Talk:Michael Behe - Knowledge

5189:

incorrect, but the first does have some limited truth value. I was suggesting a compromise with the individual whoever placed in the statement. Behe will deny certain facets of Evolutionary Theory, but that his work is pseudo-science is really an improper disparagement ... To sum, that ID may be a metaphysical position does not entail it is pseudo-scientific. And consequently, Dr. Behe, along with many others, such as Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Stephen Meyer, and Dr. Jonathan Wells, will deny Evolutionary Theory, some in totality, some not. Behe is more of an interesting intermediate thinker, more so perhaps on the side of Darwinism than not (as the article suggests), but that he pulls the entire theory of Darwinism away from its formerly central locus of *Naturalism*, and envisions it a much more Metaphysical, and quite possibly Religious, light. Dr. Behe's simple protest is to the Naturalism present in Darwinian Theory. So I might therefore suggest, for the article: "Dr. Behe will deny Darwinism as necessarily being a Naturalistic Theory... In all likelihood, it is not." Is this acceptable? And btw. David: Sorry for the discussion. And you can delete what you want. JGL (

2121:

Darwin's Black Box where Behe says that the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex, meaning that if you remove one of the factors the system will no longer work. Doolittle found that the pufferfish was missing three of the factors and the system still worked. Miller said that his disproves Behe's prediction. Behe said that he had excluded those three factors from his definition of the irreducibly complex system, and so Doolittle's finding did not conflict with his prediction. The answer to the question revolves around how you interpret the simple English he used on pages 86 and 87 of his book. I maintain that since this is a disputed point, and since it can be explained in a brief space, it should be explained. And I believe that Behe's remark about the "principle of malicious reading" is relevant in that it shows his belief that a good-faith reading of what he wrote supports his position. I also included references showing the reader how to get to the relevant testimony of both Miller and Behe on this issue. These additions are more helpful to the reader than just declaring that one of the sides was correct.--

2242:

negative. And the opposing quotations just spoke at a general level. And we need to also include the "God of the gaps" accusation (a form of Argument from Ignorance). We need to reference some specific arguments that Behe says turn his position into something other than an Argument from Ignorance. We also need specific rebuttals: why the particular arguments he is making fail to rescue his position from being an Argument from Ignorance and/or fail to be cogent arguments against the mainstream position. The web is a big place. If anybody knows of any good material on either side, and hasn't got the time right now to incorporate it into the article, just make a little note right here on this page, saying: "Check out this link" and I will either form it into a compact argument or I will tell you why I believe that there might be a better source for that particular point (or I will tell you that I haven't got any time right now to do any editing). The bottom line is this:

2070:

warrant his own article, you would argue that his descriptions of the Ptolemaic system, being the one that he asserts is the correct one, and statements of his planetary observations, may not be used in the article since (a) this violates parity of sources, (b) presenting his theory through the use of his own words would constitute the making of an argument on his behalf, and (c) there would be no way, then, that it would be possible to present modern experts who could demonstrate to the reader how far off-base this man is. You say that when a reader wants to understand a man's theory, hearing it expressed by the man himself does not tend to clarify exactly what the theory is. Rather, that is to be avoided in the case of a fringe theory because of the likelihood that no cogent arguments will be available to show the flaws in the fringe theory, and because consequently people will be led astray.

3818:

grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science.". I count 5 claims here. The second sentence, "Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.", is a weasel with an addition 4 or 5 claims depending on how one counts. This kind of analysis is by definition OR based on primary sources forbidden in articles much less BLPs. If the claims are supported elsewhere references beyond the primary sources need to be provided.

5153:

that his ideas re Intelligent Design "have no basis in science, & etc." Yet a religious, metaphysical, or philosophical concept, such as Intelligent Design, may indeed 'something to do' with science, and even very well at it's roots. It all depends on whether the concept (Intelligent Design) is true or not. The statement by the school assumes the truth of the negative value of ID, and *if that is correct*, sure, ID has no basis in science. (Yet fiat does not work in education.) The point of not having Falsifiability, and of metaphysical conjecture, can be made against the Naturalists themselves... Each side represents a metaphysical position. Therefore, Lehigh's stance that ID has "no basis" in science, without proof, reasons, or even discussion, is a rather rude manner to treat one of their own Professors. Nonetheless, the article had them in quotes. (Agreed.)

2025:

view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader.

1447:

that is irreducibly complex and I meant those limitations to also be in force when I discussed the same system on page 87, even though my use of the word “entire” might seem to negate that.” The reason I quoted the relevant material from pages 86 and 87 was so that the reader could evaluate this question for himself. I don’t see how a secondary source on the “notability or interpretation” of this claim is needed, or even what kind of a statement that would be. We clearly have both Miller and the Judge saying that the claim is not credible. It is nevertheless Behe’s statement of what he intended and he still gets to make it, even if he is the only one in the world who believes it. Not true?--

6831: 5844:

since there's no way to get to the past to make empirical tests, and see how individuals can become populations for example, in order to get populations you must first have individuals. It's the very existence of individuals that is problematic for Darwinism. There is also no proof that DNA mutates based on environment. Darwin didn't know science as we know today, he didn't know how complex DNA is for example. Science is always open to new discovery. Now I don't see any reasons why there's in every line of the page the words intelligent design, it is being used in a very pejorative and sentimental way.

4738:

His theory of irreducible complexity is often described as a pseeudo-science. That's one of the more polite terms I've heard scientists use to describe it. The point here being, that he's not just promoting a theory which is unpopular in science (a fringe theory), but one which is considered absurd by mainstream science. If you could show that the sources cited are in some way fringe or not in line with the scientific consensus I'd be open to changing my mind about this. I've read the sources and they just seem to be saying much the same thing as just about every critique of Behe's very flawed work. --

6337:

the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." Presentation of that religious proposition as science makes it pseudoscience. . . .

768: 2993:, I'd have a section summarizing his views and their critique with a link to the main article on irreducible complexity . Another short summary section for the book and its critique, linking to the main article on that topic. The section on "the wedge" or whatever its called has interesting information not covered elsewhere so it should stay although it could use a good clean up. As it stands there's too much back and forth that is irrelevant to a biography. In any case, I don't have a dog in the hunt so don't shoot the messenger. I'm just on BLP patrol. 747: 3079:. For example, one can not support the contention that "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community" with an opinion piece by a non-scientist (ref 1) who doesn't make that claim, a WP piece that's not on point(ref 2), and an article by an non-notable author on a non-RS website(ref 3). And none of these references make the claim, true as it may be, that " have been rejected by the scientific community". Stringing references together to make a point none of them make 3978:

D. should be discussed in school? Did he claim that evolution as the origin of species should or should not be taught in school? How did the judge “rely heavily on his testimony” but rule against the side which called him? Had Behe been forced to say things which he did not want so say? Or maybe Behe made other statements which the judge could not accept? If so, what where they? Or maybe the ruling was on narrow legal grounds. Currently we are expected to use our imagination to interpret Behe's statements in a way embarrassing to him.

1352:

Behe. That might be sufficient for someone who is looking for a cursory treatment of the issue, but would not be for someone who wants the issue presented in greater depth. Perhaps we should split the article into an overview at the beginning, and then have a series of sections later on for those who want more information on a particular issue. But for those who come to Knowledge trying to research the question of intellectual dishonesty or whether Behe has been refuted, I don't see how we get around the need for this level of detail.

387: 1777:

the literature. That they don't (and I include both pro- and anti-Behe viewpoints here), tells us that we're on political ground. That said, I've no objection to including the sources here, but we don't need to so relentlessly bore the reader with endless detail that they could look up themselves by following a link. In passing, one of the sources is actually Behe's Amazon blog - is this likely to be judged a reliable source? Meanwhile, as I've noted before, another long block of quotation in support of this book is from

663: 642: 861: 840: 2528:"Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution." This entire paragraph is unsourced and needs to be removed or sourced. 3963:

exciting and moving plot. It goes something like this: The narrow minded scientific community pursues its atheistic agenda at all cost! Dissent must not be tolerated! Since they are unable to adequately answer Behe's arguments, the biology faculty of his university takes the unusual step of publishing a rambling statement repudiating his views without addressing them. His status as a scientist is inconvenient, but no matter, his ideas are, with the stroke of a pen, defined as non-science!

2525:"Furthermore, Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public, gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific method." - impugns the authors motives. One is tempted to use the "L" word to describe this statement. Cites don't help here. You need to quote a secondary source so that it doesn't appear that it is WP who is making this charge. 1152: 442: 415: 673: 933: 6569:

the reader before they even have started to read the article. Also, in his latest book, "Darwin Devolves", Behe reasons scientifically, cites numerous peer reviewed journals, and draws scientifically accurate conclusions. Given the evidence presented in this book that shows that random mutations typically remove, not add genetic information, it is the Darwinian industrial complex that is "pseudoscientific". Read the book for yourself if you dare.

5035:. You can't combine source A (Behe believes in ID) with source B (a random UCLA professor says ID is pseudoscience) to produce statement C (Behe's beliefs are pseudoscience). To support this statement, you need a source specifically saying Behe's beliefs are pseudoscience, or you need to rephrase the statement appropriately (eg. "Behe is a believer of intelligent design, a theory regarded as pseudoscience by much of the scientific community"). 325: 301: 565: 6982: 6903: 6783: 6617: 6541: 4190:

he's one of a very tiny number of bona fide scientists working in a relevant area who support the claim of intelligent design as science. Are there even three other biochemists who support his arguments?). "Many members of the scientific community" doesn't convey the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't consider irreducible complexity as a legimate scientific idea, theory, insight, research program, what-have you.

555: 534: 502: 2760:

mentioned until more than half way through where we learn that he went to some kind of meeting ("at Pajaro Dunes") where he presented an idea. A "supplementary textbook" called Of Pandas and People swims into view. Somebody edited it. Who? Behe? It seems that Behe is somehow connected with one Philip E. Johnson (helpfully identified as "a lawyer"). How exactly? What exactly is the "Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars"?

998: 1041: 270: 5963:"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable— 2512:"Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures." - Unsourced 6670: 7027: 5261:, you removed my citation needed tag after "Numerous scientists have debunked the work", claiming in your edit description that "citations are given". Which citations are you referring to? I'm talking about a citation that demonstrates that numerous scientists have debunked the work. I don't see a source that supports that claim. Please show the allegedly given citations. Thanks. 3669:"In 1993, Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial" - one reference is a blog, the other a primary source (trial transcript) 4007:. That aside, I think many editors are working at cross purposes to their goal. A reader who is convinced one way or another re ID or IC or whatever is unpersuadable. Those who come here with an uninformed view will immediately recognize an article like this as a partisan hit piece and discount its content accordingly. The most important and often overlooked aspect of 335: 1656:

everything else could also be covered in a different article. I simply added his response, which required a little more detail about the controversy. I think that we have to accept that if there's going to be both an article about Behe and one about the book, then there is going to be some overlap. Could you be more specific about what you mean by bloat and

4437:. We might want to attribute it to him in the sentence, but overall it makes sense to call a spade a spade here. The denialist statement is unequivocal, while the "rejected by the scientific community" isn't strong enough in my opinion. Still, I would change it to something like "has been characterized as an evolution denialist" as it just sounds better. 3811:

that's ok. Re 4, My mistake. I've stuck the entry in the list. Re 16, ok but I would reject the editorializing ("polemical attack") as non-encyclopedic and not supported in your cite, which uses the (also non-encyclopedic) term "assails". The article in many places uses language one would expect to find on an op-ed page and not in a high quality encyclopedia.

2873:

are described wholly inadequately, sometimes in one sentence, then there is a much longer description of the criticism, and then there are even longer quotes from him as a rebuttal to some narrow point in the criticism. This style is confusing and uninformative in the extreme. In several cases this 'discussion' wanders far from the theme of the subheading.

5246:

cited, but I doubt it since the article has nothing to do with irreducible complexity but rather casts doubt on whether Darwinian processes as currently understood can account for the evolution of biochemical systems. Also, there is no cite for the assertion that "[references to IC were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers."

1851:

judge formally found that Miller's view was the correct one? That Behe did not publish this in a scientific article would be relevant to whether the blood clotting mechanism is irreducibly complex. It is not relevant to the determination of how he defined the system that he said was irreducibly complex. For that, we just look at what he wrote.

2721:. As of Jan. there is a push to clean up the BLP space. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced material and editors are to be "firm" in their insistence on well sourced material. And please note the burden of proof for re-insertion is with the editor re-inserting. The reverting editor did not attempt to justify the sourcing as required. 1466:

We cite Miller and the Judge, if need be we can go further and show that only a tiny fringe of expert biologists, if any, believe Behe's claim. You're giving a big lump of incoherent text to give undue weight to that fringe view. Knowledge is about reflecting scholarly secondary sources, not about giving a right of reply to cranks. . .

4980:, and it's good advice. If you can find good sourcing for "denialism" as being a widely applied term, then place it in the body. Once it's there, it will probably be worth putting in the lead. Nothing should be in the lead that isn't in the article, as the lead is a summary of the article, not a section of the article itself.— 3035:. Discussion is not required to remove unsourced and non-RS sourced material. Editors are to be "very firm" in there insistence on solid sources and the onus for providing evidence to support re-insertion lies with you, the re-inserting editor. I've added a BLP dispute tag to the article page. It appears this 4601:

someone, we cannot omit it because it is negative. Including such is not polemic nor controversial. If we did omit any such terms or facts then most biographical articles would be incredibly short and misleading. Maintaining a neutral tone and respect for the subject =/= leaving out relevant information.

6336:

202.27.212.13, you're edit warring to remove a properly sourced statement, despite noting at the top of this thread that BLP removal of info only applies to "unsourced or poorly sourced" material. As for Kitzmiller, "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that

5152:

I apologize, have not read fully here, yet I have a simple idea for consideration: Dr. Behe's ideas should generally be considered as Evolutionary Theory denialism , as long as Evolutionism itself is classified in the field of Naturalism. His ideas are meta-scientific.... Lehigh's stance is in part

5023:

that doesn't support the claim that Behe is a denialist. In fact, it specifically distinguishes between 'denial movements' and the 'intelligent design movement', then examines members of the latter: "The Intelligent Design (ID) movement does marginally better, so let's look at a few of the players in

3605:

Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which

2924:

I took the trouble to edit in a series so that any objections could be raised on a point be point bases. I was very careful to check sources but it is possible I made a mistake. If you would like to re-insert some material feel free but be prepared to justify your sources. Note that court transcripts

2872:

I have just spent time studying the Richard Dawkins page where the critical comments are presented as Ravensfire describes. It seems to work, so I withdraw my objection. The difference is that that page is well done while this page is a mess. Dawkins' views are clearly described while Behe's views

2647:

I do not believe that adding more rebuttals from Behe will help. Doing so would simply make the article more confusing than it already is. Instead it needs to be reorganized so that the reader can clearly see what his views are, to what extent they differ from mainstream thought, and to what extent

2584:

Per the above I have removed unsourced or non-RS sourced material. With minor exceptions I've not attempted to fix the holes this leaves in the article which I will leave to someone familiar with the subject matter. Editors reverting the above edits or adding new material should be prepared to defend

2518:

The statement "In 1996, Behe published his ideas on irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box, which was rejected by the scientific community." is unsupported and probably unsupportable. Say specifically who rejected it or find a statement from a scientific body qualified to speak for the

2455:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute

2278:

Do not restore your edits until you have convinced us they are necessary. You have no consensus to do so. I see no one supporting you here. We told you we don't think they are necessary, and you haven't even told us why they are. We've told you repeatedly. This is not the page to debate Behe's ideas.

2221:

The critical thing that this person is failing to realize is that the only thing that this article is about is Behe's opinion and how it differs from mainstream scientific opinion. People come to this article because they want to know about Behe's opinion - i.e. his theory. I think that this is the

1947:

2) The burden falls on you to justify inclusion of new material. Not of me to justify reversion of your edits. The fact that multiple people have reverted your edits should indicate to you that consensus does not support the inclusion of that material. I do not intend to defend my reversions point

1720:

Clearly, if a response to an accusation is available it needs to be supplied, and when we move from direct quotations to paraphrasing we lose something. This has to be weighed against the benefit to be gained by reducing the size of the article. To eviscerate a response in order to cut it down from

1716:

I think that it might make sense to divide this article up into various conceptual categories rather than into books. I started to break these categories out and another person objected, saying that he thought it should all stay under the book heading. Much of the material I added was simply Behe’s

1465:

The fact that you read Behe's abrasive response as suggesting "Behe has no fond feelings for Miller" doesn't mean that someone else might read it as normal banter – got a source sharing your view? And that says nothing about Miller's views, let alone support the idea that he has "animosity" for Behe.

