Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

2306:

voters by Zogby showed that 80 percent of Americans “agree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory.” Further, the poll showed that 78 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.” That’s up from 69 percent from a 2006 poll. On a related note, only 14 percent agreed with the statement that teachers “should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it” – and that is down from 21 percent in 2006. The current poll, conducted Jan. 29-31, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 points.

3795:

Numbers is the only one I know. Maybe there are others, maybe they all say ID is not creationism. But he is definitely in the minority among creationism experts, which, I admit, is not a formally defined group. Those are mainly natural scientists, especially biologists, who are competent to evaluate and compare the reasoning of ID proponents and creationists. Numbers is not competent to do that, and for the most part, he does not do it. He just documents others doing it and keeps his own opinion private in his actual work. Insofar, yes, he is the odd man out.

269: 919:, the lead should be a "an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Given that the DI has been continually "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" we now have quite a large number of campaigns, more than can be listed individually in this "short summary". I'd like to suggest that we try to achieve some sort of consensus as to which ones are the "highlights" that deserve individual 'top billing'. Here's my 201: 180: 2086:

then someone would be receiving the fringe view that the DI institute is correct insofar as there is little information, therefore, little response. Condensing the information and placing it in one area hidden among context does a disservice to a reader, puts forth a misleading front, and allows a fringe view to get away without being exposed as a fringe view. It would violate the spirit and point of multiple guidelines and does a disservice to academia as a whole.

290: 21: 504: 132: 1793:– this article stands alone very well, and the DI was around for years before it took up ID. Last time I looked, it still had other campaigns or projects on the go. If you think the Cascadia Center for Regional Development focused on regional transportation, the Bioethics program, The Real Russia Project and The C. S. Lewis & Public Life program are ID campaigns, either you're misinformed or very good sources are needed. . . . 420:

Controversy":" may be slightly garbled. Is it really meant to be claiming that "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", and "Teach the Controversy" are all part of "Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans"? This would seem unlikely, as these plans were developed pre-Kansas Hearings, and the "Explore Evolution" campaign is a relatively recent innovation.

74: 149: 3656: 3742:. I added those tags because citations were missing, both in the lead and the body. I didn't delete anything, and I appreciate you adding the missing citations. My agenda here is to make a more robust, policy-compliant article, and together we appear to have accomplished that goal. Not everyone whose edits you don't like is some sort of rabid creationist. -- 2550:). I wanted to include the poll because it shows what the public thinks (not what the public's knowledge is about science or nonscience) about evolution teaching. We have no evidence if the Zogby data is skewed or not, so better not jump to conclusions. I propose an inclusion of the poll results along the following line of thought: 3794:

So, the two statements you call contradictory are both true to some extent, and their contradictoryness is also true to some extent. Another statement that is true to some extent is "one well-regarded historian has presented a minority view" - how many historians are there whose field is creationism?

3786:

is true. In the book, Numbers indeed documents how knowledgeable people call ID creationism, and also how ID proponents contradict that view, but he never says outright which side he himself agrees with. Maybe he thinks it is his duty as a historian to be sitting on the fence regarding questions like

2567:

From the section you copy out above, this looks like original research: does a reliable third pary source say that it "shows how much the public is influenced by the DI campaign"? There are obvious problems with the question being skewed, as Hrafn indicates, so analysis by an informed reliable source

2497:

What we need to cautious about here and Northfox seems to have forgotten (and I know he is aware of having been at the ID article where this surfaced several years ago) is that Zogby International has run at least one poll on behalf of the Discovery Institute, and it was shown to be skewed to deliver

2305:

A large majority of Americans think biology teachers should teach Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution along with the scientific evidence against the theory, according to a poll by Zogby International. Thursday, Feb. 12, is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. The telephone survey of 1,053 likely

374:

I think it might be a good idea to introduce sections dividing the campaigns into classes, e.g. 'persecutions' (Roger DeHart, Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Francis J. Beckwith), freedom of speech/teach both sides (Teach the Controversy, etc), petitions (A Scientific Dissent

3762:

First the article claims that Ronald Numbers made comments to a newspaper suggesting that he does not think ID is creationism, then it suggests that Numbers stated the exact opposite in one of his books. Which is it? Is the article misrepresenting one of these sources? Did Numbers change his mind at

3153:

Ed, what matters is the clear majority view of third party expert opinion, which is that ID is creationism rebranded: in a cheap tuxedo, if you like. It's clear that ID proponentsists have yet to actually produce any scientific work or theory, instead producing a theological argument while sometimes

2085:

based on Hrafn's response, I feel that there is no legitimate concern. By merging these, this removes the ability to correctly identify these as propaganda campaigns that are notable because they were exposed as being completely unscientific. By not having them as individual pages for each campaign,

1677:

this topic is sufficiently cohesive and self-contained, and sufficiently well-sourced and notable that it can sustain its own article -- which gives a context as to how the campaigns fit together within the DI/IDM's overall strategy. Furthermore it does not appear to meet any of the "good reasons to

1097:

DI campaign in some time. Is it time to consider giving this campaign its own article? This is slightly more urgent as I initially wrote it up as a Petition-campaign with the legislative part as a mere afterthought -- but the legislative 'tail' is now decidedly wagging the petition 'dog'. If it does

3911:

OK, no, my mistake. The date on the DI article must be wrong. It's a copy of the AP article which seems to have appeared in a number of places in March 2002. Still, I stand by my belief that it's not a strong enough source for this claim, especially since Numbers doesn't seem to have expressed this

554:

Checking the logs, I was reminded that one of the reasons I originally deleted this "example" was that it is OR -- we only have the primary source of the 'Teaching Guide' itself and no secondary source saying that it is an "incomplete quote" (or a problematical quote in any other way) or that it is

493:

I don't consider it to be either a particularly clear example of the "indirect method" nor a particularly notable one (I personally have yet to see Casey Luskin write anything that is notable for anything except its inanity). Odd Nature however considers it to be "important". Does anybody else have

3217:

As far as "material explanations": Many scientists and philosophers of science would not insist on material explanations - they would rather say "physical" or "natural". Others would go further, and would accept "spiritual" or "supernatural" explanations, and would point out that ID does not offer

2581:

I understand your being cautious, but isn't this double standard? Many statements from the NCSE and other very critical sites are copied without such a level of scrutiny. The Zogby poll has been reported in the WSJ, that should be enough serious reporting and reference. My wording above was just a

2545:

re FeloniuosMonk. I am around wikipedia exactly two years. The other Zogby poll was 2006. Must have been another fox, or another poll (maybe the one about religiosity and crime??). And, I agree that science is not determined by public opinion (but also neither by courts, btw), but I just wanted to

2158:

is a reputed nonpartisan polling company, their analysis is sound. Hrafn, wrote in his revert 'there us no "scientific evidence against"' evolution. Well wikipedia is not here to report truth, only reliable information. And the question by Zogby had similar wording, and the pollsters responded to

1500:

in a way that makes me wonder if he thinks policy requires us to omit any explanation of the D.I. denial. So I'm still wondering if it's okay to mention the D.I.'s own stand on the issue, even if most readers would dismiss it as self-serving. Meyer disagrees with the NCSE and with Judge Jones over

419:

The phrase "Instead, it advocates for teaching methods that introduce intelligent design textbooks indirectly through the Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution", "Explore Evolution", or "Teach the

3790:

In the paper he is quoted as calling the ID is creationism" statement "inaccurate", without giving specifics what he means by that. Well, "the speed of light is 300000 km/s" is inaccurate but not wrong. ID is clearly part of the same phenomenon as "creation science", but it there are differences.

