Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)/PIGDID Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"ID is not Creationism"

All right guys, Intelligent Design is not creationism. I do not believe in ID, but I did read this book, and he clearly defines both Intelligent Design and Creationism, and demonstrates that they are two different things. Therefore, I am taking down the "This Creationism Article is a stub" tag, along with the picture of clouds and light, because they completely misrepresent what this book is about. Seeing as the book is by and large about flaws with Darwin's theory, I am marking this as an evolution related article.

No, it's about ID proponent's objections to evolution, not evolution. FeloniousMonk 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, yes, ID is creationism. And the book isn't about evolution, it's a creationist (straw man) "objection" to evolution. Guettarda 04:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. Yes, I will agree that this book is an objection to evolution. That means that the essential topic of the book is....evolution. He discusses the theory in depth, but makes no reference to the Judeo-Christian theory of Creationism, except in a few sentences when he distinguishes it from the theory of Intelligent Design. Whether or not he personally is a creationist is irrelevent. What we want is to categorize this book, which we must do by the information inside it. Also, I think that really the only ones who are qualified to edit this article are those of us who actually read the book; and I can tell by your comments that, although you are clearly familiar with the theory of Intelligent Design, you have not read this book in particular, so you have no right to say what it is and is not about.

It is clear to me that you did not read the book. He clearly defines ID, creationism, evolution and Darwinism. Yes ID is "like" creationism but generally when someone refers to creationism they are talking about the literal story in Genesis. ID merely says that the universe was created "somehow" at "some point in time". There is a real distinction between ID and creationism. --Jayson Virissimo 07:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PIG Darwinism and ID.jpg

Image:PIG Darwinism and ID.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs

Blogs are not reliable sources, especially that one. They're even less reliable than Wikipedia (which is a difficult accomplishment). Hence... I'm removing the "Panda's thumb."

DarthSidious 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

"Especially that one", DarthSidious? Panda's Thumb is far more reliable than either Wells or Bethell -- both of whom have reputations for gross intellectual dishonesty. If PT is out, then so is Bethell. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally:

• Blogs are not per se unreliable, merely generally unreliable.
  • PT is generally considered to be at the extreme more-reliable end of the range of blogs, as it includes on its roster a number of qualified scientists. (In fact at least six of PT's contributors are sufficiently notable to have their own articles on wikipedia: Wesley R. Elsberry, Paul R. Gross, Mark Perakh, Nick Matzke, PZ Myers & Tara C. Smith)
• If Google is anything to go by, this is both the most prominent, and the only prominent scientific, review of this book.

If this review is excluded, this article probably won't withstand a challenge on notability. I am re-including it. If you want to challenge PT's reliability (either to proffer a review on this sort of book, or generally), you are welcome to take this to a higher authority. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)