1442:

The sentence beginning “The final paragraph…” was intended merely as a segue into the events at the trial. I thought that it just stated the obvious. What do you mean by “pure synthesis”? It is clear from what Behe wrote (“breathlessly reports,” “seems to have passed Miller by,” “malicious reading”)

1351:

What I have tried to do is give the reader the relevant facts related to this, as well as the arguments on both sides. This will help anyone who is trying to get to the bottom of these particular accusations to decide the question for himself. Previously, we just said that Doolittle's study refuted

1259:

not attempting to report only one side of the issue. If you think that I am guilty of this, please point it out. But if it takes a few extra paragraphs for Behe’s response to be presented in a coherent fashion, then I don’t see why that should not be done. This is an article about him, after all.--

1258:

I am following the third approach: explaining the subject’s reasoning. I have tried to trim the response down as much as I can, but there is a limit to this. I certainly think it’s appropriate to report a rejoinder after the response, if one exists, as I included in the “unfalsifiable” portion. I am

5873:

It's also worth noting that the term "Darwinism" is increasingly used only by those with an agenda to create the impression that evolution is an "ism", a belief system, involving one man, one book and one theory, rather than a series of scientific discoveries including those documenting evolution in

5843:

There is absolutely no need to spam the word "ID" or Intelligent Design in the whole page. Behe doesn't even disagree with Darwin in some concepts, his work despite some people not agreeing with everything in it has been of great contribution to the debate, the debate of how consistent evolution is,

5245:

This is incoherent and incorrect. I've read the article and as the original entry states, the paper does not mention irreducible complexity. So how can it be true that he states it "supports irreducible complexity" (which is a nonsensical phrase anyway). If he stated this somewhere else it should be

4189:

I think something like "rejected by an overwhelming majority of scientists," or of "biologists," might be better--it indicates that the rejection by professional scientists is nearly universal (which, as far as I can tell, it is--Behe is so prominent because he is the exception that proves the rule:

3977:

The section on Dover could could be very interesting, if improved. Unhappily, the information about Behe's testimony seems to have been selected for juicyness rather than informative power. Questions abound: Did he take a position on the central issue of the case? For example, did he claim that I.

3695:

Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously

3533:

This section is nearly half of the article, and really needs to be trimmed some. A significant amount of the length is from the many long quotes from the book, from critics and from Behe's responses to criticism. I think most of those quotes can be removed, with the critical comments and responses

3388:

I've added "author" back into the intro, he's fairly well known for the books. I also slightly shortened the case mention by removing the "extensively cited by the judge". That is in the case section and shouldn't be in the intro. I also tweaked the wording some to indicate he's testified in several

2745:

Ravensfire, you object to the "wholesale removal of Behe's involvement" and call it "whitewashing". To what are you referring? If you mean the section about his involvement in the promotion of I.D., then of course it shouldn't be removed. Well actually, it probably should be removed until someone

2642:

In many cases, the views of Behe's opponents are described or can be inferred from the criticism which they level against him, but his views remain obscure. This makes it particularly difficult to interpret the quotes from the Dover decision. I am pretty sure that many of the 'damaging admissions'

1831:

theories. Those goals must be accomplished through commentary, response and rebuttal in the same article. The reader is entitled to have the actual, original theory presented to him and often there is nobody better able to present it than the fringe scientist himself. If the words of the scientist

6021:

Well, the fact of the matter is that you are outnumbered. Most editors interested in the article clearly disagree with your position, so obviously you are going to have to convince them that they are wrong if you want to accomplish anything here. What is the evidence that there is a "bad citation?"

5241:

The original read "..which he states supports irreducible complexity, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest

5204:

One more point for all: it seems like Professor M. Behe's ideas are pulling very close to that of Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, as expressed in Finding Darwin's God (1999). The latter's defense of Darwinism, in that book, was in part a reply, and even an attempt at refutation, of Dr. Michael Behe's ideas

5108:

has the guideline "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." That explicitly rules out using the personal web page of Donald E. Simanek, which had

3958:

Leaving aside the question of whether the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to persuade, I think they overestimate the article's persuasive power. I suggest they try to read it through in the role of devil's advocate. Much of what was previously damning evidence now looks like spin-doctoring.

3817:

It is true that Primary sources ≠ OR. But analysis based on primary sources is OR. Take the first sentence: "In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment

3810:

Thanks for your help. I'd like to put discussion beyond a single comment inserted into the list above (as you have done) here so as to maintain readability. I've switched to a numbered list for easy reference. In order to get it to format correctly I had to change your input from '**' to '##'. Hope

3101:

I can respect the synthesis issue, but let's talk about the flip-side. None of Behe's theories have been accepted by the scientific community. He's a pariah, an outcast in his own university, which took the unusual step of publicly repudiating him and saying that his entire field is unscientific on

2690:

The wholesale removal of Behe's involvement is whitewashing, as is the removal of much of the material critical of his viewpoints. Some of your changes seem acceptable, but overall the net impact to the article is negative. Per BRD, you should be discussing the changes here, not reverting back to

2662:

Any comments re the BLP issues raised above? I've been going through the cites and many are are not of sufficient quality to be used in a BLP. If no one raises their hand to address these issues in a few hours, I'm going to start removing poorly sourced content. We can then add stuff back in to an

2241:

If there are no further objections at this point, I will restore my edits, excluding the part about the Argument from Ignorance. I was never happy with that anyway because the quotations from Behe only made reference to chapters in his book where he says that he made arguments that were not merely

2180:

So, you do not object to the undoing of your revert as long as we leave out Behe's current response to the charge that his theory amounts to an Argument From Ignorance and see if we can come up with a better one. However, you are not proposing that Behe's response to this charge could legitimately

2094:

I repeat that the burden is upon you to justify the inclusion of new material and to gain consensus on the modificiations. It does not fall to me to justify my reversion. Seek consensus for your modifications if you wish to include them. Attempting to attack me for reverting you will not lead to

1910:

Is there anybody here who is arguing that it is never permissible to use a fringe scientist's own words to explain what his theory is? And that it is never permissible to show such a scientist's response to the charges made against him? I hope that everyone realizes how absurd that is. No matter

1873:

I have heard people assert that there are issues with the edits I have made. Each time, I have asked the person to please point out the specific text he or she is talking about and what the specific issue is, but nobody has done that. Then I get accused of being hard of hearing. Now somebody else

1850:

to present his own view on this? Certainly the result may be that we do not believe that he "meant" something that was not explicitly expressed. That was the conclusion drawn by both Miller and the judge. And how can it be concluded that his viewpoint was the last word in the discussion when the

1611:

After my edits were reverted I left the changes in place, created this section, and invited the person to explain the problems he or she found. The next day, when there had been no response, I concluded that the person had no problems to report and I undid his or her revert. If someone takes issue

1446:

I will summarize the long statement. However, this statement is not presented in order to establish the truth of the contents of the statement. It is presented simply to show Behe’s response to the accusation. Behe’s response was “On page 86 I specified limitations on my definition of the system

1387:

be a synthesis and actually occur in an external source, then we should cite that source and trim this unnecessary material. It is far, far too detailed, and seriously unbalances this article. Not only that, by just (metaphorically) giving him more rope, I'm not sure that the material really does

6568:

change "advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" to "advocate of the scientific principle of intelligent design" or at least just delete the word ""pseudoscientific" Why? Because this unsubstantiated and bigoted verbal attack at the very beginning of the article prejudices

5859:

The only thing Behe is known for is "ID" or Intelligent Design, and that's the reason for the focus in the article. Behe's the one who used these terms. You seem to be confused about CD and Darwinism, its only relevance is that Behe refers to it when promoting his concepts of "ID" or Intelligent

4737:

The statement "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific" does not seem to be that controversial to me. As one of the most notable proponents of Intelligent design theory, both Behe (the man) and Behe's theories have been the subject of of a great deal of negative scrutiny.

4678:

Seriously, you're going with that? Siminek is a real scientist compared to Behe who wouldn't know science if it was spelled for him, and all of his experiments set up for him. LOL. Please go on quote mining however. There are dozens that I can bring. BTW, Miller is one of those religious types who

4580:

Actually it's been rejected by ALL of the scientific community. Science denialists, of course, don't count as scientists. There is nothing controversial about denialist except to denialists. Seriously lame argument. We can find dozens of BLP's that, as long as it is supported by a reliable source,

3966:

The section on the court case presents no more difficulty for our spin-doctor. The case was lost not because Behe's ideas were in any way uncompelling but because they were held to a standard of proof which his opponents, by their own admission, cannot meet for their own ideas. The implication of

3755:

Behe received $ 20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns. The case was filed by Association of Christian Schools International, which argued that the University of California was being discriminatory by

2773:

The last paragraph really puzzling. We finally learn that Behe and the Pandas are at least somewhat connected. We are told that chapter which he wrote for this book presents basically the same (unspecified) idea as he presented in an (unspecified) chapter of Darwin's Black Box, and Behe agrees.

2467:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these

2149:

If you are having a problem with Behe's Argument From Ignorance response, the response could be paraphrased but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. All his points (or "talking points" as you put it) would still need to be included, because they constitute his answer to the charge. I have no

2120:

Alright then, let's start with the Doolittle paragraph. You have it ending like this: "This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex." My additions show that this is a disputed point. I try to point out clearly that the dispute revolves around the pages in

1967:

I say that it is appropriate to use the words of the fringe scientist to show what his theory is, and you say that this is not allowed because (a) using the words of the fringe scientist is not an appropriate way to understand his theory, (b) using the words of the fringe scientist to set out what

1788:

to his views. The previous version of the article (which I note has now been trimmed somewhat by a third party) essentially finished up with remarks from Behe which might lead the reader to conclude, erroneously, that his viewpoint was the last word in this discussion. As it happens, it may well

1776:

unreliable, but just that their nature (i.e. outside the scientific literature) makes them odd choice for commentary on ostensibly scientific matters (I say "ostensibly" since Behe's work has diverged from science to say the least). If they were making good scientific points, they would appear in

1250:

If this were an article on a mainstream subject, then a fringe view would be allowed little or no space. In an article by a person who holds a fringe view, however, the fringe view has to be reported. That’s what the article is about. When there is a difference between the majority view and the

6810:

Remove the word 'pseudoscientific' from the first sentence. At best it is unnecessary, at worst it establishes/conveys bias against the efforts of an community which is in pursuit of scientific proofs which adhere to the same levels of scientific rigor as any other scientific organization. If the

3714:

Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not

3642:

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return

3472:

You've brought so many issues, and the ones I've looked at don't seem to be issues at all - they are correctly referenced (the text doesn't have to appear verbatim in the source). This makes it hard to asses which have merit. Please just pick one or two to start with, and explain clearly what the

2613:

Criticism of Behe is sprinkled throughout the article. The effect is that when we attempt to understand what his views are we are constantly interrupted by reminders that he is wrong (or at least in the minority). This reads like an attempt to shout him down. I suggest moving most if it into a

2294:

You are treating this article as if it were an article on a general subject, such as Evolution, in which Behe's theory can be treated as a fringe theory and excluded or truncated because of due weight when compared with the major theories. However, this is an article about a person who is notable

1378:

was that the section currently reads like sources have been collected and presented here in a novel synthesis. That is, the resulting back-and-forth storyline presented in the article does not occur in any one source (i.e. it is synthesised). This does not mean that it is incorrect, but it does

5341:, that citation is used in a different sentence. If you are sure that the sources that are provided in citation #30 debunk the work and address the other citation tag, then please add that citation to the two places where there are currently citation tags, and remove the tags. Thanks in advance. 5012:

This conversation is a little concerning. First things first, 'the term denialism is only controversial to denialists' is plainly absurd. Try applying that same logic to derogative terms for black people, for instance. I'm about as secular as they come and I can see quite clearly how the term is

4649:

I don't think that "pseudoscientific" characterises Behe accurately either -- Behe's original book made falsifiable claims (which were indeed falsified). Again, you need more than a single random web site to argue that a majority of scientists apply the term to Behe (as opposed to saying Behe is

3962:

Ask yourself, could you, strictly as an intellectual exercise, re-spin this article to present Behe in a favourable light without substantially changing the selection of facts presented? Maybe you could cast him in the role of courageous dissident persecuted by a conformist community. It is an

3512:, 2 is fixed and 3 is a minor point) and show how the analysis is incorrect. And yes, paraphrasing a source is fine but it has to be a paraphrase. You can't make a source say something it doesn't. Nor can you "read between the lines" and make explicit something you tthink is implicit in the text. 2759:

The problem is that right now it is so vague it sounds weaselly. There is a large paragraph which seems to suggest that I.D. is a conspiracy to sneak religion into the classroom, a conspiracy in which Behe may have had some involvement. I say may have had some involvement because he isn't even

2024:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority

1845:

In your third paragraph, I think you are missing the point. The issue here is this: "Did Behe exclude the factors "before the fork in the pathway" from his definition of the irreducibly complex system?" We are trying to determine from his own writing what he wrote and what he meant. How is it

1702:

Anyway, I've tagged up the section as being too long, and I intend to trim it when I've time. If you think the material is worth salvaging (and I'm sure you do), I'd suggest trying to summarise it here in this article but primarily integrating it with the main article on Behe's book. It really

1524:

Could the author please explain how my addition promoted an individual's point of view? Miller claimed that Doolittle's study had defeated Behe. Behe replied that this was based on a misreading of what he had said in Darwin's Black Box. I tried to show that the controversy revolved around the

1254:

If it is reported that the subject of an article has been accused of engaging in an Argument from Ignorance and he disputes that, then there are three ways to handle it (a) report the accusation but not the denial, (b) report the accusation and just say “The subject denies this.” (c) report the

5038:

Thirdly, the sentence "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific" has no attribution whatsoever. Absent attribution, it suggests 'everyone' considers his ideas as such. An overstatement like this simply can't be included in a BLP and needs to be attributed to one or more

4345:

an edit which said "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific". This is a controversial edit that needs consensus first. I thought the lead was fine the way it stood - "religious in nature", "rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community," and that this extra

1735:

You said “. . . various claims and counter-claims deal ostensibly with scientific matters, but are often drawn from non-scientific sources. . .” I assume you are talking about the blood cascade issue, but the controversy there is whether or not Behe included the factors "before the fork in the

5221:

Doesn't really work. Behe is promoting ID which is classic pseudoscience, claiming to be scientific while failing to follow scientific method. In Behe's case, he asserts that some detailed features could not have evolved, and from that jumps outside science to the unsupported conclusion that a

5188:

Dave: I was merely reading Wiki late last night, and thought I might drop a helpful comment, or try to.... I saw the heading to this section in Talk, and the statement: "I reverted an edit which said 'his ideas are considered Evolution denialism, and pseudo-scientific.'" The latter claim is

4600:

Accuracy is not undesirable; regardless of how you, personally view a term. As uncomfortable as you personally may be with specific content, Knowledge is a tertiary knowledge resource and as such we must strive for accuracy. If there is something which may be viewed as negative to report about

4170:

article states as much.) Thus, while one can easily document that this person or that group has rejected Behe's work, it is impossible to state with any verifiability that the "scientific community as a whole has rejected his ideas." After all, Behe himself (not to mention plenty of other ID

3981:

Answering these questions with the help of reliable sources requires more effort than drawing cynical conclusions. It will also almost certainly paint a more nuanced picture of Lehe that is currently presented in the article. Anyone who wants the article to be a counter-blast to Lehe will be

3973:

The Knowledge rules require us to use only verifiable information about Behe, his views, and the views of his critics. The existing article is short on information and so leaves most of the truly interesting questions about these conflicting views unanswered. I would like to know whether any

2897:

It's one thing to whitewash the page, but misprepresenting sources in edit summaries is out of line. I don't like seeing sourced content deleted as "unsourced." Washington Post, NCSE, New Scientist, a US court decision are reliable sources. Even Panda's Thumb and Talkreason. Please re-add the

2069:

Suppose we have a fringe scientist who believes that Copernicus had it wrong and that in fact the Ptolemaic system is the one that is correct. He believes this is true because over time he can see the planets going around in circles in the sky. If this man has achieved sufficient notoriety to

1655:

Well, it looks to me like this article is trying to cover some of the major points about Behe and touch on some of the major controversies. Let's take the part about Doolittle and the blood cascade. Presumably that could all be covered in the article dealing with Darwin's Black Box, but most

1592:

Please don't edit war to force your changes in. We don't work that way here. It is up to you to gain consensus for your major changes instead of just forcing them through wholesale. So far, I see no one agreeing with the bloat you are adding to the article. This isn't a detailed debate. It's a

1326:

irrelevant. The detail of Behe's claims and counter-claims illuminates very little, and the quality of the article is degraded (IMHO) by the inclusion of such minutia. If any material elsewhere describes the (excruciating) detail of this ding-dong between Behe and others (e.g. who used which

1483:

Ok, I need to rewrite this. It needs to be made clear that the issue here is not whether the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex but rather what Behe intended to include in his definition of the blood clotting cascade. Under one definition Doolittle showed it not to be irreducibly

1413:

and drawing a novel conclusion without any secondary source. Similarly, the preceding long and incoherent statement culminating in a demand for a charitable reading of his wording is presented without a secondary source on its notability or interpretation. By bending over backwards to give an

5071:

Totally agree. Leading voices in the mainstream science and skeptical community have described Behe as a denialist. That really should be good enough for us. I'd propose taking the matter to RS/N if there's any remaining dispute. Personally I would avoid using the word denialist (promoter of

4635:(whoever he is) doesn't demonstrate that a majority of scientists apply the term to Behe. What's wrong with the existing wording anyway? ("Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community") -- 4581:

where the subject doesn't get to control how they're described. Michael Behe is an evolution denialist. We have reliable sources (and not just one or two, dozens); do you have one single worthless even partially reliable source from a real scientist that says he isn't? Seriously, just one?