3209:

creationism. There is a clear affinity between different objections to evolutionary biology. They all tend to use variations of the same arguments, for example. While there are some supporters of ID who will go so far as to allow common descent of humans with chimps and other apes. Dobzhansky, in

625:

I would also point out that the 'Teaching Guide' neither mentions "teaching the controversy" nor introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory". It does not deal with the "evidence, both for and against, evolution" of the indirect method, but with the rival views of the definition, and

1572:

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

3235:

is a broad topic and the term has been contested, which is why Numbers may have been misconstrued by AP. Science has limitations, in that it can only deal with materially testable explanations, which can be physical or natural – the supernatural is immaterial, though if there are claims that it

3179:

Thanks, Dave. If he only meant that ID ≠ YEC then the use of the quote in the article becomes questionable. Perhaps the distinction between Young Earth vs. Old Earth needs to be highlighted in certain articles (if not here). I think I've seen a tendency for ID opponents to lump all Creationists

3062:

Since Numbers' best-known book is called "The Creationists. From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design", which implies that ID is a form of creationism, I suspect that the quote is out of context. I have that book, and I have read it, but I do not recall his exact stance on that specific

1508:

with faith in God & Bible, which it uses to interpret nature. Meyer says (or at any rate claims in that interview) that ID begins by observing nature. Rather than stipulating that God is the Designer (as our friends the YEC's do), Meyer claims to be starting with observations of nature and

1465:

The article is about the Discovery Institute and its campaigns for Intelligent Design. And there is a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" (quotes included). The section quotes Judge Jones as saying, "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a

790:

But "people" doesn't include the DI who call it "Evolution News and Views" with their usual misdirection, since they really mean "Anti-evolution News and Views", unless of course their banner is meant to indicate it's about the evolution of the DI. Which is unlikely, as they still appear to be

2530:

Just out of interest, why are they so keen about teaching "Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution"? Do they want children taught pangenesis instead of Mendelian genetics, or could it really be that their concern is about modern evolutionary theory, but they don't want to admit it.. Guess so. .

511:

I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science

647:

Did the DI have an explicitly-named "Media Complaints Division" at one time? I see the phrase frequently used in the anti-ID blogosphere, but can't find a reference of the DI using it themselves. I think that they may have erased the title as embarrassing. Any references (Wayback machine or

3287:

I looked it up - Chapter 17 in the 2006 edition is about ID - and as far as I could find, in those 26 pages, Numbers does not utter an opinion on the question "Is ID creationism"? He does quote what other people say on the subject and the reasons they give, and it is what is already in the

1979:

merge proposal: the other campaigns generally have "elicited more than vestigial third-party notice, and their sourcing is almost exclusively to the DI (and its affiliates) for the existence of these campaigns" and have third-party sources that address "the claims of these campaigns

3791:

There are also differences between Young-Earth and Old-Earth creationism. I guess Numbers would agree that ID, creation science, YEC, OEC and so on are all examples of religion-driven opposition to evolutionary science, but he reserves the term "creationism" for everything except ID.

2174:

You did not only "propose" reinsertion of your text, you reinserted it without waiting for followup discussion. I reverted your insertion until at least some discussion of it takes place. It is surely legitimate to question whether these poll questions were well phrased.

1263:. As far as I can tell, all of these campaigns died an ignominious death in obscurity, having never made significant impact. Can anybody provide evidence (not bare assertions) that they were notable beyond the growing list of campaigns currently not mentioned in the lead? 3190:

scientific work? I mean, they say that ID makes testable predictions. So, shouldn't we describe these (so-called) predictions along with rebuttals showing either (1) they aren't testable (and are therefore just pseudoscience or (2) they have been tested and found false?

1466:

religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory". This is a denial of the DI position. And this denial is implied to be correct in the article, using the phrase, "has been refuted both in court and academia". This is the assertion that ID

2191:

Sourced and interpreted by the Disco Tute themselves, hence self published. As for teaching "scientific evidence against evolution", that would be a very short lesson. Of course the DI doubtless want classroom time devoted to pseudoscientific quote mining, as usual. .

839:

The DI is continually trialing campaigns, and many of them, especially their petitions, fall flat. Additionally, it is the nature of media campaigns to tend to be transitory. This means that the sentence on notable campaigns in the lead needs to be fairly selective.

2288:

Your changes to the article appear to be one-sided, as does your interpretation of the sources. We'll stick with the original sources and text, thanks. Also, reading the Zogby article and related sources, it's pretty clear Zogby polls have an issue with bias.

3236:

causes physical effects, these effects are natural and can be tested. ID is all talk and the only claims it makes are that evolution or other physical processes can't explain something, in that it's a rehashing of creation science. Genuine scientists such as

534:

it is a very obscure example based on a document written by one of the DI's least notable members -- Casey Luskin. As far as I can see, this document has disappeared without leaving any trace, and is referenced nowhere else except through this article and

3679:

I've just supplied 4 easily found citations for the claims made in the intro. So whoever is going through trying to cast doubt on the claims obviously has an agenda. By doing this they in fact bolster the claims made in the article. Edit: make that 5

812:

Yes, I was just wondering if the DI had, in a brief lapse of honesty, originally called a spade a spade, and then tried to erase the fact (which they have done from time to time). But it appears that the descriptor is purely a pro-Science invention.

3763:

some point? As far as I can tell, the article characterizes Numbers's comments he made to the newspaper accurately, but I don't have Numbers's book, so I can't tell whether the article is correctly characterizing the views he expresses therein.

3896:

from 2001. The AP story, which uses the same wording, is from 2002. That means that it was probably taken from the DI article, and isn't likely to be an original quote that the article's author got from Numbers. That makes it especially iffy.

3134:

By the way, does the motivation of a scientist matter when we describe his work at Knowledge? I mean, suppose - just suppose (I'm not accusing anyone) - that a particular scientist was advancing a purely materialist theory of human origins

1098:

get its own article, what should we call it? 'Academic freedom (evolution)', 'Discovery Institute academic freedom campaign', 'Academic freedom bills', or some other permutation (none of the ideas I've come up with seem to be a snug fit)?

710:

I seem to remember that, or something close to it. That makes me wonder if the Panda's Thumb continues to refer to the DI named "Evolution News and Views" as the "Media Complaints Division". Kind of like how they do the DI's "Center for

1560:

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

1420:

for this viewpoint (reliability would entail that i) the claim wasn't self-serving (ii) was made by somebody with some expertise in the matter who (iii) does not have a track record of dishonesty)? As it stands we have a wide range of

3615:

in 2006, "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." I don't know if that exact number is accurate, but the sentiment is absolutely true--there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of evolution. So why can't I find a

626:

philosophy, of science underlying mainstream Science (i.e. Methodological Naturalism) & ID (i.e. 'Theistic Realism'). But why am I writing all this? People are just going to revert, revert, revert, without bothering to read it.

3843:, it's pretty clear that he considers ID creationism (which is consistent with what I remember of it). I have no reason to assume that the AP story got his perspective wrong, but that was in 2002, while the expanded edition of 1566:

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

2616:

to their views. Your 'opinion' (i) goes against a clear consensus here & (ii) offers no reason why we should consider a poll conducted on the premise that "arguments against " exist any less farcical than one premised on

1900:

to this article. Neither campaign elicited more than vestigial third-party notice, and their sourcing is almost exclusively to the DI (and its affiliates) for the existence of these campaigns and for the rejection of ID

1516:

Creationists begin with a theology that dogmatically insists that God created life. ID, in Meyer's view, begins with the observation that life appears to have been designed, and then argues that the appearance must be

2251:. Not selfpub. whatever the questions were, the poll was conducted and reported by reliable third party sources. That the outcome of the poll is not what you expect should not play a role in including in wikipedia. 3154:

pretending that The Designer ain't necessarily God. It's also clear that since the 1820s, or earlier, scientists have sought material explanations, whether or not they believed in God as a First Cause. . .

3109:

Yes, that is a problem with newspaper reporting. Journalists like to spice up their stories, so that more people read them (and more eyes fall on the ads that pay their salaries). The issue is whether ID is

435: 3298:

On page 398, he says that "many people find it difficult to distinguish from biblical or scientific creationism", but that it is different from those is a different question, which is hardly controversial.

413: 2342:

Northfox: the poll itself is biased, being based upon a misrepresentation of the dispute, the claim that there is "scientific evidence against ". Were it presented (more accurately, if partisan for the

1321:

are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie

459: 448: 430: 1553: 3776: 1655: 1084: 2827: 3757: 847:

appear to indicate that the media actually noticed it (all references appear to be to underlying issues & the DI's harping). It is therefore quite likely that this article doesn't meet

3180:

together, even though it only the (slightly) smaller half which says "less than 10,000 years ago" while the (somewhat) larger half says "it all happened as long ago as the scientists say."

1210: 1171: 1153: 1109: 3535: 3405: 2957: 2723: 1378:

Does Knowledge agree with the NCSE and other pro-evolution groups that ID *is* creationism? Or is it neutral on this question, in light of the Discovery Institute's denial of this?

2104:

Ottava Rima: you are incorrect in stating that these campaigns "are notable because they were exposed as being completely unscientific". This is not "based on" my response, but in

1401:

If the answer is "endorse NCSE" or "endorse Judge Jones", then can we at least include a minority viewpoint, i.e., a denial or two from people like Meyer that ID is creationism? --

3553: 3549: 3423: 3419: 2975: 2971: 2741: 2737: 3292:

article: the scientist say it is ("creationism in a cheap tuxedo") and ID folks deny it. No surprise there. I guess he didn't think his own thoughts on the matter were relevant.

