I agree that this article seems highly riddled with NPOV violations. 128.210.74.215 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to be specific about what is violating NPOV and why. Otherwise this is just soapboxing.--Charles (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

smithsonian EL

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

smithsonian EL

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Teach the Controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003725/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906051325/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221000000/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630002824/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906051325/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/searchresults/ci_3535139
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927160040/http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp to http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608233455/http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html to http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609033219/http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html to http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs4995.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discovery.org/crsc/crscmisn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Need to remove biased information

I tried just removing the biased information but was told I had to use this page. It's my understanding that articles are supposed to be neutral. This article is biased against intelligent design. LordFluffington454 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@LordFluffington454: Intelligent design is a pseudoscience, per established consensus. It is not non-neutral to state that in the article, nor is it non-neutral to state that the organization is trying to discredit the teaching of evolution. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Need to remove biased information

Sorry for making new topic couldn't figure out how to reply I can cite numerous websites advocacy groups and teachers who disagree with calling it pseudoscience. I think it would be fair to simply say its a different theory then evolution. By calling it pseudoscience you are insulting people's religion LordFluffington454 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@LordFluffington454: The introductory paragraph of Intelligent design is pretty clear that the scholarly majority view is it's pseudoscience. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that the sources you are referring to would not be considered reliable, but until you point at specific ones I am only speculating. I have also left a reply to your other post at Talk:Creation Evidence Museum which includes useful links. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 03:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

neutral point of view policy requires that we give due weight to majority views, and show minority or fringe views in that context. On Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources (WP:RS).Theroadislong (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

LordFluffington454, you're confusing intelligent design with creationism. These are quite different things. Intelligent design is a (pseudo)scientific theory. Creationism is a religious belief. You can be a creationist and still understand that intelligent design isn't borne out by the scientific evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting that it can be used in the opposite context as well

Note that I made some edits here to this page only to reflect other uses of the "Teach the Controversy" phrase. Namely, I saw this phrase on a T-shirt that I couldn't quite understand and I looked up the phrase on Wikipedia. However, the Wiki article made absolutely zero sense in relation to the T-shirt (which was being worn by someone discussing "Sunday Assembly" which is a community gathering for people who don't necessarily believe in God). As it turns out, a simple Google IMAGE search will show many many T-shirts with this phrase and all of them showing things like basic scientific principles being questioned or quite humorous "alternate facts" - like a flat earth, hollow earth, aliens, etc. The movement of people wearing these T-shirts was definitely lacking in this article, and I think others like myself that come to Wikipedia for information should be alerted to the fact that this phrase has been picked up by others wanting to mock the movement as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.115.133 (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Any and all criticism about my edit is welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to have Brian Alters' (valid) pov at the lead. That DI manufactured the controversy, needs to go up but in a concise (and lucid) manner without too many quotes. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues?

I don't know the wikipedia stance on this (since the whole idea of straight rejecting the theory of evolution is, you know, bs) but this articles seems like it was written with the idea that "teach the controversy" is a bad thing firmly in the mind of the writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahmad25 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

372 editors, which one? Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is the scientific consensus and therefore Wikipedia's position. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)