3613:

Behe’s signature contribution to ID has been ‘irreducible complexity’ (IC), the claim that complex biological objects comprising functionally integrated parts, such as a bacterial flagellum, could not have been produced by natural selection but must have been deliberately and intelligently

1838:

In his Amazon blog, Behe is explaining that Miller is wrong because he was mistaken as to what Behe's theory was. This serves to explain and define his theory. There is nobody better able to do that than the man himself. And whether it comes from his blog or from a book that he wrote is

1717:

response to accusations made at the beginning of the section. Perhaps we should break these accusations out into separate sections. Then readers who are only interested in one controversy will be able to find it easily. What is your idea of the proper content of an article such as this?

5362:, better yet, if that is the case, please remove my cn tag and insert current citation #30 where the other cn tag is placed in that sentence. I assume someone placed it there for a reason, but please do remove it if you are sure that the claim is supported by that citation. Thanks again. 1839:

irrelevant. Is Behe's blog a reliable source? If the question is "Is Behe's theory true?" then Behe's blog is not a reliable source. If the question is "What is Behe's theory?" then the blog is is definitely a reliable source, and that is what it is being used for here. Disagreement?

4566:"evolution denialism," it would be better just to state the facts ("Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community") rather than using a controversial polemic term like "denialist." -- 6737: 6937:

Explanation: qualitative statement (ie. judgement) not relevant to an introductory biographical summary of an individual. Comments on the validity of his belief belong in a section on criticism or reception. Or perhaps just a hyperlink to the main article on the offensive topic.

2631:

This section should also explain how Phillip E. Johnson is related to Behe's "Promotion of irredible complexity and intelligent design". If the only relationship is that they both wrote books on the subject, then the reference should be removed (since this is not an article about

3974:

evolutionary biologists consider any of his criticism to be valid objections pointing to the need for furtherer research. I would also like to understand his relationship to the I.D. movement. Did he start it? Is he a leader, or is he perhaps a tool on the edge of the movement?

2625:

The section "Promotion of irreducible complexity and intelligent design" is confusing. It appears to make a diversion into speculation as to the motives of those who proposed I.D. I think this section should be rewritten to explain the role of Michael Behe in the development of

4063:

Exactly. Some of the world greatest thinkers have been schooled at home. Furthermore, kids schooled at home perform better at university that ANY other group. It is a tribute to Behe. Public school alumnists are....less than average ...but they think public school is better.

2565:

for hints on improving this aspect of the article. I would suggest that much of the material here doesn't belong in a biography and should be moved to the article on ID where editors have more latitude to discuss scientific controversies without running into BLP restrictions.

2428:

Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those

5030:

is equally as bad - this is an opinion piece (Voices is the opinion section of what is effectively the UCLA campus newsletter) that has no specific connection to Behe whatsoever. Attempting to link a generic criticism of ID to the specific subject of Behe's ideas is textbook

1519:

Please do not edit an article to promote an individual's point of view, as you did to Michael Behe. Doing so violates Knowledge's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:57, 9 January 2010

2443:

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. … Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: … Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its

2309:

2619:

The statement that all of the other biologists in his university department have disavowed his views (a statement which I have clarified) does not belong in the subheading about his education. This is criticism of his views. It has been placed here to offset his academic

1819:

Since there was no response to my request that the person doing that massive revert explain his reasons, I undid it. I have no problem with criticism. It's just that we need to go about this in a civilized way: by expressing and discussing specific problems that we see.

5157:

I am therefore proposing that a qualifier be attached to the 'Denial' of Evolutionary Theory (because if I recollect accurately, Dr. Behe would uphold the Theory on several points, not all), and suggest using the phrase "Meta-scientific" rather than "Pseudo-scientific".

5276:

Guettarda, actually, you removed two citation tags from that sentence (not just mine). Claims must be supported by reliable sources, or else they may be challenged or removed. I'm undoing your edit since the needed sources remain absent. Please find reliable sources.

5249:

This article still suffers from most of the deficiencies I pointed out over two years ago and still reads very unencyclopedic. I would again suggest that a biographical page is not the place to debate Behe's theories, there are other pages that cover that topic well.

1789:

have been the last word in this discussion because the other participants got fed up with goalpost-shifting and tendentious points about particular wordings. That Behe does not publish these ideas in the scientific literature should tell one something about their

2925:

are primary sources which must be used with great caution. You can not draw conclusions based on primary sources nor say things like "the judge quoted extensively from Behe's testimony". Both are by definition OR, not allowed in a regular article much less a BLP.

3954:

Some seem to believe that the demands that this article be rewritten to conform to various Knowledge policies are a smokescreen for Behe apologists. They seem to think that the article as it is does a good job of showing Behe to be a nut-case or a charlatan.

3721:

Some of the critics have also noted that the Discovery Institute continues to claim the paper as 'published evidence for design,' despite its offering no design theory nor attempting to model the design process, and therefore not providing an alternative to

3674:

Furthermore,Behe aimed the publication of this book at the general public, gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements, contrary to normal interpretations of the scientific

2390:

I support swood100, I think he is correct in including the quotes. Consensus is not required for the edits, a proper argument against them is. Simonm223 have not made a proper argument against, otherwise I would support removal. You Simonm223 are the one

5318:, the citation is the first one in that paragraph, currently #30. It's not original research to say "at least seven scientists have debunked the work" or to say "numerous scientists have debunked the work". If you really wish to get technical about it, see 1826:

I start from the proposition that any theory that is to be discussed in Knowledge should be presented as its proponent would present it, and that it is not proper to present a weakened or diluted version of a theory in order to accomplish goals related to

2984:

This solves the problem of juxaposing the two opposing views without introducing difficult to source statements. The statement on evolution doesn't have to have a reference since it is in the lead and presumably would be expanded upon in the article (see

4927:

As per usual in these cases you are writing the article in the lead; don't. Write the article and summarise it in the lead - if you want this content in the article, then put it in the appropriate place. That will help establish due weight for the lead.

1491:

apparently refers to reaching or implying a conclusion. If the comment about animosity between Behe and Miller is troubling to some I will take it out. It certainly doesn't add anything. As for the rest, I was trying to be scrupulous to avoid reaching

3102:

its face. Would it be better to list each of his theories individually, and then show that each individual theory has been rejected? Or would people then claim that the article was being devoted to demolishing ID instead of being an article about Behe?—

1756:

If you don't understand that part of the job of an encyclopaedia is to summarise and distil material material down to something of a readable length, then I'm afraid I can't help you with your first point. You have added a huge amount of material to a

1675:

By "unbalance" I mean that this one section of the article is wildly out of proportion to the rest of the article. By "bloat" I mean that the material included is largely only tangentially relevant for this article. It may make more sense over at the

2037:

A coatrack article is a Knowledge article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the

6174:

Please. If a given document does not say something it is perfectly possible to show that it does not say it both by carefully discussing what it does actually say and by quoting from it. You had your chance to make your case, but you have ruined it.

1832:

are used to present the theory there must be no confusion that this is an exposition of the theory by the proponent, and that this is not an explanation of the generally accepted theory. If that is accomplished, then the theory should be presented.

4127:

With 61 citations and many other sources cited, and obviously a lot of work and controversy, I am hesitating to suggest it, but perhaps this article is better than Start class now. I leave it to other editors to decide what class it should be.

1302:

Why don't you just wait, and not assume that because I haven't included a certain rejoinder critical of Behe that I'm not going to. The judge in the Kitzmiller decision had some things to say on this question that were not at all favorable to

4171:

proponents) is a member of that community. He is a biochemistry professor at a university, which is a pretty standard qualification for inclusion. He and other ID proponents may well be bad scientists, but they are scientists, nonetheless.

1911:

what the theory is, it should be presented as the proponent presents it. How else does the reader know what the position is? Then should follow appropriate response and rebuttal. Any other approach that I'm aware of has no justification.--

1443:

that Behe has no fond feelings for Miller. And it is clear that Miller’s testimony led to the judge saying that Behe took action “to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument.” What kind of source is required here?

1408:

Just to take an example, "The final paragraph above shows the animosity that exists between Behe and Miller, possibly in part because of Miller’s testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial" is pure synthesis, taking two

2608:

I agree with Swood100 that this article reads like a propaganda piece. I understand that the editors disagree with his ideas. But that does not excuse the sniping that runs through much of the article. Some of the more serious problems:

2421:

Finally, fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the

2255:

1273:

You said that I removed the "mainstream criticism of that view" but in the link you provided, not one word was removed, although the diff may make it look that way. I only inserted a short book summary. Please point out one word that was

6133:

You did simply assert that you are right. You will be blocked and you are not going to accomplish anything. Potentially it might have been different had you made a reasoned case here instead of demanding that other people agree with you.

4496:

is a controversial term, and vague in that it doesn't specify exactly what's being denied (as opposed to YEC and ID which are more specific positions). We don't even have an article on "evolution denial" any more. Also, it's hard to find

2226:

reason? The solution is not to muzzle Behe. The solution is in the rebuttal. If anyone is aware of any strong, succinct rebuttals that I have overlooked, please point them out to me. I will be happy to present them as powerfully as I

5113:, we should be using books, journal articles, newspaper stories, and official websites -- of which there are certainly a huge number. Self-published material by Behe (such as his CV) is acceptable under some very specific guidelines. -- 3254:

Somebody has clearly got so worked up about Behe's theories that they insist on having a refutation of them in the intro, taking up more space than the rest of the intro put together. This is clearly not balanced and should be removed.

2356:

territory. That's a game I don't play. There is no consensus for your edits. You have provided no valid rationale for inclusion. Until you do so I will not debate further. I will, however, revert edits that go against consensus.

5042:

If there are reliable, independent sources specifically linking Behe's beliefs to denialism and pseudoscience, they should be brought forward. Without them, there's very little chance of this sentence being returned to the article.

2336:

You said that this is not the page to debate Behe's ideas. Is this the page to describe Behe's ideas? If both sides are not going to be portrayed, should we remove all disparagement of Behe's ideas? What exactly belongs on this

4165:

Yet looking at the cited sources, none of them even make that claim. Even if they did, they would clearly not be reliable in making such a claim, because there is no authoritative voice for the "scientific community." (Even the

3344:

The bit about Lehigh University? I think it is somewhat remarkable that the university made a statement explicitly about the subject of intelligent design because of this person. Maybe we could make it even shorter... let me try.

6050:

Just asserting that you are right isn't going to accomplish anything. You cannot expect other editors to simply agree with you - that is futile. The talk page is where you should be making your case, based on logic and evidence.

3185:

to make it more encyclopedic. Beyond that, I'm not here to say how the article should be written, it is not a subject I'm familiar with or interested in. I am just insisting that it follow the clearly stated policy wrt sourcing.

2667:

for a critique of a theory that is and should be addressed elsewhere. There is no doubt that we need to make clear that his theories are not widely accepted but it needs to be done with excellent sources an in accordance with

5253: 4208:

That would probably be more accurate language, but there would need to be some new sources to cite, indicating some kind of reliable survey of scientists' opinions on the subject, not just individual articles against it.

3959:

Many of the 'talking points' are now simply unexplained digressions or trivia. All the reader comes away with is the idea that someone feels threatened by Behe's ideas and would prefer that we not examine them seriously.

1698:

webpages). If the arguments they make are so valuable, they should appear in scientific literature. This again points, not to removing them, but to trimming mention to a summary statement and a link instead of extensive

3919:

I'll get around to it at some point. I feel pretty sure that can be attributed to a reliable source. But which one? And is it in my personal collection? Sucks that Control-F doesn't work with dead tree sources...

1694:, at least for the purpose here of extensive quotation. For instance, the various claims and counter-claims deal ostensibly with scientific matters, but are often drawn from non-scientific sources (by which I include 6751: 6747: 4893:

Agreed. Apart from the above book review, I couldn't find any obvious sources specifically referring to Behe as an evolution denier or similar. The characterization also conflicts with other sources e.g. H. Allen Orr

3832:

Thanks for the change in formatting. Makes things easier to discuss. As for the comments on OR, don't worry about it too much - I may disagree with your interpretation, but I'm happy to work on improving sourcing.

1327:

particular word and when), then we should use this as a source rather than an excuse to shoehorn in such a level of detail. I think that it really unbalances the article, and for no real gain. Just my two cents. --

3967:

his testimony (that the theory of evolution is merely a reflection of a particular school of thought on the question of the existence of God) were simply too much of a political hot potato, and so the judge punted.

1990:

issues. Furthermore you entirely disregarded my second point. I've laid out the reason for my revert. I've laid out what you should do if you want some of that material included in the article. I will not play

1088:

Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Knowledge aspires to be such a respected

1213:

Can you elaborate on how moving the discussions of falsifiable and the identity of the intelligent designer into their own sections and out of the Darwin's Black Box section affects undue weight or the mainstream

6507:

but the addition of that citation I found adds further weight to keeping 'pseudoscientific' in the lede and attributing that to Behe's work. Shame about the original source as I to do not have a subscription to

1889:. I have read those but I need you to tell me specifically, in English, (a) what text is objectionable, and (b) what is the specific objection. Otherwise, how can we even discuss it? One person says "This is 153: 2821:

Further note to one of the OP's comments - critical comments generally should be placed in the same section as the view. If the subject's view is in the minority, that should be clearly stated with the view.

6399:

Do you want to add that cite after ...Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community...? Seems appropriate.

2546:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for

1075:, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to 4501:

sources that say "Person X is a denialist" (most sources using the term are unreliable web sites). It's much easier to find reliable sources that say "Person X claims Y" and "most scientists reject Y." --

4459:

terms as an ID advocate, rather than using the vague term "denialist." Also, we can find a tonne of reliable sources criticising ID, but not for the statement that any specific person is a "denialist." --

3373:

per #2 in Blp Issues above, "and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" is unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement.

2468:

websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view

2314:

It is true that the only people who have spoken up so far are those who are trying to enforce their own negative point of view about Behe in this article. But an article cannot ignore the requirements of

1542:

I see also that Behe's response to the charge that his theory amounts to an Argument from Ignorance has been removed by the same person. Is Behe not permitted to respond to this charge? Please explain.--

6877:

The article does not even mention the fake science "creation science", only the fake science "intelligent design", whose most fake aspect is that it pretends not to be creation science in a cheap tuxedo.

1725:

The term “bloat” implies that the information value of the material does not justify its length, or, as you said, that it is irrelevant to an article such as this. Can you refer me to an example of that?

2505:"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution". Cites a wikilink. WP is not 3012:

Many things were removed from this article that should not have been removed. I reverted back to the last consensus version. I'm in favor of moving forward, trimming, rewriting, etc. but it absolutely

2425:

While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources.

1638:, I still don't understand why this material is not over at the article on Behe's book. It does not need to be here, and seriously bloats and unbalances this article. I'll try to pop back later. -- 3230:. There's a lot of quotes from Behe that the judge used in his ruling. I think we can replace most with "quoted extensively by the judge" and include one or two that seem to be fairly important. 3116:

I don't think that the SYN issue is as clear-cut as you make it out to be, JP. I'm willing to consider new references, but removing the statement which you admit is "true as it may be" looks to me

4719:

I have protected the article for a week so that editors can concentrate on this discussion. It should be possible to craft a compromise version of the wording that pleases everyone. Good luck. --

4174:

Not only is this claim of a wholesale rejection by the entire scientific community demonstrably untrue on logical grounds, but it's not even supported by the sources cited next to the phrase.

3057:, you will need to discuss with other editors before going on this whitewashing campaign again. I encourage you to find an administrator to help with this discussion. The more eyes the better. 3588:- Minor point but the cite is seven years old so the homeschooling bit, besides the privacy issue (we normally do not mention where a subjects kids go to school), is probably incorrect by now. 1067: 3970:

Why is it so easy to spin the facts in the article either way? Because most of them have not been selected to be genuinely informative. They are simply hooks on which speculation is hung.

7075: 5764: 5654: 5514: 4815:

I think that the pseudoscience description is easily sourced. It's "denialism" that I have an issue with. Accurate as it may be, I don't think the term is being used by reliable sources.—

4374: 4015:. Encyclopedia's should be written in an above-the-fray, non-judgmental tone. The facts speak for themselves. Passionate embellishments only serve to weaken the article and discredit WP. 3316:

Right now we have one compound sentence and the second half is essentially a vague statement about Lehigh University's statement which was made in direct response to Behe. Is that okay?

1736:

pathway" in his definition of the system that was irreducibly complex. It can only be answered by looking at what Behe wrote. I don't really understand the point you are making here.--

3534:

replaced by summaries. There is an article for the book already, so I don't think this section needs to be quite so long. Thoughts before I start up the weed whacker and go trimming?