3211: 524:

the example is only marginally relevant to "the indirect method" which is described above in the section as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" (i.e.

2498:

a favorable result for them. We need to be particularly circumspect when it comes to Zogby polls that touch on religion. That, and science is never decided by popular opinion.

3638:: 98% support for evolution, which it calls "near consensus." This seems like hedging to me, as consensus generally doesn't require unanimity. I wonder if we can do better. -- 2612:. The DI is made up of pseudoscientific cranks, and is thus regarded as a grossly unreliable source (for anything beyond their own views). No "double standard" just avoiding 3751: 3733: 3668: 3699: 2116:. I see no reason why repeating a generic response to ID across multiple articles is a "service" to the reader who would be better served by seeing these obscure campaigns 686:

that the phrase was simply the pro-Sciencers calling a spade a spade, but I have the nagging suspicion that the DI might have used that (or a very similar) title early on.

652: 444:

amount of energy spinning on this point. Is it big enough to warrant its own heading? It's not an issue that seems to be addressed in any of the other ID-related articles.

3308: 3102: 2317: 2298: 1530:

I don't want to change the article from anti-ID to pro-ID. I just want to add a minority view which is relevant, because it is the view of the article primary subject. --

1368: 1346: 3906: 3879: 3825: 3807: 3268: 3248: 799: 760: 724: 2435:. (ii) A poll on the basis of a false premise is not reliable, irrespective of who conducted it. If you want to argue this further, then I would suggest you take it to 673: 3921: 3859: 3601: 3471: 3148: 3079: 3023: 2591: 2576: 2562: 2507: 2200: 2184: 3227: 3200: 3162: 2061: 1753: 1654:

merge. Since the Discovery Institute's main purpose is to promote "intelligent design", then there is no need for a separate article. It is like having an article on

1459: 785: 697: 2133: 2095: 2040: 2018: 1966: 1835: 1781: 1723: 1667: 1539: 1410: 658:

Just so you're not talking to yourself. I notice that DI "hides" things just to prevent problems. I've never used the wayback things. Maybe a quick google search?

486: 2230: 2077: 1818: 1801: 824: 2873: 2385:

Original research and personal opinions of one particular editor (or editors) should not prevent reliable source information from being included in a wikiarticle.

1501:

whether ID is merely a relabeling. If you follow the link I provided above, you'll be able to hear a 2.5 minute interview in which Meyer elaborates his reasoning.

2642: 2460: 2394: 2380: 2283: 1950: 1078: 3070:. Whether "ID is creationism" is one specific aspect, and the newspaper quote makes Numbers sound as if he were sympathetic to ID, which he is definitely not. -- 1442: 3816:. It's pre-Kitzmiller. I have never seen Numbers disagree with Kitzmiller. I think the big issue is that it's an exceptional claim based on a very weak source. 1703: 1239: 894:, which he reverted these petitions back over, has achieved far greater coverage than all of these petitions (excluding ASDFD, which I had retained) combined. 595: 2787: 905: 2828:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060521123102/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/

1711: 3647: 3629: 3056: 2629:

reason for its inclusion, I will be archiving this thread shortly as, having run its course, further discussion is "not relevant to improving the article".

2552:

a recent Zogby poll shows how much the public is influenced by the DI campaign, 70% of blah blah blah....this is an increase of xx% over ......etc etc etc.

251: 3521: 601:

A further comment: the phrase "incomplete quotation" would appear to be a redundancy, all quotations are incomplete, as otherwise they would be a verbatim

2853: 1451:

creationism, there's a section headed "Intelligent design is not creationism" which reports the denials and the majority view that it is creationism. . .

531:

to call it an "incomplete quote" is misleading -- the quote is not out of context, if framed differently -- a reframing that they're quite open about; and

498: 408: 379: 352: 3708: 3687: 2923: 2539: 1003: 3371: 637: 620: 566: 549: 3086:

Also note that the AP article is from 2002, before ID was prominent, and Numbers may have been explaining that ID isn't necessarily YEC. His 1992 book

2168: 2847: 2831: 1245: 642: 2069:

per Hrafn, leaving redirects which can be expanded into articles if the DI starts them up again and attracts sufficient attention for notability. .

1034: 375:

From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity). As things stand, all of these major threads are knotted together in one section.

3485: 3325: 2817: 2801: 2663: 1398:

I realize that "courts have ruled", but my question is whether Knowledge is going to endorse those rulings or simply note that there is a dispute.

969: 860: 108: 40: 3183:

Is the ID campaigns article the place to mention what proportion of ID supporters (or thought leaders) are YEC, Old-Earth, agnostic, or atheistic?

3889: 3721:

section (the citations may be more appropriate there, with the lead including a summary of that section without the need for sources). Thanks, —

910: 2546:

show that the DI campaign seems to have a big effect on the public. Thus I don't really understand Hrafns objections ( poll is nonsense because

1922: 1887: 1645: 1602: 1585: 2913: 509:

For all those who teach college biology, the current challenge posed by the intelligent design movement presents an ideal “teachable moment.”

3120:

by a desire to justify a Creationist perspective - by using scientific means to show that "intelligent" intervention has left evidence behind

1936: 2863: 3950: 3674: 241: 3113:

actually founded in a Creationist premise - and is therefore outside the realm of science, having presumed the existence of a Creator; or,

3041: 3965: 342: 3361: 2903: 3063:

question. If others are not quicker than me, I will look it up: it is definitely a better source than a single sentence in a newspaper.

1373: 3391: 3381: 3341: 1975:

question and therefore not particularly relevant. (ii) In any case, the answer to your question should be apparent from how I phrased

3955: 3501: 3351: 1682:. Given the wide range of articles covering various aspects and (often mutually antagonistic) incarnations of 'the Communist Party' ( 124: 3531:

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

3401:

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

3970: 3940: 1114:

Reading a bit further, I'm tending toward 'Academic freedom bills' (or similar) as the title, and the following major milestones:

555:

an example of the "indirect method" (which it seems to be only a rather tangential example of). I have therefore tagged it as OR.

2120:

by (not "hidden among") the context of the wider DI campaign strategy, in which they were unsuccessful, short-lived bit-players.

1181: 1125: 1090: 2874:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071214040619/http://scienceblogs.com:80/pharyngula/2007/12/how_the_west_was_won_with_spin.php#more

2837: 1089:

The Florida legislative part of this campaign seems to be generating considerable press coverage (nicely summarised by the NCSE

2347:

side) as 'religiously-motivated misrepresentations of evolution', I do not doubt that it would garner far lower support. That "

217: 3653: 3945: 2432: 1998: 834: 318: 3960: 1957:

Why these two campaigns and not the many others that are linked? What makes these in particular mergable and not the rest?

3511: 2145:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1845:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1196: 1335:

The intention is to (1) only cover the highlights & (2) give some impression as to how these campaigns fit together.

1328: 954: 864: 3522:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090531055952/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php

485:

as justification for 'teaching the controversy' and thereby introducing intelligent design as an "alternative theory" .

3695: 3040:

concludes that it is inaccurate to call it creationism—though it is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."

2854:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120210113446/http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/the_banning_of_pandas_-_a_fina.php

2613: 3612: 2924:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051212214558/http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/Statement_Anti_Evolutionism.pdf

2883: 1909:) -- see their respective talkpages for more detailed discussion. Therefore both would be of questionable notability. 976:

Not (ones that made little initial splash & have since sunk without a trace or been merged into other campaigns):

609:

is only problematical when it results in the quotation being out-of-context, or some other form of misrepresentation.

3476: 3372:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf

3316: 3033:

Although it is generally accepted that ID is creationism, one well-regarded historian has presented a minority view:

3028: 2893: 2792: 2691: 1323: 949: 944: 890: 208: 185: 3493: 3333: 2809: 2217:

thing, a poll that is premised on an impossibility (or nullity if you prefer) is inherently unreliable/misleading.

