RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: The Disco Institute Declares War On Wikipedia, Yet another knee slapper< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,05:53   

Looks like the DI has the Wiki article on Intelligent Design in their sights.  Be sure and read the Talk page of that article.  And then read the DI's Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries

Those guys crack me up.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
plasmasnake23



Posts: 42
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,05:59   

Man I'm amazed they took the time out of their busy schedule of performing intense ID research that is sure to lead to peer-reviewed studies to bitch about wikipedia.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:05   

Quote
Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries

We received this e-mail recently from a friendly engineer. He gave us permission to post his letter but only if we put his name in bold.
Quote

   I am an engineer. I am not a biologist. I became interested in Intelligent Design recently and decided to investigate it a bit. Naturally I consulted Wikipedia for information on the subject and was stunned by the one sided tone of the material I found there. When I was in college I learned that the best way to defeat an opponent in a debate is to take on their strongest arguments demonstrate the flaws in them.

   If evolutionists truly believe in "survival of the fittest", they should have employed this tactic rather than those methods I saw in the ID article on Wikipedia. The proponents of ID were not allowed to even present their arguments, rather, they first attempted to kill the messenger, and then only arguments against ID were presented.
...


What? An engineer who supports ID? I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:11   

It's amusing that the Intelligent Design page is explicitly marked as part of Wikipedia's Creationism series... :p

Quote
I am an engineer. I am not a biologist.


Quite the walking stereotype.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:16   

Just to check what an engineering degree looks like, I googled. Here's one


Hmm...what's that fuzzy bit at the bottom? Better zoom in



Well I'll be damned.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:22   

Well, let's Fisk this Wikipedia article and see if we can figure out exactly what the DI can legitimately object to:

 
Quote
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Well, that's pretty much a direct quote from the DI, so I don't think they're objecting to that.
 
Quote
Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

I can't imagine there's a problem there. I suppose one could quibble with the statement that all of ID's leading proponents are afffiliated with the DI, but I'd say at least a solid majority of them are.
 
Quote
An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science.

Obviously the DI doesn't like this, but is it inaccurate in any way? Do even solid proponents of ID dispute that something like 99% of actual credentialled scientists think ID is a joke? The truth hurts, baby.
 
Quote
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Again, I'm sure the DI hates this, but is it untrue? Does the DI claim that the National Academy of Sciences does not think that ID is without merit? Or, can the DI point to any other reputable scientific society (i.e., someone a bit more credible than say AiG or the ICR) that thinks ID is legitimate science? If so, perhaps they could inform the editors at Wikipedia.
 
Quote
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

You know, I've read the Kitzmiller decision, and I'm pretty positive that's exactly what it said. So what, again, is the DI's beef with this statement?
 
Quote
United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

Yep, that's pretty much what Judge Jones said, at least if the Court's decision isn't a hoax or a forgery. Does the DI dispute that that's what the Judge said?

So that's every sentence in the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design. As far as I can tell, every single word of it is factually accurate. Is the DI taking a page from Stephen Colbert and claiming that the facts have a "Darwinist bias"?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:24   

Quote (plasmasnake23 @ Sep. 07 2006,10:59)
Man I'm amazed they took the time out of their busy schedule of performing intense ID research that is sure to lead to peer-reviewed studies to bitch about wikipedia.

Another amusing fact is that the Wiki page about ID is peer-reviewed:

Quote
Intelligent design has had a peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.


So IDers might not actually produce peer-reviewed articles, but they can deface them.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:28   

Eric, Eric, Eric. You're missing the main point. If you or anyone else has a negative view of Intelligent Design, that simply means you're biased.

However if our friend Paul Stone has a negative view of evolution, that means he's objective.

Got it now? Good.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:30   

I just love basking in the "truthiness"

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,06:42   

I can't wait to see the Discovery Institute v. Wikipedia lawsuit. IIRC, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation cause of action.

If I were Wikipedia, I'd be praying nightly for a lawsuit from the DI.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,07:02   

One of you wikipedia lovers might want to add, to the relevant wikipedia page(s), this quote from Salvador:

Quote
What happened in Dover were creationists trying to evangelize through the public school curricula. Such behavior does not honor the faith one professes nor does it further the faith. It only generates antagonism, and it doesn’t even do a good job of critically analyzing evolution, teaching ID, nor teaching the theory of creation. The behavior of the Dover school board disgraced the Christian faith and disgraced the infant science of ID.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1477#comment-54843

maybe it belongs on this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Too bad there's not a Traipsing into Evolution page yet.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,08:16   

Maybe Paul Stone and Casey Luskin can write an article for Wikiality.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,08:44   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Sep. 07 2006,13:16)
Maybe Paul Stone and Casey Luskin can write an article for Wikiality.

NOW we know where Ghost of Paley gets his information!

Particularly, here, and here.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,10:11   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2006,13:44)
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Sep. 07 2006,13:16)
Maybe Paul Stone and Casey Luskin can write an article for Wikiality.

NOW we know where Ghost of Paley gets his information!

Particularly, here, and here.

And don't forget Uncyclopedia!

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,12:12   

If you Google "Intelligent Design" you'll note that the Wiki article now has the top spot in the search results.  This might be a reason for the DIs sudden interest.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,12:57   

What a bunch of whiney crybabies.

Geez.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,13:31   

This is pretty entertaining, by the way.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2006,14:51   

Methinks the whiney crybabies missed THIS bit...  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....science

???

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
  17 replies since Sep. 07 2006,05:53 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]