1232:

into the article, adding about 1/3 by text volume to his exceedingly fringe view, without context or balance? Sometimes including actually removing the mainstream criticism of that view

6930:

Unnecessary bias. “ Michael Joseph Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.”

4940:

Your opinion means what? Oh, I don't care. Most people don't read beyond the lead. It should be clear that Behe is an evolution denialist and pseudoscientist with his head up his ass.

2495:

The statement "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community. which is completely inappropriate for an

1132: 2522:

The first paragraph of the "Darwins Black Box" section is OR. One of the references is broken, the other goes to an infidel.org book review which is not an appropriate a RS for a BLP.

1106: 6814:

I cite other bodies of scientifically untestable bodies of work like big bang cosmology, evolution, string theory, etc. Are those written about using words like "pseudoscientific"?

5072:

pseudo-science is more appropriate). Behe does accept that evolution is a real phenomena, he just does not believe that it fully accounts for the full diversity of life on earth. --

6366:

Here is a source from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that specifically criticises Behe for his pseudoscientific views especially in his new book.

6269:

Sourced mention has been removed, of the judge's ruling in the Kitzmiller case, that ID is religion, not science. Is it your assertion that the judge did not write what he wrote?

6036:

By all means, don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. It doesn't support what the text said and if you haven't actually checked it yourself, then why are you reverting to it?

5954: 4875:

have consensus. Some reliable sources have been suggested for "pseudoscience," but not for "denialist." A passing remark in a book review is just one person's opinion: you need a

1682:

article, but even there it may seriously bloat the article. It's also absurd that the subsection on one of Behe's book's is inflated by the inclusion of extensive quotation from

6742:

The words "intelligent design" are neither theistic or non-theistic. Intelligent design could be a function of quantum probability, not necessarily the work of a divine Creator.

5782: 5778: 5672: 5668: 5532: 5528: 5387:, I don't consider it a problem that citations cover multiple sentences. Tagging every sentence with a citation would not improve the article and just cause clutter, in my view. 1690:

of external sources, I'm now more of the opinion that the larger problem is just the inclusion of so much stuff. I'm also not sure that all of the material used could be judged

5270: 6652:

by Gregory Lang and Amber Rice, Behe's own colleagues at Lehigh University." This will be consistent with the way the other scholarly rebuttals are cited in the same sentence.

6322:

So someone used a primary source to make a tendentious statement in the lede of a BLP. You really don't see how that's WP:OR on one hand, and a NPOV and BLP vio on the other?

4617:

have problems with source quality in this instance. What makes Donald Siminek such a reliable and globally representative source that we can use his statement in this manner?—

2558:

these entries should be removed immediately and without discussion, I am posting this as a courtesy to interested editors to provide an opportunity to resolve these issues.

2440:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

2306:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

2246:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

2046:

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

1968:

his theory is constitutes making an argument on his behalf, and (c) that the harm caused by allowing such an argument to be made cannot be remedied by rebuttal in the article.

6743: 6243:

Obviously, a statement from its author about what it is actually about - indicating that it is different from what it is purported to be. I shouldn't even have to say that.

6215:

No one is stopping you from quoting the most relevant portions of the document to make your case. That would be the appropriate thing to do if you want to argue rationally.

2502:"and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy" unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement. 5332: 3593:

Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.

4544:. IMHO we should keep it out of the ledes of BLPs such as this if at all possible. It's enough to say that his ideas are almost entirely rejected by scientific consensus. 3661:"The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design." OR - not in provided sources. 1934:

theory. The inclusion of extensive quotes from Behe, outlining his arguments is neither necessary to understand the subject of the article nor is it within the bounds of

6352:

Dude, you're quoting me a primary source. You can show not tell. Notice I haven't touched the next paragraph - why? Because it's properly sourced and merely states facts

2295:

because of his fringe theory. Are you saying that in a biography of such a person an exposition of his theory can be excluded on the grounds that it is a fringe theory?

1893:." The next person says "No it's not." That's not productive. You need to point out the exact text and explain why you think it falls under an objectionable category. 7165: 4631:

I don't believe that most scientists use the term "evolution denialism" at all (mostly because it's too pejorative for polite conversation); certainly one web site from

1093: 1083: 901: 1119: 7070: 6512:

either. This is often an issue with these sorts of sources - the fact they are behind a paywall making referencing Knowledge a bit more challenging than I would like.

6499:- thanks for adding the citation and restoring the lede to its former status. I believe the current editing pattern of removing these passages and citations and using 5136: 5118: 4571: 4507: 4465: 4321: 2135:

If you have a problem with the Miller-Behe remarks being framed as a debate that can easily be remedied. I'll just give Miller's assertion and then Behe's response.--

1347:

After Doolittle's study came out Behe was guilty of intellectual dishonesty by trying to retroactivly change his definition of the system that was irreducibly complex.

147: 7014: 5222:

supernatural entity made them that way. As for Darwinism, it means different things to different people, and does not mean the same as modern evolutionary theory. .

4967: 4884: 4702: 4478:

for another example of the term. Also note that a reader who is unfamiliar with the subject may not realize that the converse of advocating ID is evolution denial.

4294: 4142: 4054: 2400: 6767: 4040: 3749:

Primary sources ≠ OR. Content is supported by Humes' chapter 15 (pp. 297-315), although the specific quotes are (quite properly) taken from the court transcripts.

2222:

essence of the problem that people have with my edits. They don't want Behe's opinion to be expressed. Is there anybody who has a problem with my edits for some

6933:

Should read: Michael Joseph Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and an advocate of the of the principle intelligent design.

911: 6943: 6819: 6607: 6574: 5620: 5610: 3776:

I don't have the reference handy, but most of this can be sourced to Matzke's chapter in Ruse's 2009 book. Will dig it up later if no one else has access to it.

1525:

proper construction of a certain sentence that Behe had written, and then I quoted Behe as to what he had meant and why it should be construed in a certain way.

5939:

If you read the yellow information box at the top of the talk page and the bold blue linked pages you will understand why it does not violate Knowledge's NPOV.

5024:

this drama". Even if this were not an unusable self-published source, it could only be used to support the connection that Behe is a member of the ID movement.

822: 3407:

Actually, it is mentioned. The Department explicitly mentions Behe in the statement. We even have the IDers themselves acknowledging that this is the reason:

2165:

No, we don't need to include a multitude of Behe quotes. I disagree with you on this. If you want to include it show that consensus supports your position.

729: 6409: 6127: 5979: 4317: 1115:, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. 877: 6201:

You cannot quote what is not there. I could cut and paste the whole article as proof, but then we'd be right back where we started. You refusing to read it.

4411:

says "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community."

492: 7160: 7105: 6531: 1018:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 516: 511: 425: 396: 311: 237:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 2787:

Note that I am not asking you all to answer my questions here. I am asking you to fix the article so that they either do not arise or are answered there.

6972: 6773: 4693:

Siminek may be a real scientist, but he's not notable and doesn't speak for the scientific community as a whole. And now we're criticising the respected

4632: 4036: 3708:

However, the paper does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers.

2515:"Behe's testimony is extensively cited by the judge" - Providing a number of cites none of which make this statement, to justify the statement is OR/SYN. 2195:

If there is anybody else who has a problem with any of my edits, please let me know what text you are referring to and what the nature of the issue is.--

249: 2643:

are in fact his espoused views. They may seem inconsistent with his views only because they are juxtaposed with views which, unknown to us, he rejects.

1136:: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. 6815: 3854:

Matzke, Nick (2009) "But Isn't It Creationism? The Beginnings of "Intelligent Design"in the Midst of the Arkansasand Louisiana Litigation" pp. 377-413

4183: 7080: 5417:, very well. If that is what you believe is best for the reader to be able to easily corroborate claims, then please undo or revert my edit. Thanks. 5295:

Quoting this talk page's guidelines: "Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information."

4070: 2532:

When writing BLP's one must be hyper cautious when making statements about a person's work that could affect their livelihood. Some highlights from

6661: 5500: 1577:

Someone just reverted my edits, saying that there are "Serious NPOV problems with recent changes." Could that person point out the NPOV problems?--

624: 6893: 1059: 868: 845: 6252: 6238: 6224: 6210: 6184: 6169: 6143: 6094: 6060: 6045: 6031: 6016: 5994: 4235: 5830: 5630: 1877:

To the people who have a problem with what I have added: how about some specifics? It is not enough just to throw out major categories such as

7150: 6578: 5725: 812: 4590: 4525: 4259:

The source is not credible. You will have to find a new one. It will need the son's name, and must be a source that meets the requirements at

3426:

But again, it does not say it was prompted by "Behe's high-profile advocacy". That's OR. Nor does it say that in the reference you provided.

1896:

Now Simonm223 has come along and reverted everything to some arbitrary point. Please explain (and please don't just recite category names).--

7140: 6331: 6317: 6298: 6278: 5868: 5140: 5122: 4971: 4888: 4706: 4688: 3368: 3354: 3339: 3325: 3297: 3283: 961: 719: 5853: 7100: 7095: 7060: 7018: 5880: 5099: 4381:: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points— 4298: 4067: 3904:

Since no one has challenged #9 above which from a legal stand-point is the most problematic I have deleted this sentence from the article.

3243: 482: 254: 6712: 6424: 6379: 4278: 3799: 3467: 3449: 3435: 3419: 3383: 3209: 3195: 3181:

I made a suggestion above for changes to the lead that avoid the BLP SYN issues and also some suggestions for structuring the article per

3158: 3132: 3096: 3066: 3048: 1634:

Ooops. Sorry, I dropped the ball here. A cursory glance at the current article reveals most of the same flaws as before. Leaving aside

1128:, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. 7155: 6823: 4907: 4768: 3311: 1974:

You say that you carefully thought through all the material you removed and determined that it was, without exception, all objectionable.

1971:

You say that it is not appropriate to use the words of a fringe scientist to describe his theory because that violates parity of sources.

6361: 6345: 5230: 5182: 4806: 1566: 1244: 6695: 6521: 6487: 5985:

If you believe the content you wish to remove violates the policy on biographies of living people it is up to you to demonstrate this.

5838: 5004: 4949: 4575: 2907: 79: 6947: 6304:

Fixed the link in the citation. There is ample sourcing in the body of the article for the fact that Behe testified in that case. See

4998:; with this attitude you should not be editing this article, please limit your contributions to the talk page as this goes forward. -- 4218: 4199: 4159: 2934: 1233: 1230: 1210:

Can you elaborate on the undue weight that was contained in the short book summary, and how it detracted from the mainstream context?

7115: 6599: 5371: 5307: 5286: 4511: 4488: 4469: 2288: 1621: 1602: 5760:

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

5650:

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

5510:

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

4728: 3402: 2857: 2835: 2730: 2704: 7125: 6851:

To answer the charge, string theory isn't physics, it is applied math. The other two made testable predictions, which were tested.

5948: 5908: 5897: 5720: 4989: 4866: 4626: 3929: 3842: 3827: 3785: 3025: 2882: 2808: 2597: 1474: 1430: 1235:

as well? Is that your query? Or did you mean something else? Please be specific with your questions, or people cannot answer them.

788: 614: 352:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 4024: 3599:

No, it's actually a video. The ref includes a link to the article about the video, but it's the video, not the Knowledge article.

2366: 2174: 2108: 2059: 1957: 7170: 7145: 7085: 5580: 5081: 4747: 4673: 4644: 1809: 1710: 1645: 1484:

complex. Under a different definition Doolittle's study did not address the question that Behe raised. I'll take a shot at it.

1399: 1334: 695: 353: 229: 5461: 5426: 5397: 5350: 3488: 7135: 5640: 4846: 4824: 4553: 1005: 458: 5621:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120635/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml

5611:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080808120635/http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml

5109:

been used as a reference. It almost certainly rules out the anonymous article from UCLA's internal campus newsletter as well.

4664:

is one of the more thorough demolitions of Behe, for example, but doesn't use the words "pseudoscientific" or "denialist." --

4425: 4398: 3566:

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community

2989:). I would also suggest again that this is not the best place to proxy the evolution v creationist battle. If it were me, per 7130: 7090: 4607: 3111: 1505: 1456: 1368: 1312: 1297: 1283: 1268: 1223: 1205: 85: 3547: 3526: 7110: 6700:

I only noticed now that it was added so recently, but thanks, I have found this reference helpful to expand the section. —

5924:

Why describe intelligent design as "pseudo-scientific"? Is not that violating Knowledge's policy of Neutral Point of View?

5214: 5198: 5167: 5132: 5114: 5091: 4567: 4503: 4461: 4325: 3508:

Let's do it the other way. Pick one from the list below (not the first three - 1 has already been discussed and is clearly

357: 168: 44: 2322:

I described earlier the reason for my changes related to the Doolittle issue. What do you find objectionable about that?--

7065: 7010: 6653: 6401: 6353: 6323: 6284: 6230: 6202: 6161: 6119: 6111: 6086: 6037: 6008: 5971: 5874:

nature. Astronomy isn't "Copernicism", and gravity isn't "Newtonism". Evolution is evolution; it's science, not belief. -

5750: 4963: 4880: 4698: 4665: 4636: 4290: 4079: 4050: 3007: 2396: 1229:

Are you referring to your repeated attempts to add this mass of blockquotes and commentary by the subject of this article

775: 752: 135: 6957:. No, the invalidity of his belief (which he camouflages as science) is the only reason we have an article about him. -- 3586:

Behe is married to Celeste Behe, and they have nine children who are homeschooled by Celeste in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

2637:

The section "Darwin's Black Box" contains a speculative (and highly cynical) theory as to why Behe wrote a popular book.

4244: 3002: 2681: 2461: 1562: 1240: 1055: 686: 647: 590: 361: 30: 7045: 5624: 5614: 4364: 4307: 2099:

for his opinion. Your long string of blockquotes weakly framed as "debate" discussion is thus what I have issue with.

1551: 1537: 7120: 6939: 6570: 5585: 4934: 4899: 4838: 4798: 3572:. None of these articles support the claim explicitly and none of the authors can speak for the scientific community. 2404: 449: 420: 5742: 5602: 5492: 4447: 2603: 6966: 6887: 4347: 3728:

Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism."

6860: 6110:

BTW, can you let Robynthehode that BLP violations aren't subject to 3RR. I know you guys think you have 6 to my 3.

5065: 4516:

It's only controversial to denialists. The statement is a reliable sourced one, and I guess we can move on. NEXT.

4087: 4071:

http://www.degreeinfo.com/off-topic-discussions/35831-so-how-do-homeschooled-students-do-when-they-go-college.html

4058: 3944: 3913: 3899: 3881: 3770: 2481: 5501:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080821201728/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf

5475: 4329: 4044: 2004: 1072: 1021: 1009: 348: 306: 99: 6846: 6415:

No this is a cite to replace/add to the cite after the lede sentence about Behe's views being pseudoscientific.

6160:

yet this is what you demand in order to clean up a bad citation (albeit on which the POV pushers are fine with)

5933: 5781:

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

5671:

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

5531:

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

3142: 2385: 2346: 2331: 2272: 2236: 2204: 2190: 2159: 2144: 2130: 2082: 1920: 1905: 6732: 6648:

by Gregory Lang and Amber Rice" to the last sentence to read "and a detailed scholarly rebuttal in the journal

6248: 6220: 6180: 6139: 6056: 6027: 5990: 5174:

The word "denial" does not appear in the article as far as I can find, where do you want to modify text? . . .

4756:

Just a suggestion, the findings in the Dover vs Kitzmiler trial included some judicial summaries of Behe's work

4417: 4356: 4336: 4252: 3993: 3648:

Matzke p. 378; "The actual label "intelligent design" was was adopted in a decision made my the editors of the

2977: 1510: 104: 20: 4697:

because he happens to be Catholic? Is this argument about being pro-science, or about being anti-religion? --

3200:

If you're not here to say how the article should be written, what are you doing here and on the noticeboards?

129: 5631:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130121005418/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html

4540:

I actually agree with the IP here. Denialism is such a horribly loaded word - your mind immediately jumps to

4342: 4236:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dngag/iama_son_of_michael_behe_the_catholic_biochemist/?sort=confidence

581: 539: 74: 6738:

The term "intelligent design" is a generic expression. It is not, as the article claims, "pseudoscientific."

4117: 5849: 5825: 5715: 5575: 4857:

where the same edit warring editor is trying to sanitize the article for an even worst evolution denialist.

2965:

theory that is held by the vast majority of scientist. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at

2575: 1344:

Doolittle's study refuted Behe's prediction about the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade.

983: 943: 281: 4757: 3982:

unhappy with the result. But, it will unquestionably be a better, more informative encyclopedia article.

3558: 3270:

I agree that point-by-point refutations are rarely the best. Of course, we should keep some criticism in.

6723:

Intelligent design is a textbook case of pseudoscience. Nothing of what we discuss here can change that.