477:

An example of the indirect method the Institute uses to introduce intelligent design into science curricula is its

317:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

297: 274: 2848:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/

2832:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/while_were_at_it_lets_also_fire_the_math_teachers_who_cant_do_algebra/

2701: 884:

I would also like to disagree with a comment Odd Nature made in a recent edit summary -- the list of petitions is

3772: 3635: 2654: 1733: 464: 369: 3552:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3525: 3422:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2974:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2877: 2818:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070630002824/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf

2740:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1093:), which gives no sign of abating. Although most of this coverage is negative, it seems to have become the most 2857: 1945: 1310: 934: 682:

Already tried Google -- numerous mentions by the pro-Science side, but none that I can find from the DI. It is

2927: 384:

Thinking further about it, with a little bit of work, the current 'Campaigns' section could be split up into:

3375: 2308:

Please go ahead and phrase a paragraph about the poll(s). I am sure my version will be reverted immediately.

2914:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf

2568:

would be useful, not just a news organisation passing on the DI's press release without serious scrutiny. .

2266:. I forgot to mention that my previous post contained resulst from two Zogby polls, one in 2006, referenced 992:

Does anybody agree/disagree with this list? Also it might be an idea to include a thematic summary as well.

3606: 3596: 3466: 3018: 482: 453: 160: 59: 28: 2864:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071207130846/http://www.evolutionnews.org:80/2007/12/west_wins_in_minn.html

2636: 2454: 2374: 2224: 2149: 2127: 2034: 2012: 1993: 1916: 1881: 1775: 1697: 1639: 1436: 1362: 1341: 1234: 1205: 1190: 1166: 1148: 1104: 1073: 998: 900: 819: 755: 692: 632: 615: 590: 576:: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." The disputed paragraph is 561: 544: 58:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

3571:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3441:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2993:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2821: 2759:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3492:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3332:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3139:

Would this (by itself) invalidate his work? Would it even by relevant? If so, who says so - and why? --

2808:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1972: 1683: 1049: 55: 3362:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001713/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf

2904:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070729032153/http://aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm

1060: 939: 856: 720: 2917: 1935:

section could use the material, though the article as a whole is getting to splitting length. (from

3691: 3392:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

3382:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

3342:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110718043648/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

1893: 1392:

Intelligent Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

1252: 1199:

is also virtually identical (only apparent difference is that it divides one section up into two).

1008: 979: 844: 3502:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061230215318/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0116/news-shapiro.php

3352:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060806232139/http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php

2427:(i) That there is no "scientific evidence against " is not OR, but well cited on such articles as 2271: 2248: 1447:

Ed, how does your question relate to this article? There doesn't seem to be any assertion that ID

216:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3850:

I'm going to remove the first mention because honestly, it is something of an exceptional claim.

3587: 3457: 3009: 2907: 2503: 2428: 2294: 1849: 1607: 3556:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3426:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2978:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2744:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1591: 3747: 3727: 3664: 3643: 3625: 3611:

Brian Alters, the president of the National Center for Science Education‘s board of directors,

3572: 3442: 2994: 2760: 2622: 2057: 1318: 1225: 47: 3240:

have continued belief in creation while looking for physical processes as explanations. .. .

2867: 1295:'Academic freedom campaign' (which has spawned bills in seven states over the last four years) 3875: 3803: 3559: 3429: 3365: 3304: 3075: 2981: 2838:

http://www.webcitation.org/6LZiqbyLh?url=http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html

2779: 2747: 2091: 1962: 1831: 1719: 1663: 1306: 1184:

and, apart from some minor punctuation differences, I can't see any difference between them.

930: 741:

Couldn't find anything, but then Wayback is generally of most use when you know specifically

525: 166: 89: 888:

complete, as it does not include the Academic Freedom Petition. I would also point out that

3782:

I have the book, and the problem is, none of "the views he expresses therein" are his own.

3683: 3579: 3449: 3395: 3385: 3345: 3265: 3245: 3223: 3159: 3099: 3001: 2948: 2767: 2573: 2536: 2197: 2180: 2074: 1897: 1814: 1798: 1598: 1581: 1456: 1352: 1256: 984: 852: 796: 781: 716: 3505: 3355: 2263: 2209:

Indeed. We would likewise see a highly positive result in a poll on whether we should use

1740:. Seriously, as sub-articles necessarily overlap with the main article, in which they are 8: 3917: 3902: 3855: 3821: 3768: 2348: 2155: 1313:. Other prominent campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably 148: 100: 51: 3257: 1063:. Unlike the claims of this bunch of snake-oil salesmen, Mayo's point actually has some 3834: 3538:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3512:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131217031633/http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4825206

3408:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3289: 3253: 2960:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2841: 2726:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2587: 2558: 2499: 2440: 2390: 2313: 2290: 2279: 2256: 2164: 1991:

If you want to get further up to speed on this, I would suggest that you read the book

1940: 1687: 1548: 1119: 1030: 964: 113: 3798:

I do not have a real solution for the actual problem, but maybe I could help a bit. --

3578:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3448:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3000:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2766:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2625:

or the fairies at the bottom of the path. Unless you can come up with some compelling

3743: 3722: 3660: 3639: 3621: 3196: 3144: 3052: 3037: 2673: 2618: 2214: 2213:

to solve our energy problems (should anybody bother to conduct one). Even beyond the

2053: 1535: 1406: 1355:

is officially dead, with its website redirecting to the 'Academic Freedom Petition'.

1314: 1301:

I would therefore like to suggest the following paragraph as an updated replacement:

1260: 1177: 1045: 869: 659: 73: 2108:

to the facts I presented to you. These campaigns have not been "exposed" so much as

3871: 3799: 3300: 3090:

didn't cover ID, the 2006 edition added two chapters on the topic and the subtitle

3071: 2884:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001712/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf

2775: 2087: 1958: 1827: 1749: 1715: 1659: 927:

Definitely (received major press coverage, which tends to resurface periodically):

481:. This "teacher's guide" relies upon an incomplete quote from the President of the 104: 3839:

It's been a while since I've read Numbers' book, but given the title of the book:

2894:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121215205204/http://vangogh.fdisk.net/~welsberr/kvd/

2692:

https://web.archive.org/20071201001711/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons%20Response.pdf

2367:, this poll and this entire thread has no relevance to this or any other article. 1269:'Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics' (which featured in Weikart's 3489: 3329: 3261: 3241: 3219: 3155: 3095: 2805: 2681: 2667: 2569: 2532: 2193: 2176: 2154:

propose the reinsertion of my text (deleted by Hrafn). It is not self-published.

2070: 1810: 1794: 1679: 1594: 1577: 1452: 792: 777: 2001:'s website. This talkpage is for discussing specific improvements (in this case 3913: 3898: 3851: 3817: 3764: 3714: 3515: 2702:

https://web.archive.org/20071201001712/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf

2608:

Northfox: the NCSE is made up of serious scientists, and is thus regarded as a

2436: 1985: 1737: 1221: 1094: 916: 848: 715:

Science and Culture". But you need to way back machine and I've nver used it.

573: 36: 3544:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3414:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2966:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2732:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2695: 1288:'Campaigns claiming discrimination' (a perennial favourite, again featured in 3934: 3739: 3526:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/dr_michael_egnor_challenges_ev.php

2878:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/how_the_west_was_won_with_spin.php

2583: 2554: 2386: 2309: 2275: 2252: 2160: 1497: 1426: 1385: 1026: 310: 306: 289: 268: 32: 2858:

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/the_banning_of_pandas_-_a_fina.php

2582:

proposal, open to discussion. But the poll results hould be mentioned IMHO.

3617: 3192: 3140: 3066:

BTW, there are other sources on what Numbers thinks about ID, for instance

3048: 2928:

http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/Statement_Anti_Evolutionism.pdf

2887: 2705: 2609: 1741: 1531: 1477: 1422: 1417: 1402: 1052: 649: 495: 456: 445: 427: 421: 405: 376: 3717:) which should simply summarize the article. You may want to improve the 3376:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf

3125:

I'd have to wade through Ron's book to find out what he thinks about that.

2897: 3866:

BTW, I just noticed: this was discussed before, a few sections above, in

3545: 3415: 3232: 3067: 2967: 2733: 2363:. Additionally, I would point out that as "scientific evidence against " 2210: 1745: 1526:, with Judge Jones ruling that ID is simply a re-labeling of Creationism. 1142:

I'll have a go at getting a sandbox version going for people to look at.