5504: 4834: 4392: 3264: 1178: 1173: 1168: 982:

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

198: 194: 190: 125: 65: 5800:

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

5690:

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

5550:

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

5013:

controversial - you want to paint geocentrism in a negative light, just call it 'heliocentrism denial'.

4068:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/9034-canadian-study-confirms-advantages-of-homeschooling

3684: 5919: 5741:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 5601:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 5491:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 5059: 4898:

distinguishes between Behe and other creationists by noting that Behe does not wholly deny evolution.

4137: 3795: 3445: 3415: 3364: 3350: 3321: 3293: 3279: 3205: 3128: 3062: 3053:

You removed statements that were very well-sourced. Since you have not established that you understand

3021: 2449: 2409: 1963:

Let's see if we understand each other correctly. When the subject of an article is a fringe scientist:

979: 873: 185: 6229:

What do you figure would be the most relevant portion of a document talking about a different subject?

5028: 4346:

phrase was, at best, overkill. A similar discussion (debating almost the exact phrase) is going on at

4162:

with this remark: "the community as a whole has rejected his ideas as indicated by several sources."

4149:

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by

3689:

Nevertheless, Behe's credentials as a biochemist gave the intelligent design movement a key proponent.

3521: 2746:

can rewrite it to more clearly explain what his involvement was (with appropriate sources, of course).

6367: 6313: 6274: 6244: 6216: 6176: 6135: 6052: 6023: 5986: 5634: 4945: 4862: 4684: 4586: 4521: 3552: 3271: 2550:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Knowledge rests with the person who adds or restores material.

2415: 2392: 2353: 2257: 2150:

objection to removing the blockquotes and displaying this all as one paragraph with regular quotes.--

1992: 248:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3071:

You've re-inserted material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, OR and/or SYN as outlined above. You

1863: 1745: 1669: 1586: 175: 6811:

word is to be kept, then it must be demonstrated how creation science is "fake science" otherwise.

6152:

OK so explain to me how I am to show you that the citation doesn't say what it's purported to say.

5095: 4996:

It should be clear that Behe is an evolution denialist and pseudoscientist with his head up his ass

2562: 1868: 6450:

Lents, Nathan H.; Swamidass, S. Joshua; Lenski, Richard E. (7 Feb 2019). "The end of evolution?".

876:

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

787:

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

694:

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

457:

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

6988: 6909: 6789: 6657: 6623: 6547: 6431: 6405: 6357: 6327: 6288: 6234: 6206: 6165: 6123: 6115: 6090: 6041: 6012: 5975: 5845: 5816: 5706: 5566: 5210: 5194: 5163: 5127:

Well, that seems to be the end of the conversation. I assume nobody can find a source satisfying

4669: 4640: 4271: 4214: 4179: 4083: 3949: 3887: 3635: 3473:

problem is and why the supplied references, in your opinion, fail - because I just don't see it.

2434: 2373: 2247: 2047: 1027: 954:, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: 252:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 238: 109: 5785:

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

5675:

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

5535:

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

4785: 4779: 2095:

that. I am personally opposed to including a list of Behe talking points as they strike me as a

1977:

You refuse to address any specific text and explain why it falls into an objectionable category.

1948:

by point. You should seek consensus over whether to include some of this contentious material.

1686:

of his books. Furthermore, while I remain suspicious that the added material could be judged a

7042: 6706: 6517: 6420: 6375: 5944: 5801: 5738: 5691: 5598: 5551: 5077: 4764: 4743: 4248: 3335: 3307: 3260: 2958: 2903: 2284: 1598: 971: 3527: 3288:

Pursuant to this, I have adjusted the lede. More adjustment could be beneficial. Please help!

2663:

article restructured to your proposal which is a good approach. The article as it stands is a

6962: 6883: 6763: 6718: 5788: 5678: 5538: 4903: 4842: 4802: 4777:

On "pseudo-scientific": Matt Young and Taner Edis characterize Behe as a pseudo-scientist in

4099: 4030: 3791: 3441: 3411: 3360: 3346: 3317: 3289: 3275: 3201: 3124: 3058: 3017: 287: 5641:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060906165307/http://www.lehigh.edu/%7Einbios/faculty/behe.html

5448: 3576:

and the biology department of Lehigh University was prompted by Behe's high-profile advocacy

3302:

I don't think more than a single sentence opposing Behe's views are necessary in the lede.

6856: 6728: 6496: 6484: 6342: 6309: 6294: 6270: 5894: 5865: 5808: 5698: 5558: 5422: 5367: 5346: 5303: 5282: 5266: 5227: 5179: 5128: 5105: 5087: 4941: 4858: 4680: 4602: 4582: 4517: 4313: 4286: 4240: 4167: 4113: 4075: 3541: 3396: 3237: 2829: 2698: 1612:

with something I have added, please bring it up and we'll discuss it. Please be specific.--

1558: 1471: 1427: 1236: 5967:. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." 5236: 2213:

I am personally opposed to including a list of Behe talking points as they strike me as a

1842:

Can you give me an example of where I "relentlessly bore the reader with endless detail"?

1802:

Anyhow, I'll try to get around to looking at the newly trimmed version of the article. --

141: 8: 6690: 6595: 6283:

You new citation is broken. Does it mention Michael Behe? If not, it's original research.

5886: 4541: 4229: 4133: 4020: 3940: 3925: 3909: 3895: 3877: 3838: 3823: 3781: 3766: 3738:

is certainly a reliable enough source for an approximate count of page numbers in a book.

3517: 3463: 3431: 3379: 3191: 3154: 3092: 3044: 2998: 2974: 2930: 2853: 2726: 2677: 2593: 2571: 2362: 2170: 2104: 2050:. In addition, see the "Some General Rules" section for additional justifying reasons.-- 2000: 1953: 1762: 1695: 1678: 975: 678: 269: 55: 6432:"A biochemist's crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence" 3606:

he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures.

6954: 6842: 5767:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 5657:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 5517:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 5206: 5190: 5159: 4549: 4421: 4360: 4265: 4210: 4195: 4175: 4093: 3989: 3702:

This defeats a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex.'

3481: 3123:

to be paradoxical. Let's find new sources that we all agree are good and move forward.

3036: 2946:

If I could make a suggestion, I would reword the the lead paragraph to something like

2878: 2804: 2664: 2655: 2486: 2477: 2381: 2342: 2327: 2268: 2232: 2214: 2200: 2186: 2155: 2140: 2126: 2096: 2078: 2055: 2031: 1987: 1931: 1927: 1916: 1901: 1859: 1741: 1665: 1617: 1582: 1547: 1533: 1501: 1452: 1364: 1308: 1293: 1279: 1264: 1219: 70: 6305: 5807:

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

5751:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140201221735/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1271

5697:

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

5557:

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

5131:

to back up the suggested addition, and we need to stick with the existing wording. --

4783:. Behe and his ideas appear in at least two books devoted to pseudo-scientific ideas: 1255:

accusation and report the subject’s reasoning as to why he is denying the accusation.

964:

account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

7036: 6701: 6513: 6467: 6416: 6371: 5940: 5073: 4760: 4739: 4694: 4661: 4260: 3568:- As discussed above, the souces provided are non-RS and the claim here is a classic 3331: 3303: 3256: 2966: 2899: 2280: 1594: 1015: 767: 746: 51: 5017: 4434: 3746:- This entire section appears to be OR based on primary sources (court transcripts) 6958: 6879: 6759: 6459: 6157: 5929: 5625:

http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml

5615:

http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml

5053: 4308:

http://thehumanist.org/september-october-2011/the-humanist-interview-with-leo-behe/

3860:

But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy

3626: 3578:- unsourced OR because cited reference does not say what prompted the statement. - 2372:

OK, although there are more than two parties there appear to be only two sides, so

1939: 1886: 340: 3733: 2848:

Sure but they need to sourced properly. OR and SYN no longer make the grade here.

161: 6852: 6724: 6492: 6480: 6338: 6004: 5890: 5861: 5488: 5457: 5418: 5393: 5384: 5363: 5342: 5328: 5315: 5299: 5278: 5262: 5223: 5175: 5032: 4109: 4049:

I'd say no, it's a general biography piece, so it paints a picture of who he is.

3535: 3509: 3390: 3231: 3227: 2823: 2692: 1847: 1794: 1785: 1687: 1657: 1635: 1488: 1467: 1423: 1380: 1375: 1356: 1319: 245: 4035:

Doesn't it seem a bit WP:UNDUE to refer to the Behe children's home-schooling?

2561:

In addition, the entire article is written in a very non-encyclopedic tone. See

1098:

Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as

662: 641: 386: 6678: 6591: 6504: 5319: 5258: 4977: 4724: 4475: 4378: 4129: 4122: 4016: 4008: 4000: 3936: 3921: 3905: 3891: 3873: 3834: 3819: 3777: 3762: 3630: 3513: 3459: 3427: 3375: 3359:

Well, I failed in making it shorter, but I did make it more relevant, I think.

3187: 3150: 3119: 3088: 3040: 2994: 2986: 2926: 2849: 2774:

But, why are we supposed to be surprised that he expressed the same idea twice?

2722: 2673: 2589: 2567: 2358: 2316: 2299: 2166: 2100: 1996: 1949: 1890: 1882: 1419: 1410: 1125: 951: 570: 5773:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 5754: 5663:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 5644: 5523:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3867:

Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battel for America's Soul

3557:

I'm posting this here again with greater detail so as to be able to link from

1190: 207: 7054: 6838: 6500: 6470: 6458:(6427). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 590–590. 5956: 5904: 5876: 5086:

I also would avoid using the word denialist. But the key thing is to satisfy

5020: 4985: 4820: 4656: 4622: 4545: 4412: 4351: 4191: 4004: 3985: 3704:- More OR. The statement or anything like it is not found in cited reference. 3569: 3249: 3146: 3107: 3084: 3076: 3075:

provide evidence for your contention that this material is well sourced, per

3032: 2874: 2800: 2718: 2651: 2586: 2533: 2496: 2473: 2377: 2338: 2323: 2264: 2228: 2196: 2182: 2151: 2136: 2122: 2074: 2051: 2018: 2014: 1983: 1942:

by destroying parity of sources on an article related to a fringe topic (ID).

1935: 1912: 1897: 1878: 1855: 1803: 1737: 1704: 1661: 1639: 1613: 1578: 1543: 1529: 1497: 1448: 1438:

Ok, I agree that this is a little ungainly. I can clean it up. Questions:

1393: 1389: 1360: 1328: 1304: 1289: 1275: 1260: 1215: 1151: 1076: 947: 780: 6463: 6587: 5734: 5594: 5484: 5000: 4959: 4930: 4876: 4498: 3182: 3054: 2990: 2970: 2669: 2555: 2506: 2043:

As far as justifying the inclusion of new material, I justify it this way:

1790: 1729: 1691: 1572: 1030:

when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

860: 839: 784: 691: 24: 5447:

Well OK, but I should mention that the style is typical. See for instance

4895: 4780:

Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism

5925: 5774: 5664: 5524: 5205:(see chapter 5). Yet the twain might fundamentally agree on very much. ( 4479: 4438: 3735: 3475: 3138: 3137:

Note that verifiability and not truth is the standard for inclusion. See

1721:

two paragraphs to one only makes sense if evisceration is the objective.

1251:

fringe view the article must make it clear which is the majority view.

454: 1196: 1194: 441: 414: 212: 211: 6007:. Once you reinstate a bad citation that I've cleaned up, it's on you. 5453: 5414: 5389: 5359: 5338: 5324: 4388: 2954: 1496:

conclusions but I'll have another look at it. Maybe some slipped in.--

1102:, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. 1058:

ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in

6085:

I didn't. I asked you to see for yourself. You refuse for some reason.

5505:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf

3617:

Forrest, Barbara C.; Gross, Paul R. (2007). "Biochemistry by design".

932: 5254:

Regarding the claim that "Numerous scientists have debunked the work"

5046: 4879:

that the term is widely applied to Behe, and I don't think it is. --

4720: 4679:

claims to believe that evolution is compatible with religion. LMFAO.

4493: 2962: 1112: 1099: 4797:

states "Behe's work has been largely dismissed as 'pseudoscience'".

4375:

List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design

1823:

I also broke out the major controversies into their own categories.

1761:

of the article, a single section, I should add, that already has an

4981: 4816: 4618: 4147:

I added the bolded portion this phrase from the second paragraph:

3103: 1192: 564: 360:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 324: 300: 209: 5635:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html

5016:

Secondly, the sources used for this sentence are awful. The first

3458:

But you haven't addressed the BLP sourcing issues outlined above.

3408: 3087:. The material I removed, on both sides, all have similar issues. 4854: 4433:

Donald E. Simanek PhD specifically refers to Behe as a denialist

4003:. The accusation of whitewashing shows an appalling inability to 2073:

Please correct any point that I am not understanding correctly.--

1728:

Can you give an example of the material that might not be judged

586: 5965:

should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

1926:

Two things: 1) You have been trying to turn this article into a

3561:

because we're not supposed to post problematic material there.

3226:

The Dover court case section is probably due some trimming for

1828: 1772:

My point about the reliability of sources is not that they are

501: 1784:

Quoting Behe's response concerning clotting factors is giving

1197: 946:

procedure applies to this article. This article is related to

244:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

213: 4853:

It appears we have consensus. Now if you could all check out

4833:

Massimo Pigluicci describes Behe as an evolution denier in a

1414:

uncritical repetition of Behe's argument the article becomes

554: 533: 7076:

Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles

6758:

Reliable sources disagree with you. Reliable sources win. --

3611:

Does this quote seem sufficient support for this statement:

2540:

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively

1874:

has come along and done a major revert with no explanation.

1388:

Behe any favours, so could be viewed as objectionable under

585:, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 3999:

I think there are some good points in there but please see

3756:

not recognizing science classes that use creationist books.

1854:

Was there a point you were making that I did not address?--

1415: 6976: 6897: 6777: 6611: 6535: 5745:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

5605:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

5495:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

4234:

Added it to the article but dont know how to cite links

4108:

Useful analysis and commentary in a very reliable source.

3715:

properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy.

1765:. This material would largely fit much better there: why 970:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

3656:

decision that rules 'creation science" unconstitutional."

4100:

Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome

779:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 1392:. Anyway, those were just the thoughts that I had. -- 7009:

Remove the word “pseudoscientific” It is prejudicial.

3652:

books, in direct response to the Supreme Court's 1987

2543:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references.

160: 4654:, which a majority of scientists would do). The book 1288:

If you have specific objections, please state them.--

1124:

Theories which have a substantial following, such as

6644:

In the section Darwin Devolves: Add "in the journal

6449: 4613:

I think that "denialism" is an accurate term, but I

2376:

appears to be available. Would you agree to that?--

1383:. My follow-up point is that, should this material 1145: 1050:

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

872:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 690:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 668: 560: 453:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 330: 15: 6118:) I see Just plain Bill just showed up. make that 9 5777:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 5667:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 5527:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3698:, source points to a nolonger existing web article. 7166:Low-importance University of Pennsylvania articles 5885:Huh, you Newtonists are just being uneutral about 2585:the addition at the appropriate notice board per 1703:would make much more sense over there. Cheers, -- 1593:biography, and I think you are missing the point. 7071:C-Class biography (science and academia) articles 7052: 6973:Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2024 6774:Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2023 4474:How is "evolution denialist" a vague term? See 1060:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 886:Knowledge:WikiProject University of Pennsylvania 589:on Knowledge. Leave messages on the WikiProject 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 6608:Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020 6429:Thanks, I've added the cite: ideally we'd cite 889:Template:WikiProject University of Pennsylvania 5763:This message was posted before February 2018. 5653:This message was posted before February 2018. 5513:This message was posted before February 2018. 4759:which might inspire more agreeable wording. -- 1422:. Needs better sourcing, and cleaning up. . . 1418:and gives undue weight to Behe's promotion of 6894:Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024 5451:, a featured article I just picked randomly. 3016:be done with consensus and not unilaterally. 174: 6532:Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2020 5039:sources that specifically assert this fact. 3935:@Guettarda re 5: It certainly works for me. 3616: 7161:C-Class University of Pennsylvania articles 7106:High-importance Intelligent design articles 5755:http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1271 5645:http://lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html 3850:Indented comments not in italics are mine. 2181:be excluded altogether. Is this correct?-- 1995:games with somebody pushing for their POV. 1835:Do you agree with the preceding paragraph? 1068:Neutral point of view as applied to science 5955:Some editors here need a refresher on the 5733:I have just modified one external link on 5483:I have just modified one external link on 4795:The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debates 4348:Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 1#Evolution Denialist 2614:section entitled "Criticism of His Views". 6156:. You do realize that it's impossible to 5593:I have just modified 4 external links on 4786:The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience 2648:his opponents have addressed his points. 1111:Theories which have a following, such as 7081:Science and academia work group articles 6503:seems to be a form of gaming the system 6475:but I don't have subscription access to 3724:- source is a web site article. Maybe ok 3643:religious notions to science classrooms. 3083:in their own right is the definition of 2957:and author best known for his theory of 2209:The following statement was made above: 2013:Please explain how my additions violate 1793:and whether using them would constitute 1318:Well, the added material has a whiff of 6874:You forgot to put your cheap tuxedo on. 6744:2600:8801:BE31:D300:7D70:218D:579B:EBC5 6308:where Behe's name does in fact appear. 4143:Rejection by the "scientific community" 2953:(born January 18, 1952) is an American 2456:the material in the text to the author. 1340:Two accusations are made against Behe: 267: 7053: 5726:External links modified (January 2018) 4791:Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia 2491:This article has serious BLP issues. 869:WikiProject University of Pennsylvania 7151:Low-importance Lehigh Valley articles 5298:Guettarda, please keep that in mind. 4793:by Brian Regal. Michael Ruse's book, 4383:including any prominent controversies 4371:No this is NOT "a controversial edit" 3862:. Promethus Books, Amherst, New York. 3039:is going to require admin attention. 1528:What part of this is objectionable?-- 1062:. The final decision was as follows: 7141:Low-importance Pennsylvania articles 6590:informs that ID is a pseudoscience. 3858:Robert T. Pennock and Michael Ruse. 3143:WP:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22 1355:Could you elaborate on the whiff of 1133:Alternative theoretical formulations 1035: 992: 939:Warning: active arbitration remedies 927: 866:This article is within the scope of 773:This article is within the scope of 684:This article is within the scope of 447:This article is within the scope of 346:This article is within the scope of 263: 221: 7101:C-Class Intelligent design articles 7096:Mid-importance Creationism articles 7061:Biography articles of living people 4962:for "with his head up his ass." -- 4455:We're better off describing him in 4350:, but is yet to reach a consensus. 1930:for a POV supporting the so-called 892:University of Pennsylvania articles 797:Knowledge:WikiProject Lehigh Valley 397:the science and academia work group 286:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 7156:WikiProject Lehigh Valley articles 5839:Inteligent Design and uneautrality 4976:Actually, his opinion is based up 3681:Impugns the motive of the subject. 3410:. Would you like to include that? 3330:Why is the second half necessary? 2462:Knowledge:Reliable_source_examples 1515:I received the following message: 1107:Generally considered pseudoscience 1039: 800:Template:WikiProject Lehigh Valley 704:Knowledge:WikiProject Pennsylvania 500: 385: 14: 7182: 5737:. Please take a moment to review 5597:. Please take a moment to review 5487:. Please take a moment to review 3790:That would be great, Guettarada! 2030:Please explain what makes this a 707:Template:WikiProject Pennsylvania 467:Knowledge:WikiProject Creationism 7116:WikiProject Creationism articles 7025: 6980: 6901: 6829: 6781: 6668: 6615: 6539: 1150: 996: 931: 859: 838: 766: 745: 671: 661: 640: 563: 553: 532: 470:Template:WikiProject Creationism 440: 413: 333: 323: 299: 268: 227:This article must adhere to the 45:Click here to start a new topic. 7126:Mid-importance Biology articles 3696:motivated critics of evolution. 1073:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 1020:Content must be written from a 1004:The subject of this article is 906:This article has been rated as 817:This article has been rated as 724:This article has been rated as 619:This article has been rated as 487:This article has been rated as 370:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 7171:Knowledge controversial topics 7146:C-Class Lehigh Valley articles 7086:WikiProject Biography articles 7046:12:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7019:10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 6888:03:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 6861:19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 6847:09:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 6824:09:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 5949:21:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 5934:20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 4219:01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 4200:01:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 4184:01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 3645:OR - not in provided sources. 3619:Trends in Biochemical Sciences 3440:The wording has been tweaked. 2978:Center for Science and Culture 2973:and as a senior fellow of the 1322:about it and, anyway, appears 373:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 7136:C-Class Pennsylvania articles 6713:13:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC) 6696:07:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC) 6662:15:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC) 5462:05:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 5427:05:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 5398:05:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 5372:04:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 5351:04:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 5333:04:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 5308:04:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 5287:04:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 5271:04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 4330:19:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 4025:16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC) 3994:16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC) 3945:06:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC) 3930:06:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC) 3914:19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 3900:07:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 3882:07:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 3843:19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 3828:19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 3800:22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3786:22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3771:20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3664:Matzke 381-383; Humes 284-286 3548:16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3522:22:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3489:22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3468:16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3450:19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3436:17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3420:17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3403:16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3384:16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3369:16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3355:16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3340:16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3326:15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3312:15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3298:15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3284:15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3265:15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3244:16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3210:16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3196:16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3159:21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3133:16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3112:16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3097:16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3067:15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3049:15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3026:15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 3003:13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 2935:05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 2908:04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 2883:22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 2858:05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 2836:03:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 2809:22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 2731:05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 2705:03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 2298:Here are the requirements of 1206:Undue weight to a fringe view 984:contentious topics procedures 880:and see a list of open tasks. 791:and see a list of open tasks. 698:and see a list of open tasks. 599:Knowledge:WikiProject Biology 512:Intelligent design task force 509:This article is supported by 461:and see a list of open tasks. 394:This article is supported by 230:biographies of living persons 42:Put new text under old text. 7131:WikiProject Biology articles 7091:C-Class Creationism articles 6868:it must be demonstrated how 6522:14:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6488:13:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6425:11:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6410:11:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6380:11:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6362:10:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6346:10:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6332:10:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6318:10:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6299:10:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6279:10:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6253:10:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6239:10:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6225:10:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6211:10:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6185:10:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6170:10:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6144:09:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6128:09:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6095:09:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6061:09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6046:09:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6032:09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6017:09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 5995:09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 5980:09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 5831:11:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC) 5721:07:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC) 2961:criticizing some aspects of 2682:19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 2598:22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 2576:15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 2482:00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2386:22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2367:22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2347:20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2332:20:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2289:17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2273:14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2237:01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2205:01:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2191:22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2175:19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2160:18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2145:17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2131:17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2109:16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2083:22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2060:16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2005:12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 1958:20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1921:23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1906:19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1864:15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1810:10:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1746:18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1711:13:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1670:16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1646:14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1622:13:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1603:00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1587:00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) 1506:18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 1475:16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 1457:16:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 1431:10:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1400:09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1369:16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1335:10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 960:You must be logged-in to an 602:Template:WikiProject Biology 358:contribute to the discussion 7: 7111:Intelligent design articles 7003:to reactivate your request. 6991:has been answered. Set the 6967:05:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 6948:03:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 6924:to reactivate your request. 6912:has been answered. Set the 6804:to reactivate your request. 6792:has been answered. Set the 6733:18:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 6638:to reactivate your request. 6626:has been answered. Set the 6562:to reactivate your request. 6550:has been answered. Set the 6003:Nope you are reversing the 5449:1924 Rose Bowl#Game summary 4562:And if SAedon's goal is to 4299:06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 4279:16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 4253:16:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 3272:WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims 3008:Each edit must be discussed 1938:. Furthermore it violates 1567:18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1552:17:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1538:17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1313:19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1298:19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1284:18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1269:18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1245:18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1224:23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC) 1014:When updating the article, 242:must be removed immediately 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 7187: 7066:C-Class biography articles 6768:05:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 6752:19:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 6600:06:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 6579:01:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 5909:23:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 5898:19:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 5881:17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 5869:07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 5854:13:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 5794:(last update: 5 June 2024) 5730:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 5684:(last update: 5 June 2024) 5590:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 5544:(last update: 5 June 2024) 5480:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 5231:12:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC) 5215:02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC) 5199:18:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 5183:07:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 5168:03:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 4088:21:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 4045:17:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 3631:10.1016/j.tibs.2007.06.001 3528:Darwin's Black Box section 2898:properly sourced content. 2536:which this article fails: 2450:Knowledge:Reliable_sources 2352:This has entered far into 1982:You failed to address the 962:autoconfirmed or confirmed 912:project's importance scale 883:University of Pennsylvania 874:University of Pennsylvania 846:University of Pennsylvania 823:project's importance scale 730:project's importance scale 625:project's importance scale 493:project's importance scale 4837:published in Bioscience. 3890:is an important source. 3886:OK, past my bedtime, but 3582:but ref is not on point. 