404:...with each of the new sections providing fertile ground for expansion. 213: 2678:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

2267: 2244: 200: 179: 2632: 2450: 2370: 2220: 2123: 2030: 2008: 1912: 1877: 1771: 1693: 1635: 1432: 1358: 1337: 1230: 1201: 1186: 1162: 1144: 1100: 1069: 994: 896: 815: 751: 688: 628: 611: 586: 557: 540: 314: 20: 3713:

I'm not sure why these were tagged for citations since it's the lead (

2822:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf

1765: 1686:

has 20 subcategories, and I don't know how many articles in total --

1056: 1041: 414:

Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute model lesson plans

117: 84: 3893: 1710:

The good reason to merge is overlap. It's like having an article on

3841:

The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design

3237: 1013:

Thanks to Hrafn to add a columnist comment. But is Michael Mayo, a

2686:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

2023:

I would further point out that I've already covered this issue in

2005:

merger proposal) not the relative merits of all related articles.

1573:

Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.

3186:

And what's the best way to point out the flaws in ID's claims of

2918:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf

1809:

This article is a separate topic, DI article is longish already.

1425:

stating that it is creationism, and none that it isn't -- so per

1040:

Given that the the bill is being sponsored by a retired dentist (

961:

Possibly (received some coverage, but have tended to peter out):

487:

Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science

479:

Teaching Guide About Intelligent Design And The Nature Of Science

302: 3047:

I'd like to ask Dave whether this is a good enough reference. --

1393: 774: 454:

Is It Really Intelligent Design that has the Great Derb Worried?

3212:

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution

1988:& (ii) have non-overlapping third-party-sourcable material. 2908:

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/JF/Feat/forr.htm

1044:) and a former English teacher who has been described as the " 93:

column on 29 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

2933:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2711:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1744:, that "overlap" can not by itself be a reason for merging. 843:

In spite of an extensive article, none of the references in

473:

in favour of leaving the following sentence in the article:

436:

Is "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" a DI ID campaign?

2868:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/west_wins_in_minn.html

1085:

Time for a separate article on 'Academic Freedom' campaign?

855:

was a temporary attempt to 'astroturf' in the midst of the

3496:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3366:

http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf

3336:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2812:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2303:

FM, you mean something like this, (from the CNS article)?

1690:

has even more), I find your analogy less than compelling.

580:"interpretation" of the DI document (the primary source), 46:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

773:

The DI's 'Media Complaints Division' is what people call

3396:

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

3386:

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

3346:

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf

2355:, as the poll was commissioned by DI, contains the DI's 1327:. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably 31:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to

3784:

documenting intelligent design as a form of creationism

3620:

that says this? Seriously... this is should be easy. --

3506:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0116/news-shapiro.php

3356:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php

2662:

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

1512:

Or as I would put it if allowed to edit the article:

1251:

The following campaigns are claimed to be "notable":

572:

Explicit justification for this view is contained at

3758:

Contradiction in the "ID is not creationism" section

2842:

http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html

1864:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1622:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

301:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 212:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3548:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3418:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3092:"From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design" 2970:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2736:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1055:) and stumped for by a speech-writer turned actor ( 3719:Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics 1984:". They therefore (and unlike these two) (i) meet 1317:) have been discriminated against, and thus that 1176:I just did a head to head comparison between the 605:of the entire document (book, article, etc). The 3932: 3486:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns 3326:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns 2802:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns 2664:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns 1266:Currently missing from the lead are mentions of 970:Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity 861:Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity 81:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns 2274:. Both should be mentioned in the wikiarticle. 1905:(rather than for the claims of these campaigns 933:, and its slightly revamped/reworked successor 877:achieve notability as a textbook, however as a 3867: 3534:This message was posted before February 2018. 3404:This message was posted before February 2018. 2956:This message was posted before February 2018. 2722:This message was posted before February 2018. 1556:June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights: 1554:Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy 1224:gone ahead & created it as a new article: 517:(I've italicised the part that Luskin quoted) 2351:is a reputed nonpartisan polling company" is 2112:. Their articles contain no rebuttal that is 2024: 3888:Looks like the statement was added by Ed in 3516:http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_4825206 1305:Prominent Institute campaigns have been to ' 2696:http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons%20Response.pdf 1522:Meyer's view was rejected by the courts in 2800:I have just modified 12 external links on 1485:The following discussion has been closed. 1220:of input I've received on the topic, I've 3484:I have just modified 3 external links on 3324:I have just modified 6 external links on 3205:I don't think that we are saying that ID 745:to look (and preferably when) as well as 3042:Associated Press / Fayetteville Observer 2888:http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf 2706:http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf 1931:essentially per Hrafn. Particularly the 1470:creationism that you said wasn't there. 2898:http://vangogh.fdisk.net/~welsberr/kvd/ 1971:Ottava Rima: (i) this is essentially a 520:Reasons why this isn't a good example: 146: 3933: 3812:I think the newspaper article is just 2548:there is no evidence against evolution 2262:and a WSJ reference for the 2009 poll 1025:(his own words), such a great source? 3787:that. Or just to write as if he were. 3214:refers to himself as a "creationist". 3137:because he wanted to justify atheism. 2945:to let others know (documentation at 2433:Strengths and weaknesses of evolution 1999:National Center for Science Education 1656:Communist Party's communist campaigns 123:A record of the entry may be seen at 3675:Citation needed tags in lead section 1858:The following discussion is closed. 1616:The following discussion is closed. 1429:, this is the viewpoint we present. 584:any citation to a secondary source. 295:This article is within the scope of 206:This article is within the scope of 142: 68: 15: 3951:Mid-importance Creationism articles 1329:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism 1015:Soviet and Eastern European Studies 955:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism 865:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism 503:The full paragraph from Alberts is: 426:Completely rewritten, so now moot. 165:It is of interest to the following 125:Knowledge:Recent additions/2007/May 13: 3966:Low-importance Skepticism articles 2270:and one from the recent 2009 poll 1374:Intelligent design and creationism 1324:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎ 130: 14: 3982: 3488:. Please take a moment to review 3328:. Please take a moment to review 2804:. Please take a moment to review 2666:. Please take a moment to review 950:Sternberg peer review controversy 945:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 891:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 226:Knowledge:WikiProject Creationism 131: 3956:WikiProject Creationism articles 2141:The discussion above is closed. 1841:The discussion above is closed. 1768:" (Darwin's and Creationists'). 1764:There is in fact an article on " 859:, and has sunk without a trace. 327:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism 288: 267: 229:Template:WikiProject Creationism 199: 178: 147: 72: 19: 3971:WikiProject Skepticism articles 3941:Knowledge Did you know articles 2846:Corrected formatting/usage for 2443:, as you clearly have garnered 1736:is a reasonable sub-article of 1309:' and, more recently, to allow 1246:"Notable campaigns" in the lead 1195:08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC) The 643:DI "Media Complaints Division"? 347:This article has been rated as 330:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 246:This article has been rated as 3602:08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC) 1480:, so his views are irrelevant 1311:Critical Analysis of Evolution 1133:DI model Academic freedom bill 1126:Alabama Academic freedom bills 1017:bachelor and an award-winning 935:Critical Analysis of Evolution 881:it has had negligible impact. 698:02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 674:19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 638:14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 621:03:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 596:03:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 567:19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 550:17:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 3309:10:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 3269:17:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 3249:17:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 3228:16:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 3201:16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 3163:15:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 3149:15:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 3103:16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 3080:09:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 3057:13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC) 3024:21:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC) 1182:one of the 2005 Alabama bills 1004:10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 906:03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 863:runs a very remote second to 835:Notable campaigns in the lead 825:11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 800:21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 786:21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 761:06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 725:04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 653:16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 499:11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 460:11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 449:11:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 431:11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 424:15:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 409:14:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 380:12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 321:and see a list of open tasks. 220:and see a list of open tasks. 60:contentious topics procedures 3946:C-Class Creationism articles 3922:01:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 3907:01:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 3880:01:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 3860:01:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 3847:was first published in 2006. 3826:01:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 3808:01:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 3777:00:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 3669:18:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 3648:17:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 3630:17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 3218:any sort of explanations. 2788:17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 2134:03:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC) 2096:16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 2078:09:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 2062:22:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 2041:05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 2019:04:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 1967:19:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 1951:09:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 1923:18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 1892:I am proposing merging both 1888:06:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC) 483:National Academy of Sciences 7: 3961:C-Class Skepticism articles 2159:those questions, so be it. 2114:specific to these campaigns 1592:They're back!! Jewish Times 1504:Meyer argues that Creation 1061:WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources 489:Discovery Institute, 2006. 391:Freedom of speech campaigns 10: 3987: 3868:#Whether ID is creationism 3565:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3481:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3435:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3321:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2987:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2797:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2753:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2684:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2659:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2052:, for notability reasons. 1994:Creationism's Trojan Horse 1684:Category:Communist parties 1496:Also, Hrafn mentioned the 1240:01:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 1211:09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1172:08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1154:07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1110:06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 1079:08:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 1035:08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 353:project's importance scale 252:project's importance scale 3752:17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 3734:15:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 3700:10:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 3029:Whether ID is creationism 2643:04:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2592:02:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2577:12:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2563:11:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2540:15:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2508:15:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2461:12:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2395:11:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2381:11:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2318:08:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2299:04:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2284:01:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2231:14:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 2201:14:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 2185:13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 2169:12:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 2025:#What are the highlights? 