3274:may be of service to us. 2416:Knowledge:Fringe_theories 2258:Knowledge:Fringe_theories 1016:be bold, but not reckless 986:before editing this page. 905: 854: 816: 776:WikiProject Lehigh Valley 761: 723: 656: 618: 548: 508: 486: 435: 393: 318: 294: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 7121:C-Class Biology articles 5581:13:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC) 5237:Reworded article summary 5141:07:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 5123:17:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC) 5100:11:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 5082:10:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 5066:06:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 5005:08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4990:02:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4972:01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4950:01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4935:00:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4908:03:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4889:01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4867:01:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4847:00:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4825:23:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4807:23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4769:22:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4748:22:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4729:21:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4707:01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4689:01:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4674:14:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4645:14:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4627:13:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4608:13:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4591:01:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4576:11:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4554:11:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4526:01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 4512:10:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4489:10:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4470:09:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4448:07:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4426:06:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4399:06:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4365:06:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 4153:the scientific community 4138:16:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 4118:18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 4059:21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2405:20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1374:Hi. What I meant about 1054:In December of 2006 the 980:normal editorial process 687:WikiProject Pennsylvania 6464:10.1126/science.aaw4056 5586:External links modified 5476:External links modified 4789:by Michael Shermer and 3744:Dover testimony section 2435:Knowledge:NPOV_tutorial 2374:Knowledge:Third opinion 2248:Knowledge:NPOV_tutorial 2048:Knowledge:NPOV_tutorial 450:WikiProject Creationism 4337:Evolution denial, etc. 2959:irreducible complexity 2604:Let's fix this article 2261: 2252: 2219: 1522: 1511:Blood clotting cascade 1044: 1008:and content may be in 976:standards of behaviour 803:Lehigh Valley articles 505: 390: 276:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 5021:self-published source 3865:Humes, Edward. 2007. 3814:Re the Dover section: 3683:removed from article 2975:Discovery Institute's 2519:scientific community. 2395:as far as I can see. 2319:, even by consensus. 2253: 2244: 2211: 1517: 1094:Obvious pseudoscience 1084:Serious encyclopedias 1056:Arbitration Committee 1043: 1022:neutral point of view 710:Pennsylvania articles 504: 389: 349:WikiProject Biography 100:Neutral point of view 7034:It is well-sourced. 6306:the judge's opinion, 6245:Freeknowledgecreator 6217:Freeknowledgecreator 6177:Freeknowledgecreator 6136:Freeknowledgecreator 6053:Freeknowledgecreator 6024:Freeknowledgecreator 5987:Freeknowledgecreator 5775:regular verification 5665:regular verification 5525:regular verification 4168:scientific community 1779:another of his books 1120:Questionable science 972:purpose of Knowledge 473:Creationism articles 312:Science and Academia 105:No original research 6837:see above sections 5887:Intelligent Falling 5765:After February 2018 5655:After February 2018 5515:After February 2018 5242:of the reviewers." 4542:Holocaust denialism 3595:- ref is a wikilink 679:Pennsylvania portal 582:WikiProject Biology 5920:Intelligent Design 5846:DizzinessOfFreedom 5819:InternetArchiveBot 5770:InternetArchiveBot 5709:InternetArchiveBot 5660:InternetArchiveBot 5569:InternetArchiveBot 5520:InternetArchiveBot 5027:The second source 4484: 4443: 4385:." (my emphasis). 3758:- source is a blog 2509:should be removed. 2499:. Reword or remove 2410:Some general rules 2393:WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT 2354:WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT 1993:WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT 1932:Intelligent Design 1679:Darwin's Black Box 1359:you detect here?-- 1045: 944:contentious topics 940: 506: 426:Intelligent design 391: 376:biography articles 282:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 7007: 7006: 6928: 6927: 6872:is "fake science" 6808: 6807: 6694: 6642: 6641: 6566: 6565: 6301: 6154:It doesn't say it 5795: 5685: 5545: 4994:You're pleasant. 4695:Kenneth R. Miller 4662:Kenneth R. Miller 4633:Donald E. Simanek 4606: 4482: 4441: 4333: 4316:comment added by 4289:comment added by 4243:comment added by 4078:comment added by 3679:Very problematic. 3553:BLP Issues Redeux 3486: 2967:Lehigh University 2658:) 9 January 2010 2563:WP:Words_to_avoid 1807: 1763:article elsewhere 1708: 1643: 1565: 1397: 1332: 1243: 1203: 1202: 1184: 1183: 1144: 1143: 1034: 1033: 991: 990: 938: 926: 925: 922: 921: 918: 917: 833: 832: 829: 828: 740: 739: 736: 735: 635: 634: 631: 630: 527: 526: 523: 522: 408: 407: 404: 403: 262: 261: 220: 219: 66:Assume good faith 43: 7178: 7040: 7033: 7029: 7028: 6998: 6994: 6984: 6983: 6977: 6919: 6915: 6905: 6904: 6898: 6870:creation science 6833: 6832: 6799: 6795: 6785: 6784: 6778: 6709: 6704: 6688: 6681: 6676: 6672: 6671: 6633: 6629: 6619: 6618: 6612: 6557: 6553: 6543: 6542: 6536: 6474: 6447: 6445: 6443: 6292: 6158:prove a negative 5907: 5879: 5829: 5820: 5793: 5792: 5771: 5719: 5710: 5683: 5682: 5661: 5579: 5570: 5543: 5542: 5521: 5064: 5063: 5049: 4958:we can't find a 4896:in Boston Review 4605: 4486: 4445: 4397: 4332: 4310: 4301: 4277: 4268: 4255: 4090: 3792:ScienceApologist 3717:unsourced weasel 3634: 3544: 3487: 3484: 3480: 3442:ScienceApologist 3412:ScienceApologist 3399: 3361:ScienceApologist 3347:ScienceApologist 3318:ScienceApologist 3290:ScienceApologist 3276:ScienceApologist 3240: 3202:ScienceApologist 3125:ScienceApologist 3059:ScienceApologist 3018:ScienceApologist 2832: 2701: 2217:for his opinion. 2017:. Here is what 1869:A Simple Request 1805: 1706: 1660:and unbalance?-- 1641: 1561: 1395: 1330: 1239: 1198: 1165: 1164: 1154: 1146: 1042: 1036: 1000: 999: 993: 935: 928: 894: 893: 890: 887: 884: 863: 856: 855: 850: 842: 835: 834: 805: 804: 801: 798: 795: 770: 763: 762: 757: 749: 742: 741: 712: 711: 708: 705: 702: 681: 676: 675: 674: 665: 658: 657: 652: 644: 637: 636: 607: 606: 605:Biology articles 603: 600: 597: 573: 568: 567: 557: 550: 549: 544: 536: 529: 528: 475: 474: 471: 468: 465: 444: 437: 436: 431: 428: 417: 410: 409: 378: 377: 374: 371: 368: 354:join the project 343: 341:Biography portal 338: 337: 336: 327: 320: 319: 314: 303: 296: 295: 279: 273: 272: 264: 250:this noticeboard 222: 214: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 7186: 7185: 7181: 7180: 7179: 7177: 7176: 7175: 7051: 7050: 7038: 7026: 7024: 6996: 6992: 6981: 6975: 6917: 6913: 6902: 6896: 6830: 6797: 6793: 6782: 6776: 6740: 6721: 6707: 6702: 6679: 6669: 6667: 6631: 6627: 6616: 6610: 6555: 6551: 6540: 6534: 6441: 6439: 6430: 6310:Just plain Bill 6271:Just plain Bill 6005:burden of proof 5961: 5922: 5903: 5875: 5841: 5823: 5818: 5786: 5779:have permission 5769: 5743:this simple FaQ 5728: 5713: 5708: 5676: 5669:have permission 5659: 5603:this simple FaQ 5588: 5573: 5568: 5536: 5529:have permission 5519: 5493:this simple FaQ 5478: 5256: 5239: 5104:In particular, 5051: 5047: 5044: 5019:is an unusable 4942:SkepticalRaptor 4859:SkepticalRaptor 4681:SkepticalRaptor 4603:KillerChihuahua 4583:SkepticalRaptor 4518:SkepticalRaptor 4480: 4439: 4395: 4386: 4339: 4311: 4284: 4276: 4266: 4264: 4238: 4232: 4151:many members of 4145: 4125: 4096: 4073: 4033: 3952: 3950:On Whitewashing 3555: 3542: 3531: 3482: 3474: 3397: 3252: 3238: 3145:. Also, please 3010: 2982: 2951:Michael J. Behe 2830: 2699: 2691:your changes. 2620:qualifications. 2606: 2489: 2412: 1871: 1688:novel synthesis 1575: 1559:KillerChihuahua 1513: 1411:primary sources 1379:(IIRC) violate 1237:KillerChihuahua 1208: 1199: 1193: 1159: 1140: 1139: 1051: 1040: 997: 974:, any expected 967: 891: 888: 885: 882: 881: 848: 802: 799: 796: 793: 792: 755: 709: 706: 703: 700: 699: 677: 672: 670: 650: 604: 601: 598: 595: 594: 579:is part of the 569: 562: 542: 517:High-importance 472: 469: 466: 463: 462: 429: 423: 375: 372: 369: 366: 365: 339: 334: 332: 309: 280:on Knowledge's 277: 216: 215: 210: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 7184: 7174: 7173: 7168: 7163: 7158: 7153: 7148: 7143: 7138: 7133: 7128: 7123: 7118: 7113: 7108: 7103: 7098: 7093: 7088: 7083: 7078: 7073: 7068: 7063: 7049: 7048: 7005: 7004: 6985: 6974: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6936: 6926: 6925: 6906: 6895: 6892: 6891: 6890: 6875: 6864: 6863: 6849: 6806: 6805: 6786: 6775: 6772: 6771: 6770: 6739: 6736: 6720: 6717: 6716: 6715: 6698: 6640: 6639: 6620: 6609: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6603: 6602: 6564: 6563: 6544: 6533: 6530: 6529: 6528: 6527: 6526: 6525: 6524: 6397: 6396: 6395: 6394: 6393: 6392: 6391: 6390: 6389: 6388: 6387: 6386: 6385: 6384: 6383: 6382: 6297:comment added 6267: 6266: 6265: 6264: 6263: 6262: 6261: 6260: 6259: 6258: 6257: 6256: 6255: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6187: 6147: 6146: 6108: 6107: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6102: 6101: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6072: 6071: 6070: 6069: 6068: 6067: 6066: 6065: 6064: 6063: 5998: 5997: 5970:Emphasis mine. 5960: 5953: 5952: 5951: 5921: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5912: 5871: 5840: 5837: 5835: 5813: 5812: 5805: 5758: 5757: 5749:Added archive 5727: 5724: 5703: 5702: 5695: 5648: 5647: 5639:Added archive 5637: 5629:Added archive 5627: 5619:Added archive 5617: 5609:Added archive 5587: 5584: 5563: 5562: 5555: 5508: 5507: 5499:Added archive 5477: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5436: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5400: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5354: 5353: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5296: 5290: 5289: 5255: 5252: 5238: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5186: 5185: 5155: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5133:202.124.75.193 5115:202.124.72.115 5092:202.124.73.242 5057: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5007: 4992: 4974: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4850: 4849: 4828: 4827: 4810: 4809: 4772: 4771: 4751: 4750: 4732: 4731: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4647: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4568:202.124.73.119 4557: 4556: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4504:202.124.73.123 4476:AIDS denialism 4462:202.124.75.254 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4402: 4401: 4391: 4338: 4335: 4318:BradDill9Eever 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4270: 4231: 4228: 4226: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4203: 4202: 4144: 4141: 4124: 4121: 4098:John C. Avise 4095: 4092: 4032: 4029: 4028: 4027: 3951: 3948: 3933: 3932: 3871: 3870: 3863: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3830: 3815: 3812: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3760: 3759: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3725: 3718: 3711: 3710:- unsourced OR 3705: 3699: 3692: 3691:- unsourced OR 3686: 3670: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3625:(7): 301–310. 3602: 3601: 3600: 3589: 3583: 3573: 3554: 3551: 3530: 3525: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3405: 3357: 3300: 3286: 3251: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3114: 3009: 3006: 2948: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2685: 2684: 2645: 2644: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2633: 2628: 2627: 2622: 2621: 2616: 2615: 2605: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2580: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2544: 2541: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2523: 2520: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2503: 2500: 2488: 2485: 2470: 2469: 2458: 2457: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2423: 2411: 2408: 2370: 2369: 2312: 2311: 2307: 2292: 2291: 2178: 2177: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2008: 2007: 1979: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1961: 1960: 1944: 1943: 1870: 1867: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1799: 1798: 1782: 1770: 1759:single section 1749: 1748: 1733: 1726: 1714: 1713: 1700: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1606: 1605: 1574: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1512: 1509: 1482: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1460: 1459: 1444: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1403: 1402: 1349: 1348: 1345: 1338: 1337: 1248: 1247: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1200: 1195: 1191: 1189: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1176: 1171: 1161: 1160: 1155: 1149: 1142: 1141: 1138: 1137: 1129: 1126:psychoanalysis 1116: 1103: 1090: 1080: 1052: 1049: 1048: 1046: 1032: 1031: 1001: 989: 988: 966: 965: 957: 952:fringe science 936: 924: 923: 920: 919: 916: 915: 908:Low-importance 904: 898: 897: 895: 878:the discussion 864: 852: 851: 849:Low‑importance 843: 831: 830: 827: 826: 819:Low-importance 815: 809: 808: 806: 789:the discussion 771: 759: 758: 756:Low‑importance 750: 738: 737: 734: 733: 726:Low-importance 722: 716: 715: 713: 696:the discussion 683: 682: 666: 654: 653: 651:Low‑importance 645: 633: 632: 629: 628: 621:Mid-importance 617: 611: 610: 608: 575: 574: 571:Biology portal 558: 546: 545: 543:Mid‑importance 537: 525: 524: 521: 520: 507: 497: 496: 489:Mid-importance 485: 479: 478: 476: 459:the discussion 445: 433: 432: 430:Mid‑importance 418: 406: 405: 402: 401: 392: 382: 381: 379: 345: 344: 328: 316: 315: 304: 292: 291: 285: 274: 260: 259: 255:this help page 239:poorly sourced 225: 218: 217: 208: 206: 205: 202: 201: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 7183: 7172: 7169: 7167: 7164: 7162: 7159: 7157: 7154: 7152: 7149: 7147: 7144: 7142: 7139: 7137: 7134: 7132: 7129: 7127: 7124: 7122: 7119: 7117: 7114: 7112: 7109: 7107: 7104: 7102: 7099: 7097: 7094: 7092: 7089: 7087: 7084: 7082: 7079: 7077: 7074: 7072: 7069: 7067: 7064: 7062: 7059: 7058: 7056: 7047: 7044: 7043: 7041: 7032: 7023: 7022: 7021: 7020: 7016: 7012: 7011:90.208.72.168 7002: 6999:parameter to 6990: 6986: 6979: 6978: 6968: 6964: 6960: 6956: 6952: 6951: 6950: 6949: 6945: 6941: 6934: 6931: 6923: 6920:parameter to 6911: 6907: 6900: 6899: 6889: 6885: 6881: 6876: 6873: 6871: 6866: 6865: 6862: 6858: 6854: 6850: 6848: 6844: 6840: 6836: 6828: 6827: 6826: 6825: 6821: 6817: 6812: 6803: 6800:parameter to 6791: 6787: 6780: 6779: 6769: 6765: 6761: 6757: 6756: 6755: 6753: 6749: 6745: 6735: 6734: 6730: 6726: 6719:Pseudoscience 6714: 6710: 6705: 6699: 6697: 6692: 6687: 6686: 6685: 6675: 6666: 6665: 6664: 6663: 6659: 6655: 6654:65.78.107.194 6651: 6647: 6637: 6634:parameter to 6625: 6621: 6614: 6613: 6601: 6597: 6593: 6589: 6585: 6584: 6583: 6582: 6581: 6580: 6576: 6572: 6561: 6558:parameter to 6549: 6545: 6538: 6537: 6523: 6519: 6515: 6511: 6506: 6502: 6498: 6494: 6491: 6490: 6489: 6486: 6482: 6478: 6472: 6469: 6465: 6461: 6457: 6453: 6437: 6433: 6428: 6427: 6426: 6422: 6418: 6414: 6413: 6412: 6411: 6407: 6403: 6402:202.27.212.13 6381: 6377: 6373: 6369: 6365: 6364: 6363: 6359: 6355: 6354:202.27.212.13 6351: 6350: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6344: 6340: 6335: 6334: 6333: 6329: 6325: 6324:202.27.212.13 6321: 6320: 6319: 6315: 6311: 6307: 6303: 6302: 6300: 6296: 6290: 6286: 6285:202.27.212.13 6282: 6281: 6280: 6276: 6272: 6268: 6254: 6250: 6246: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6236: 6232: 6231:202.27.212.13 6228: 6227: 6226: 6222: 6218: 6214: 6213: 6212: 6208: 6204: 6203:202.27.212.13 6200: 6199: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6195: 6194: 6193: 6186: 6182: 6178: 6173: 6172: 6171: 6167: 6163: 6162:202.27.212.13 6159: 6155: 6151: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6145: 6141: 6137: 6132: 6131: 6130: 6129: 6125: 6121: 6120:202.27.212.13 6117: 6113: 6112:202.27.212.13 6096: 6092: 6088: 6087:202.27.212.13 6084: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6080: 6079: 6078: 6077: 6076: 6075: 6074: 6073: 6062: 6058: 6054: 6049: 6048: 6047: 6043: 6039: 6038:202.27.212.13 6035: 6034: 6033: 6029: 6025: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6014: 6010: 6009:202.27.212.13 6006: 6002: 6001: 6000: 5999: 5996: 5992: 5988: 5984: 5983: 5982: 5981: 5977: 5973: 5972:202.27.212.13 5968: 5966: 5958: 5950: 5946: 5942: 5938: 5937: 5936: 5935: 5931: 5927: 5910: 5906: 5901: 5900: 5899: 5896: 5892: 5888: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5878: 5872: 5870: 5867: 5863: 5858: 5857: 5856: 5855: 5851: 5847: 5836: 5833: 5832: 5827: 5822: 5821: 5810: 5806: 5803: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5790: 5784: 5780: 5776: 5772: 5766: 5761: 5756: 5752: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5744: 5740: 5736: 5731: 5723: 5722: 5717: 5712: 5711: 5700: 5696: 5693: 5689: 5688: 5687: 5680: 5674: 5670: 5666: 5662: 5656: 5651: 5646: 5642: 5638: 5636: 5632: 5628: 5626: 5622: 5618: 5616: 5612: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5604: 5600: 5596: 5591: 5583: 5582: 5577: 5572: 5571: 5560: 5556: 5553: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5540: 5534: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5516: 5511: 5506: 5502: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5494: 5490: 5486: 5481: 5463: 5460: 5459: 5455: 5450: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5416: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5399: 5396: 5395: 5391: 5386: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5373: 5369: 5365: 5361: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5352: 5348: 5344: 5340: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5331: 5330: 5326: 5321: 5317: 5309: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5288: 5284: 5280: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5268: 5264: 5260: 5251: 5247: 5243: 5232: 5229: 5225: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5216: 5212: 5208: 5207:John G. Lewis 5202: 5200: 5196: 5192: 5191:John G. Lewis 5184: 5181: 5177: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5169: 5165: 5161: 5160:John G. Lewis 5154: 5142: 5138: 5134: 5130: 5129:WP:BLPSOURCES 5126: 5125: 5124: 5120: 5116: 5112: 5107: 5106:WP:BLPSOURCES 5103: 5102: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5088:WP:BLPSOURCES 5085: 5084: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5061: 5055: 5050: 5040: 5036: 5034: 5029: 5025: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5006: 5003: 5002: 4997: 4993: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4964:202.124.75.23 4961: 4957: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4947: 4943: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4933: 4932: 4909: 4905: 4901: 