1836:09:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 1819:20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 1802:21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1782:04:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 1754:02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 1724:19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1704:17:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1668:16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 1646:11:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 1603:20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 1586:19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 940:Kansas evolution hearings 857:Kansas evolution hearings 452:Here's a recent example: 346: 283: 245: 194: 173: 62:before editing this page. 3472:14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC) 2143:Please do not modify it. 1894:Free Speech on Evolution 1861:Please do not modify it. 1843:Please do not modify it. 1619:Please do not modify it. 1540:16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 1488:Please do not modify it. 1460:13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 1443:03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 1411:01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 1369:17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 1253:Free Speech on Evolution 980:Free Speech on Evolution 911:What are the highlights? 845:Free Speech on Evolution 83:appeared on Knowledge's 56:normal editorial process 3477:External links modified 3317:External links modified 2793:External links modified 2655:External links modified 2614:giving "equal validity" 2429:Objections to evolution 1347:13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC) 465:Indirect method example 370:Campaign classification 209:WikiProject Creationism 43:as a contentious topic. 2623:invisible pink unicorn 1384:In a video interview, 1333: 1319:Academic Freedom bills 1279:Darwin's Deadly Legacy 1226:Academic Freedom bills 1023:opinions on everything 515: 491: 298:WikiProject Skepticism 155:This article is rated 136: 52:standards of behaviour 3254:Then a miracle occurs 2445:no support whatsoever 2359:wording, and is thus 1307:Teach the Controversy 1303: 1275:Darwin Day in America 1271:From Darwin to Hitler 931:Teach the Controversy 749:you are looking for. 526:Teach the Controversy 507: 475: 394:Persecution campaigns 134: 3607:Scientific consensus 3546:regular verification 3416:regular verification 2968:regular verification 2734:regular verification 2719:to let others know. 2670:. If necessary, add 2106:direct contradiction 1898:Stand Up For Science 1353:Stand Up For Science 1257:Stand Up For Science 985:Stand Up For Science 853:Stand Up For Science 232:Creationism articles 48:purpose of Knowledge 3536:After February 2018 3406:After February 2018 2958:After February 2018 2937:parameter below to 2724:After February 2018 2715:parameter below to 2349:Zogby International 2156:Zogby International 2150:Feb 2009 Zogby poll 1973:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1590:Another new source 1159:Rough draft is at . 333:Skepticism articles 101:Discovery Institute 3636:something from Pew 3590:InternetArchiveBot 3541:InternetArchiveBot 3460:InternetArchiveBot 3411:InternetArchiveBot 3290:Intelligent Design 3012:InternetArchiveBot 2963:InternetArchiveBot 2729:InternetArchiveBot 2110:completely ignored 1933:Petition campaigns 1734:Darwin's darwinism 1712:Darwin's darwinism 1688:Category:Communism 1509:inferring design. 1416:Can you present a 1351:It turns out that 1120:Santorum Amendment 1021:columnist who has 965:Guillermo Gonzalez 397:Petition campaigns 161:content assessment 137: 114:intelligent design 29:contentious topics 3838: 3740:assume good faith 3702: 3686:comment added by 3566: 3436: 3295:So why should we? 3038:Ronald L. Numbers 2988: 2786: 2754: 1949: 1678:merge" listed in 1546: 1545: 1315:Richard Sternberg 1261:Explore Evolution 1197:2006 Alabama bill 1046:Tammy Faye Bakker 870:Explore Evolution 672: 367: 366: 363: 362: 359: 358: 262: 261: 258: 257: 141: 140: 67: 66: 39:, which has been 3978: 3845:The Creationists 3832: 3730: 3725: 3712: 3681: 3600: 3591: 3564: 3563: 3542: 3470: 3461: 3434: 3433: 3412: 3088:The Creationists 3022: 3013: 2986: 2985: 2964: 2952: 2782: 2781:Talk to my owner 2777: 2752: 2751: 2730: 2685: 2677: 2641: 2619:Russell's teapot 2459: 2379: 2243:better sources: 2229: 2132: 2039: 2017: 1943: 1921: 1886: 1863: 1826:per Dave souza. 1780: 1702: 1644: 1621: 1490: 1473: 1472: 1441: 1367: 1345: 1277:, Coral Ridge's 1238: 1209: 1194: 1178:DI model statute 1170: 1152: 1108: 1077: 1009:Freedom petition 1002: 904: 823: 791:fossilised. . . 759: 696: 671: 669: 664: 636: 619: 594: 565: 548: 535:web.archive.org. 335: 334: 331: 328: 325: 292: 285: 284: 279: 271: 264: 263: 234: 233: 230: 227: 224: 203: 196: 195: 190: 182: 175: 174: 158: 152: 151: 143: 133: 105:public relations 76: 69: 23: 16: 3986: 3985: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3931: 3930: 3912:opinion later. 3760: 3728: 3723: 3706: 3677: 3618:reliable source 3609: 3594: 3589: 3557: 3550:have permission 3540: 3494:this simple FaQ 3479: 3464: 3459: 3427: 3420:have permission 3410: 3334:this simple FaQ 3319: 3188:having produced 3031: 3016: 3011: 2979: 2972:have permission 2962: 2946: 2810:this simple FaQ 2795: 2785: 2780: 2745: 2738:have permission 2728: 2679: 2671: 2657: 2639: 2630: 2457: 2448: 2377: 2368: 2227: 2218: 2152: 2147: 2146: 2130: 2121: 2037: 2028: 2015: 2006: 1997:and browse the 1919: 1910: 1884: 1875: 1870:The result was 1868: 1859: 1852: 1850:Merger proposal 1847: 1846: 1778: 1769: 1700: 1691: 1642: 1633: 1628:The result was 1626: 1617: 1610: 1608:Proposing merge 1551: 1486: 1439: 1430: 1376: 1365: 1356: 1344: 1336: 1248: 1237: 1229: 1208: 1200: 1193: 1185: 1169: 1161: 1151: 1143: 1107: 1099: 1087: 1076: 1068: 1048:of Tallahassee" 1011: 1001: 993: 913: 903: 895: 837: 822: 814: 758: 750: 717:Angry Christian 695: 687: 665: 660: 645: 635: 627: 618: 610: 593: 585: 564: 556: 547: 539: 467: 438: 416: 372: 332: 329: 326: 323: 322: 277: 231: 228: 225: 222: 221: 188: 159:on Knowledge's 156: 50:, any expected 12: 11: 5: 3984: 3974: 3973: 3968: 3963: 3958: 3953: 3948: 3943: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3894:a DI blog post 3892:, which cites 3883: 3882: 3863: 3862: 3848: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3759: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3744:Dr. Fleischman 3736: 3676: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3661:Dr. Fleischman 3640:Dr. Fleischman 3622:Dr. Fleischman 3608: 3605: 3584: 3583: 3576: 3529: 3528: 3520:Added archive 3518: 3510:Added archive 3508: 3500:Added archive 3478: 3475: 3454: 3453: 3446: 3399: 3398: 3390:Added archive 3388: 3380:Added archive 3378: 3370:Added archive 3368: 3360:Added archive 3358: 3350:Added archive 3348: 3340:Added archive 3318: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3296: 3293: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3251: 3215: 3184: 3181: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3114: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3064: 3045: 3044: 3030: 3027: 3006: 3005: 2998: 2931: 2930: 2922:Added archive 2920: 2912:Added archive 2910: 2902:Added archive 2900: 2892:Added archive 2890: 2882:Added archive 2880: 2872:Added archive 2870: 2862:Added archive 2860: 2852:Added archive 2850: 2844: 2836:Added archive 2834: 2826:Added archive 2824: 2816:Added archive 2794: 2791: 2778: 2772: 2771: 2764: 2709: 2708: 2700:Added archive 2698: 2690:Added archive 2656: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2635: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2453: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2373: 2365:does not exist 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2260: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2223: 2204: 2203: 2188: 2187: 2151: 2148: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2126: 2099: 2098: 2080: 2064: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2033: 2021: 2011: 1989: 1954: 1953: 1915: 1880: 1867: 1866: 1854: 1853: 1851: 1848: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1821: 1804: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1774: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1738:Charles Darwin 1727: 1726: 1707: 1706: 1696: 1671: 1670: 1638: 1625: 1624: 1612: 1611: 1609: 1606: 1575: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1563: 1562: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1528: 1527: 1519: 1518: 1492: 1491: 1482: 1481: 1476:Myer is not a 1463: 1462: 1445: 1435: 1396: 1395: 1375: 1372: 1361: 1340: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1286: 1264: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1233: 1204: 1189: 1165: 1147: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1128: 1122: 1103: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1072: 1010: 1007: 997: 990: 989: 988: 987: 982: 974: 973: 972: 967: 959: 958: 957: 952: 947: 942: 937: 912: 909: 899: 879:media campaign 836: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 818: 805: 804: 803: 802: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 754: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 703: 702: 701: 700: 691: 677: 676: 644: 641: 631: 614: 607:incompleteness 599: 598: 589: 560: 543: 537: 536: 532: 529: 469:Odd Nature is 466: 463: 451: 440:They spend an 437: 434: 415: 412: 402: 401: 398: 395: 392: 389: 371: 368: 365: 364: 361: 360: 357: 356: 349:Low-importance 345: 339: 338: 336: 319:the discussion 293: 281: 280: 278:Low‑importance 272: 260: 259: 256: 255: 248:Mid-importance 244: 238: 237: 235: 218:the discussion 204: 192: 191: 189:Mid‑importance 183: 171: 170: 164: 153: 139: 138: 128: 122: 121: 116:and discredit 77: 65: 64: 37:fringe science 24: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3983: 3972: 3969: 3967: 3964: 3962: 3959: 3957: 3954: 3952: 3949: 3947: 3944: 3942: 3939: 3938: 3936: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3846: 3842: 3836: 3835:edit conflict 3831: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3735: 3731: 3726: 3720: 3716: 3710: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3655: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3632: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3614: 3604: 3603: 3598: 3593: 3592: 3581: 3577: 3574: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3561: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3537: 3532: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3482: 3474: 3473: 3468: 3463: 3462: 3451: 3447: 3444: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3431: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3407: 3402: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3322: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3294: 3291: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3270: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3250: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3234: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3216: 3213: 3208: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3189: 3185: 3182: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3124: 3119: 3115: 3112: 3111: 3108: 3104: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3043: 3039: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3026: 3025: 3020: 3015: 3014: 3003: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2983: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2959: 2954: 2950: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2849: 2845: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2798: 2790: 2789: 2783: 2776: 2769: 2765: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2749: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2725: 2720: 2718: 2714: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2683: 2675: 2669: 2665: 2660: 2644: 2640: 2638: 2634: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2575: 2571: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500:FeloniousMonk 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2462: 2458: 2456: 2452: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2378: 2376: 2372: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291:FeloniousMonk 2287: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2232: 2228: 2226: 2222: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2202: 2199: 2195: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2157: 2144: 2135: 2131: 2129: 2125: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2084: 2081: 2079: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2065: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2048: 2047: 2042: 2038: 2036: 2032: 2026: 2022: 2020: 2016: 2014: 2010: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1990: 1987: 1983: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1952: 1947: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1918: 1914: 1908: 1904: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1883: 1879: 1873: 1865: 1862: 1856: 1855: 1844: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1805: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1789: 1788: 1783: 1779: 1777: 1773: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1699: 1695: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1676: 1673: 1672: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1643: 1641: 1637: 1631: 1623: 1620: 1614: 1613: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1571: 1570: 1565: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1555: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1502: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1474: 1471: 1469: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1444: 1440: 1438: 1434: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1394: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1387: 1386:Stephen Meyer 1382: 1381:For example, 1379: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1364: 1360: 1354: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1339: 1332: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1302: 1294: 1291: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1241: 1236: 1232: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1207: 1203: 1198: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1173: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1129: 1127: 1123: 1121: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1111: 1106: 1102: 1096: 1092: 1080: 1075: 1071: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1006: 1005: 1000: 996: 986: 983: 981: 978: 977: 975: 971: 968: 966: 963: 962: 960: 956: 953: 951: 948: 946: 943: 941: 938: 936: 932: 929: 928: 926: 925: 924: 922: 918: 915:According to 908: 907: 902: 898: 893: 892: 887: 882: 880: 876: 872: 871: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 841: 826: 821: 817: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 801: 798: 794: 789: 788: 787: 783: 779: 775: 772: 771: 762: 757: 753: 748: 744: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 726: 722: 718: 714: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 699: 694: 690: 685: 681: 680: 679: 678: 675: 670: 668: 663: 657: 656: 655: 654: 651: 640: 639: 634: 630: 623: 622: 617: 613: 608: 604: 597: 592: 588: 583: 579: 575: 571: 570: 569: 568: 563: 559: 552: 551: 546: 542: 533: 530: 527: 523: 522: 521: 518: 514: 513: 506: 505: 501: 500: 497: 490: 488: 484: 480: 474: 472: 462: 461: 458: 455: 450: 447: 443: 433: 432: 429: 425: 423: 411: 410: 407: 399: 396: 393: 390: 387: 386: 385: 382: 381: 378: 354: 350: 344: 341: 340: 337: 320: 316: 312: 311:pseudohistory 308: 307:pseudoscience 304: 300: 299: 294: 291: 287: 286: 282: 276: 273: 270: 266: 265: 253: 249: 243: 240: 239: 236: 219: 215: 211: 210: 205: 202: 198: 197: 193: 187: 184: 181: 177: 176: 172: 168: 162: 154: 150: 145: 144: 129: 126: 119: 115: 111: 110: 106: 102: 99:... that the 98: 95: 94: 92: 91: 86: 82: 78: 75: 71: 70: 63: 61: 57: 53: 49: 44: 42: 38: 34: 33:pseudoscience 30: 25: 22: 18: 17: 3844: 3840: 3813: 3783: 3761: 3718: 3709:Weasel tango 3688:Weasel tango 3682:— Preceding 3678: 3633: 3610: 3588: 3585: 3560:source check 3539: 3533: 3530: 3483: 3480: 3458: 3455: 3430:source check 3409: 3403: 3400: 3323: 3320: 3206: 3187: 3136: 3117: 3091: 3087: 3046: 3032: 3010: 3007: 2982:source check 2961: 2955: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2932: 2799: 2796: 2773: 2748:source check 2727: 2721: 2716: 2712: 2710: 2661: 2658: 2631: 2626: 2551: 2547: 2528: 2449: 2444: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2344: 2304: 2219: 2153: 2142: 2122: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2083:Oppose Merge 2082: 2066: 2054:Aunt Entropy 2049: 2029: 2007: 2002: 1992: 1982:specifically 1981: 1976: 1932: 1928: 1911: 1907:specifically 1906: 1902: 1891: 1876: 1871: 1869: 1860: 1857: 1842: 1823: 1807:Oppose merge 1806: 1790: 1770: 1692: 1674: 1651: 1634: 1630:not to merge 1629: 1627: 1618: 1615: 1589: 1576: 1567:weaknesses." 1552: 1529: 1523: 1511: 1505: 1503: 1495: 1487: 1467: 1464: 1448: 1431: 1400: 1397: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1357: 1350: 1334: 1322: 1304: 1300: 1289: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1217: 1175: 1158: 1157: 1141: 1136:Florida bill 1113: 1088: 1064: 1053:Ronda Storms 1022: 1018: 1014: 1012: 991: 920: 914: 889: 885: 883: 878: 874: 868: 842: 838: 746: 742: 712: 683: 666: 661: 648:otherwise)? 646: 624: 606: 602: 600: 581: 577: 553: 538: 519: 516: 510: 508: 502: 494:an opinion? 492: 478: 476: 471:emphatically 470: 468: 441: 439: 418: 417: 403: 383: 373: 348: 296: 247: 207: 167:WikiProjects 107: 97:Did you know 96: 90:Did you know 88: 80: 79:A fact from 45: 26: 3872:Hob Gadling 3800:Hob Gadling 3301:Hob Gadling 3233:Creationism 3072:Hob Gadling 2949:Sourcecheck 2529:<ri: --> 2441:WP:FRINGE/N 2211:cold fusion 2088:Ottava Rima 1959:Ottava Rima 1828:Itsmejudith 1716:Itsmejudith 1660:Itsmejudith 1059:), I claim 223:Creationism 214:Creationism 186:Creationism 112:to promote 3935:Categories 3597:Report bug 3467:Report bug 3262:dave souza 3242:dave souza 3220:TomS TDotO 3156:dave souza 3096:dave souza 3019:Report bug 2570:dave souza 2533:dave souza 2353:irrelevant 2215:WP:SELFPUB 2194:dave souza 2177:TomS TDotO 2118:explicated 2071:dave souza 2067:Merge both 1929:Merge both 1811:Odd nature 1795:dave souza 1742:summarized 1595:Odd nature 1578:Odd nature 1549:New source 1524:Fitzmiller 1453:dave souza 1216:Given the 1124:2004-2006 875:eventually 793:dave souza 778:Odd nature 713:Renewal of 603:recitation 324:Skepticism 315:skepticism 275:Skepticism 41:designated 3914:Guettarda 3899:Guettarda 3890:this edit 3852:Guettarda 3818:Guettarda 3765:SwineHerd 3580:this tool 3573:this tool 3450:this tool 3443:this tool 3118:motivated 3002:this tool 2995:this tool 2768:this tool 2761:this tool 2361:worthless 1903:generally 1791:Disagree: 1766:Darwinism 1675:Disagree: 1652:Proposing 1281:& in 1273:, West's 1222:WP:BOLDly 1057:Ben Stein 1042:Alan Hays 400:Criticism 135:Knowledge 118:evolution 109:campaigns 103:conducts 85:Main Page 54:, or any 3773:contribs 3696:contribs 3684:unsigned 3634:I found 3586:Cheers.— 3456:Cheers.— 3238:Asa Gray 3193:Uncle Ed 3141:Uncle Ed 3049:Uncle Ed 3008:Cheers.— 2774:Cheers.— 2674:cbignore 2584:Northfox 2555:Northfox 2387:Northfox 2310:Northfox 2276:Northfox 2253:Northfox 2161:Northfox 1941:Eldereft 1824:Conceded 1680:WP:MERGE 1532:Uncle Ed 1403:Uncle Ed 1290:Expelled 1283:Expelled 1259:, & 1027:Northfox 921:personal 684:possible 442:enormous 3738:Please 3729:Neonate 3715:WP:LEAD 3490:my edit 3330:my edit 3258:debated 3116:merely 2935:checked 2806:my edit 2784::Online 2713:checked 2668:my edit 2437:WP:RS/N 2027:above. 1986:WP:NOTE 1561:design" 1095:notable 1067:to it. 917:WP:LEAD 849:WP:NOTE 650:Hrafn42 582:without 578:clearly 574:WP:PSTS 512:itself. 496:Hrafn42 457:Hrafn42 446:Hrafn42 428:Hrafn42 422:Hrafn42 406:Hrafn42 377:Hrafn42 351:on the 303:science 250:on the 157:C-class 87:in the 3260:. . . 3094:. . . 2943:failed 2682:nobots 2621:, the 2447:here. 2357:biased 2247:, and 1746:Merzul 1732:Well, 1506:begins 1498:WP:DUE 1427:WP:DUE 1423:WP:RSs 1388:said, 1218:masses 1180:& 1130:2008: 1118:2001: 923:view: 667:Marlin 662:Orange 163:scale. 3814:older 3724:Paleo 3657:found 3654:Found 3252:p.s. 2637:Stalk 2633:Hrafn 2610:WP:RS 2455:Stalk 2451:Hrafn 2375:Stalk 2371:Hrafn 2345:other 2225:Stalk 2221:Hrafn 2128:Stalk 2124:Hrafn 2050:Merge 2035:Stalk 2031:Hrafn 2013:Stalk 2009:Hrafn 1946:cont. 1937:WP:ID 1917:Stalk 1913:Hrafn 1882:Stalk 1878:Hrafn 1874:. -- 1872:merge 1776:Stalk 1772:Hrafn 1698:Stalk 1694:Hrafn 1640:Stalk 1636:Hrafn 1632:. -- 1478:WP:RS 1437:Stalk 1433:Hrafn 1418:WP:RS 1363:Stalk 1359:Hrafn 1342:Stalk 1338:Hrafn 1235:Stalk 1231:Hrafn 1206:Stalk 1202:Hrafn 1191:Stalk 1187:Hrafn 1167:Stalk 1163:Hrafn 1149:Stalk 1145:Hrafn 1105:Stalk 1101:Hrafn 1074:Stalk 1070:Hrafn 1065:logic 1019:sport 999:Stalk 995:Hrafn 901:Stalk 897:Hrafn 820:Stalk 816:Hrafn 756:Stalk 752:Hrafn 743:where 693:Stalk 689:Hrafn 633:Stalk 629:Hrafn 616:Stalk 612:Hrafn 591:Stalk 587:Hrafn 562:Stalk 558:Hrafn 545:Stalk 541:Hrafn 388:Goals 3918:talk 3903:talk 3876:talk 3870:. -- 3856:talk 3822:talk 3804:talk 3769:talk 3748:talk 3692:talk 3665:talk 3644:talk 3626:talk 3613:said 3305:talk 3266:talk 3246:talk 3224:talk 3197:talk 3160:talk 3145:talk 3100:talk 3076:talk 3068:this 3053:talk 2939:true 2717:true 2588:talk 2574:talk 2559:talk 2537:talk 2504:talk 2431:and 2391:talk 2314:talk 2295:talk 2280:talk 2272:here 2268:here 2264:here 2257:talk 2249:here 2245:here 2198:talk 2181:talk 2165:talk 2092:talk 2075:talk 2058:talk 2003:this 1977:this 1963:talk 1939:) - 1896:and 1832:talk 1815:talk 1799:talk 1750:talk 1720:talk 1664:talk 1599:talk 1582:talk 1536:talk 1457:talk 1407:talk 1091:here 1031:talk 873:may 797:talk 782:talk 747:what 721:talk 313:and 35:and 27:The 3775:) 3554:RfC 3524:to 3514:to 3504:to 3424:RfC 3394:to 3384:to 3374:to 3364:to 3354:to 3344:to 2976:RfC 2953:). 2941:or 2926:to 2916:to 2906:to 2896:to 2886:to 2876:to 2866:to 2856:to 2840:to 2830:to 2820:to 2742:RfC 2704:to 2694:to 2627:new 2439:or 1517:so. 886:not 343:Low 242:Mid 3937:: 3920:) 3905:) 3878:) 3858:) 3824:) 3806:) 3750:) 3732:– 3698:) 3694:• 3667:) 3659:-- 3646:) 3628:) 3567:. 3562:}} 3558:{{ 3437:. 3432:}} 3428:{{ 3307:) 3299:-- 3264:, 3256:– 3244:, 3226:) 3199:) 3191:-- 3158:, 3147:) 3098:, 3078:) 3055:) 2989:. 2984:}} 2980:{{ 2951:}} 2947:{{ 2755:. 2750:}} 2746:{{ 2680:{{ 2676:}} 2672:{{ 2590:) 2572:, 2561:) 2535:, 2506:) 2393:) 2316:) 2297:) 2282:) 2196:, 2183:) 2167:) 2094:) 2073:, 2060:) 1965:) 1834:) 1817:) 1797:, 1752:) 1722:) 1714:. 1666:) 1658:. 1601:) 1584:) 1538:) 1468:is 1455:, 1449:is 1409:) 1255:, 1228:. 1033:) 867:. 851:. 795:, 784:) 776:. 723:) 528:); 309:, 305:, 3916:( 3901:( 3874:( 3854:( 3837:) 3833:( 3820:( 3802:( 3771:/ 3767:( 3746:( 3711:: 3707:@ 3690:( 3663:( 3642:( 3624:( 3599:) 3595:( 3582:. 3575:. 3469:) 3465:( 3452:. 3445:. 3303:( 3222:( 3207:= 3195:( 3143:( 3074:( 3051:( 3021:) 3017:( 3004:. 2997:. 2770:. 2763:. 2586:( 2557:( 2502:( 2389:( 2312:( 2293:( 2278:( 2259:) 2255:( 2179:( 2163:( 2090:( 2056:( 1961:( 1948:) 1944:( 1830:( 1813:( 1748:( 1718:( 1662:( 1597:( 1580:( 1534:( 1405:( 1331:. 1292:) 1285:) 1051:( 1029:( 780:( 719:( 355:. 254:. 169:: 127:. 120:?

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index