4897: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4881:202.124.75.23 4878: 4874: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4851: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4826: 4822: 4818: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4787: 4782: 4781: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4749: 4745: 4741: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4717: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4699:202.124.75.23 4696: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4686: 4682: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4666:202.124.74.96 4663: 4659: 4658: 4657:Only A Theory 4653: 4648: 4646: 4642: 4638: 4637:202.124.74.96 4634: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4604: 4592: 4588: 4584: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4565: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4538: 4527: 4523: 4519: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4500: 4495: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4487: 4477: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4458: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4446: 4436: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4416: 4415: 4410: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4400: 4396: 4394: 4390: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4355: 4354: 4349: 4344: 4334: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4309: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4291:74.235.22.246 4288: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4275: 4274: 4269: 4267:Sven Manguard 4262: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4237: 4227: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4211:EmausPriester 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4176:EmausPriester 4172: 4169: 4163: 4161: 4156: 4154: 4152: 4140: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4120: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4106: 4104: 4101: 4091: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4080:24.222.194.29 4077: 4072: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4051:65.175.224.90 4047: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4031:Homeschooling 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3947: 3946: 3942: 3938: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3902: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3884: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3868: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3831: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3816: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3757: 3753: 3748: 3747: 3745: 3742: 3737: 3734: 3732: 3731: 3729: 3726: 3723: 3719: 3716: 3712: 3709: 3706: 3703: 3700: 3697: 3693: 3690: 3687: 3685: 3682: 3680: 3676: 3671: 3668: 3663: 3662: 3660: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3646: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3615: 3610: 3609: 3607: 3603: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3594: 3590: 3587: 3584: 3581: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3567: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3560: 3550: 3549: 3545: 3539: 3538: 3529: 3524: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3490: 3485: 3479: 3478: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3406: 3404: 3400: 3394: 3393: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3245: 3241: 3235: 3234: 3229: 3225: 3224: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3121: 3115: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3005: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2981: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2947: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2837: 2833: 2827: 2826: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2706: 2702: 2696: 2695: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2666: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2630: 2629: 2624: 2623: 2618: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2588: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2559: 2557: 2554:Although per 2549: 2545: 2542: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2535: 2527: 2524: 2521: 2517: 2514: 2511: 2508: 2504: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2484: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2442: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2427: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2407: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397:65.175.224.90 2394: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2320: 2318: 2308: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2301: 2296: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2260: 2259: 2251: 2249: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2218: 2216: 2210: 2207: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2071: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2042: 2036: 2035: 2033: 2029: 2023: 2022: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1875: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1852: 1849: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1830: 1824: 1821: 1811: 1808: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1787: 1783: 1780: 1775: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1731: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1712: 1709: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1647: 1644: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1540: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1526: 1521: 1516: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1490: 1485: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420:pseudoscience 1417: 1412: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1401: 1398: 1391: 1386: 1382: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1353: 1346: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1336: 1333: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1300: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1271: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1256: 1252: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1211: 1188: 1187: 1180: 1177: 1175: 1172: 1170: 1167: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1153: 1148: 1147: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1127: 1123: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1110: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1077:pseudoscience 1074: 1071: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1061: 1057: 1047: 1038: 1037: 1029: 1025: 1023: 1017: 1013: 1011: 1007: 1006:controversial 1002: 995: 994: 987: 985: 981: 977: 973: 968: 963: 959: 958: 955: 953: 949: 948:pseudoscience 945: 937: 934: 930: 929: 913: 909: 903: 900: 899: 896: 879: 875: 871: 870: 865: 862: 858: 857: 853: 847: 844: 841: 837: 836: 824: 820: 814: 811: 810: 807: 794:Lehigh Valley 790: 786: 782: 781:Lehigh Valley 778: 777: 772: 769: 765: 764: 760: 754: 753:Lehigh Valley 751: 748: 744: 743: 731: 727: 721: 718: 717: 714: 697: 693: 689: 688: 680: 669: 667: 664: 660: 659: 655: 649: 646: 643: 639: 638: 626: 622: 616: 613: 612: 609: 592: 588: 584: 583: 578: 572: 566: 561: 559: 556: 552: 551: 547: 541: 538: 535: 531: 530: 518: 515:(assessed as 514: 513: 503: 499: 498: 494: 490: 484: 481: 480: 477: 460: 456: 452: 451: 446: 443: 439: 438: 434: 427: 422: 419: 416: 412: 411: 399: 398: 388: 384: 383: 380: 363: 362:documentation 359: 355: 351: 350: 342: 331: 329: 326: 322: 321: 317: 313: 308: 305: 302: 298: 297: 293: 289: 283: 275: 271: 266: 265: 257: 256: 251: 247: 243: 240: 236: 232: 231: 226: 224: 223: 204: 203: 200: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 7035: 7030: 7008: 7000: 6989:edit request 6935: 6932: 6929: 6921: 6910:edit request 6869: 6867: 6834: 6813: 6809: 6801: 6790:edit request 6741: 6722: 6683: 6682: 6673: 6649: 6645: 6643: 6635: 6624:edit request 6567: 6559: 6548:edit request 6514:Robynthehode 6509: 6476: 6455: 6451: 6440:. Retrieved 6438:. 7 Feb 2019 6436:Books, Et Al 6435: 6417:Robynthehode 6398: 6372:Robynthehode 6153: 6109: 5969: 5964: 5962: 5941:Robynthehode 5923: 5860:Design. . . 5842: 5834: 5817: 5814: 5789:source check 5768: 5762: 5759: 5735:Michael Behe 5732: 5729: 5707: 5704: 5679:source check 5658: 5652: 5649: 5595:Michael Behe 5592: 5589: 5567: 5564: 5539:source check 5518: 5512: 5509: 5485:Michael Behe 5482: 5479: 5452: 5388: 5323: 5314: 5257: 5248: 5244: 5240: 5203: 5187: 5156: 5151: 5110: 5074:Salimfadhley 5041: 5037: 5026: 5015: 5011: 4999: 4995: 4955: 4929: 4926: 4872: 4794: 4790: 4784: 4778: 4761:Salimfadhley 4740:Salimfadhley 4655: 4651: 4614: 4599: 4563: 4456: 4432: 4413: 4408: 4387: 4382: 4370: 4352: 4340: 4312:— Preceding 4306: 4283:Okey Dokey 4272: 4245:74.235.22.93 4233: 4225: 4173: 4164: 4158:My edit was 4157: 4150: 4148: 4146: 4126: 4107: 4102: 4097: 4074:— Preceding 4066: 4062: 4048: 4034: 4012: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3934: 3903: 3885: 3872: 3866: 3859: 3855: 3849: 3761: 3754: 3743: 3727: 3720: 3713: 3707: 3701: 3694: 3688: 3678: 3673: 3672: 3653: 3649: 3641: 3622: 3618: 3612: 3608:- unsourced 3604: 3592: 3591: 3585: 3579: 3575: 3565: 3556: 3536: 3532: 3507: 3476: 3391: 3332:DJ Clayworth 3304:DJ Clayworth 3257:DJ Clayworth 3253: 3232: 3117: 3080: 3072: 3031:Please read 3013: 3011: 2983: 2971:Pennsylvania 2963:evolutionary 2950: 2949: 2945: 2824: 2717:Please read 2693: 2650: 2646: 2607: 2579: 2560: 2553: 2531: 2490: 2471: 2459: 2447: 2432: 2413: 2389: 2371: 2335: 2321: 2313: 2297: 2293: 2262: 2254: 2245: 2240: 2223: 2220: 2212: 2208: 2194: 2179: 2148: 2134: 2119: 2072: 2068: 1962: 1909: 1895: 1876: 1872: 1853: 1848:undue weight 1844: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1825: 1822: 1818: 1795:undue weight 1786:undue weight 1778: 1773: 1766: 1758: 1719: 1715: 1683: 1677: 1654: 1576: 1541: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1514: 1493: 1486: 1481: 1437: 1384: 1354: 1350: 1339: 1323: 1301: 1287: 1272: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1212: 1209: 1156: 1131: 1118: 1105: 1092: 1082: 1066: 1053: 1019: 1003: 969: 956: 941: 907: 867: 818: 785:Pennsylvania 774: 725: 701:Pennsylvania 692:Pennsylvania 685: 648:Pennsylvania 620: 580: 577:Michael Behe 576: 510: 488: 448: 395: 347: 288:WikiProjects 253: 241: 234: 228: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 25:Michael Behe 19:This is the 6959:Hob Gadling 6955:WP:CSECTION 6940:67.61.91.91 6880:Hob Gadling 6816:Neuroplexus 6760:Hob Gadling 6684:Ganbaruby! 6571:24.4.188.64 6293:—Preceding 4900:92.2.91.151 4839:92.2.91.151 4835:book review 4799:92.2.91.151 4377:& (ii) 4373:-- see (i) 4285:—Preceding 4239:—Preceding 4230:Atheist son 4110:Tim Vickers 3869:. Ecco, NY. 3736:Talk Reason 3037:WP:Coatrack 2665:WP:Coatrack 2444:detractors. 2310:detractors. 2215:WP:COATRACK 2097:WP:COATRACK 2032:WP:COATRACK 1988:WP:COATRACK 1928:WP:COATRACK 1791:reliability 1769:is it here? 1557:see above. 464:Creationism 455:Creationism 421:Creationism 148:free images 31:not a forum 7055:Categories 6993:|answered= 6914:|answered= 6853:tgeorgescu 6794:|answered= 6725:tgeorgescu 6628:|answered= 6552:|answered= 6493:dave souza 6481:dave souza 6339:dave souza 5891:dave souza 5862:dave souza 5826:Report bug 5716:Report bug 5576:Report bug 5419:Dontreader 5385:Dontreader 5364:Dontreader 5343:Dontreader 5316:Dontreader 5300:Dontreader 5279:Dontreader 5263:Dontreader 5224:dave souza 5176:dave souza 4261:WP:SOURCES 4094:New source 4017:JPatterson 4013:dispassion 3937:JPatterson 3906:JPatterson 3820:JPatterson 3763:JPatterson 3722:evolution. 3537:Ravensfire 3514:JPatterson 3460:JPatterson 3428:JPatterson 3392:Ravensfire 3376:JPatterson 3233:Ravensfire 3188:JPatterson 3151:JPatterson 3089:JPatterson 3081:explicitly 3041:JPatterson 2995:JPatterson 2955:biochemist 2927:JPatterson 2850:JPatterson 2825:Ravensfire 2723:JPatterson 2694:Ravensfire 2674:JPatterson 2590:JPatterson 2568:JPatterson 2547:discussion 2487:BLP Issues 1699:quotation. 1468:dave souza 1424:dave souza 1274:removed.-- 1214:context?-- 783:region of 6835:Not done: 6650:Evolution 6646:Evolution 6592:Ixocactus 6471:0036-8075 5809:this tool 5802:this tool 5699:this tool 5692:this tool 5559:this tool 5552:this tool 5259:Guettarda 5033:synthesis 4494:Denialism 4407:The lead 4263:. Sorry. 4130:DThomsen8 3922:Guettarda 3892:Guettarda 3874:Guettarda 3835:Guettarda 3778:Guettarda 3614:designed. 2900:Auntie E. 2429:subjects. 2359:Simonm223 2281:Auntie E. 2167:Simonm223 2101:Simonm223 1997:Simonm223 1950:Simonm223 1940:WP:FRINGE 1887:WP:FRINGE 1595:Auntie E. 1179:Archive 3 1174:Archive 2 1169:Archive 1 1113:astrology 1100:Time Cube 1028:citations 978:, or any 591:talk page 367:Biography 307:Biography 246:libellous 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 7039:itsJamie 7031:Not done 6839:Cannolis 5905:Nunh-huh 5877:Nunh-huh 5815:Cheers.— 5705:Cheers.— 5565:Cheers.— 4954:And I'm 4546:Moreschi 4499:reliable 4457:specific 4343:reverted 4326:contribs 4314:unsigned 4287:unsigned 4241:unsigned 4192:BTfromLA 4160:reverted 4076:unsigned 3986:Chappell 3510:WP:SYNTH 3228:WP:UNDUE 2875:Chappell 2801:Chappell 2652:Chappell 2474:Swood100 2378:Swood100 2339:Swood100 2324:Swood100 2265:Swood100 2229:Swood100 2197:Swood100 2183:Swood100 2152:Swood100 2137:Swood100 2123:Swood100 2075:Swood100 2052:Swood100 2038:"coats". 1913:Swood100 1898:Swood100 1856:Swood100 1774:a priori 1738:Swood100 1730:reliable 1692:reliable 1662:Swood100 1658:WP:SYNTH 1636:WP:SYNTH 1614:Swood100 1579:Swood100 1544:Swood100 1530:Swood100 1498:Swood100 1489:WP:SYNTH 1449:Swood100 1381:WP:SYNTH 1376:WP:SYNTH 1361:Swood100 1357:WP:SYNTH 1320:WP:SYNTH 1305:Swood100 1290:Swood100 1276:Swood100 1261:Swood100 1216:Swood100 1157:Archives 1026:Include 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 6754:James. 6708:Neonate 6691:Say hi! 6510:Science 6505:WP:GAME 6477:Science 6452:Science 6368:stating 6295:undated 5959:policy. 5739:my edit 5599:my edit 5489:my edit 5320:WP:CALC 5111:Ideally 4978:WP:LEAD 4956:certain 4855:Ken Ham 4409:already 4379:WP:LEDE 4009:WP:NPOV 4001:WP:TLDR 3654:Edwards 3389:cases. 2987:WP:LEAD 2337:page?-- 2317:WP:NPOV 2300:WP:NPOV 2034:issue: 1891:WP:NPOV 1883:WP:NPOV 1846:giving 1806:LUMBAGO 1767:exactly 1707:LUMBAGO 1684:another 1642:LUMBAGO 1396:LUMBAGO 1331:LUMBAGO 1324:largely 1303:Behe.-- 1010:dispute 910:on the 821:on the 728:on the 623:on the 596:Biology 587:biology 540:Biology 491:on the 278:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 6588:WP:RSs 6501:WP:BLP 6479:. . . 5957:WP:BLP 5926:Vorbee 5889:. . . 5001:Errant 4931:Errant 4871:We do 4615:really 4564:combat 4418:Anselm 4357:Anselm 4123:Class? 4037:Eugene 4005:WP:AGF 3675:method 3650:Pandas 3570:WP:SYN 3477:Verbal 3147:WP:AGF 3120:gaming 3085:WP:SYN 3077:WP:BLP 3033:WP:BLP 2719:WP:BLP 2632:I.D.). 2587:WP:BLP 2534:WP:BLP 2497:WP:BLP 2422:topic. 2256:topic. 2227:can.-- 2021:says: 2019:WP:DUE 2015:WP:DUE 1984:WP:DUE 1936:WP:DUE 1879:WP:DUE 1829:Fringe 1563:Advice 1487:Also, 1390:WP:BLP 1241:Advice 284:scale. 126:Google 6997:|ans= 6987:This 6918:|ans= 6908:This 6798:|ans= 6788:This 6703:Paleo 6632:|ans= 6622:This 6556:|ans= 6546:This 6442:9 Feb 5902:🙂 - 5454:Manul 5415:Manul 5390:Manul 5360:Manul 5339:Manul 5325:Manul 5090:. -- 5060:edits 4960:WP:RS 4877:WP:RS 4652:wrong 4393:Stalk 4389:Hrafn 4105:2010 3730:- OR 3580:fixed 3559:BLP/N 3250:Intro 3183:WP:SS 3118:like 3055:WP:RS 2991:WP:SS 2670:WP:BP 2556:WP:BP 2507:WP:RS 2460:From 2448:From 2433:From 2414:From 2224:other 1089:work. 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 7037:OhNo 7015:talk 6963:talk 6953:See 6944:talk 6884:talk 6857:talk 6843:talk 6820:talk 6764:talk 6748:talk 6729:talk 6674:Done 6658:talk 6596:talk 6586:No. 6575:talk 6518:talk 6497:talk 6485:talk 6468:ISSN 6444:2020 6421:talk 6406:talk 6376:talk 6358:talk 6343:talk 6328:talk 6314:talk 6289:talk 6275:talk 6249:talk 6235:talk 6221:talk 6207:talk 6181:talk 6166:talk 6140:talk 6124:talk 6116:talk 6091:talk 6057:talk 6042:talk 6028:talk 6013:talk 5991:talk 5976:talk 5945:talk 5930:talk 5895:talk 5866:talk 5850:talk 5458:talk 5423:talk 5394:talk 5368:talk 5347:talk 5329:talk 5304:talk 5283:talk 5267:talk 5228:talk 5211:talk 5195:talk 5180:talk 5164:talk 5137:talk 5119:talk 5096:talk 5078:talk 5054:talk 5048:NULL 4986:talk 4968:talk 4946:talk 4904:talk 4885:talk 4863:talk 4843:talk 4821:talk 4803:talk 4765:talk 4744:talk 4725:talk 4721:John 4703:talk 4685:talk 4670:talk 4641:talk 4623:talk 4587:talk 4572:talk 4550:talk 4522:talk 4508:talk 4466:talk 4435:here 4422:talk 4361:talk 4322:talk 4295:talk 4273:Talk 4249:talk 4215:talk 4196:talk 4180:talk 4134:talk 4114:talk 4103:PNAS 4084:talk 4055:talk 4041:talk 4021:talk 3990:talk 3941:talk 3926:talk 3910:talk 3896:talk 3888:this 3878:talk 3839:talk 3824:talk 3796:talk 3782:talk 3767:talk 3543:talk 3518:talk 3483:chat 3464:talk 3446:talk 3432:talk 3416:talk 3398:talk 3380:talk 3365:talk 3351:talk 3336:talk 3322:talk 3308:talk 3294:talk 3280:talk 3261:talk 3239:talk 3206:talk 3192:talk 3155:talk 3141:and 3139:WP:V 3129:talk 3108:talk 3093:talk 3073:must 3063:talk 3045:talk 3022:talk 3014:must 2999:talk 2931:talk 2904:talk 2879:talk 2854:talk 2831:talk 2805:talk 2727:talk 2700:talk 2678:talk 2656:talk 2626:I.D. 2594:talk 2572:talk 2478:talk 2401:talk 2382:talk 2363:talk 2343:talk 2328:talk 2285:talk 2269:talk 2233:talk 2201:talk 2187:talk 2171:talk 2156:talk 2141:talk 2127:talk 2105:talk 2079:talk 2056:talk 2001:talk 1986:and 1954:talk 1917:talk 1902:talk 1885:and 1860:talk 1742:talk 1666:talk 1618:talk 1599:talk 1583:talk 1573:NPOV 1548:talk 1534:talk 1502:talk 1472:talk 1453:talk 1428:talk 1416:TLDR 1365:talk 1309:talk 1294:talk 1280:talk 1265:talk 1220:talk 950:and 942:The 356:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 6995:or 6916:or 6859:) 6796:or 6731:) 6630:or 6554:or 6460:doi 6456:363 6448:or 6291:) 5783:RfC 5753:to 5673:RfC 5643:to 5633:to 5623:to 5613:to 5533:RfC 5503:to 4982:Kww 4873:not 4817:Kww 4660:by 4619:Kww 4485:don 4444:don 4011:is 3627:doi 3104:Kww 2969:in 1494:any 1385:not 902:Low 813:Low 720:Low 615:Mid 483:Mid 235:BLP 176:TWL 7057:: 7017:) 7001:no 6965:) 6946:) 6922:no 6886:) 6878:-- 6845:) 6822:) 6802:no 6766:) 6750:) 6711:– 6677:. 6660:) 6636:no 6598:) 6577:) 6560:no 6520:) 6495:, 6483:, 6466:. 6454:. 6434:. 6423:) 6408:) 6378:) 6370:. 6360:) 6341:, 6330:) 6316:) 6277:) 6251:) 6237:) 6223:) 6209:) 6183:) 6168:) 6142:) 6126:) 6093:) 6059:) 6044:) 6030:) 6015:) 5993:) 5978:) 5947:) 5932:) 5893:, 5864:, 5852:) 5796:. 5791:}} 5787:{{ 5686:. 5681:}} 5677:{{ 5546:. 5541:}} 5537:{{ 5456:~ 5425:) 5392:~ 5370:) 5349:) 5327:~ 5322:. 5306:) 5285:) 5269:) 5226:, 5217:) 5213:) 5201:) 5197:) 5178:, 5170:) 5166:) 5139:) 5121:) 5098:) 5080:) 5045:– 4988:) 4970:) 4948:) 4928:-- 4906:) 4887:) 4865:) 4845:) 4823:) 4805:) 4767:) 4746:) 4727:) 4705:) 4687:) 4672:) 4643:) 4625:) 4589:) 4574:) 4552:) 4524:) 4510:) 4468:) 4424:) 4414:St 4363:) 4353:St 4341:I 4328:) 4324:• 4297:) 4251:) 4217:) 4198:) 4182:) 4155:. 4136:) 4128:-- 4116:) 4086:) 4057:) 4043:) 4023:) 3992:) 3943:) 3928:) 3912:) 3898:) 3880:) 3856:in 3841:) 3826:) 3798:) 3784:) 3769:) 3677:- 3623:32 3621:. 3546:) 3520:) 3466:) 3448:) 3434:) 3418:) 3401:) 3382:) 3367:) 3353:) 3338:) 3324:) 3310:) 3296:) 3282:) 3263:) 3242:) 3208:) 3194:) 3157:) 3149:. 3131:) 3110:) 3095:) 3065:) 3047:) 3024:) 3001:) 2980:. 2933:) 2906:) 2881:) 2856:) 2834:) 2807:) 2729:) 2703:) 2680:) 2672:. 2596:) 2574:) 2480:) 2472:-- 2403:) 2384:) 2365:) 2345:) 2330:) 2302:: 2287:) 2271:) 2263:-- 2235:) 2203:) 2189:) 2173:) 2158:) 2143:) 2129:) 2107:) 2081:) 2058:) 2003:) 1956:) 1919:) 1904:) 1881:, 1862:) 1744:) 1696:DI 1668:) 1620:) 1601:) 1585:) 1550:) 1536:) 1504:) 1470:, 1455:) 1426:, 1367:) 1311:) 1296:) 1282:) 1267:) 1222:) 519:). 424:: 310:: 197:, 193:, 156:) 54:; 7013:( 6961:( 6942:( 6882:( 6855:( 6841:( 6818:( 6762:( 6746:( 6727:( 6693:) 6689:( 6680:◢ 6656:( 6594:( 6573:( 6516:( 6473:. 6462:: 6446:. 6419:( 6404:( 6374:( 6356:( 6326:( 6312:( 6287:( 6273:( 6247:( 6233:( 6219:( 6205:( 6179:( 6164:( 6138:( 6122:( 6114:( 6089:( 6055:( 6040:( 6026:( 6011:( 5989:( 5974:( 5943:( 5928:( 5911:] 5848:( 5828:) 5824:( 5811:. 5804:. 5718:) 5714:( 5701:. 5694:. 5578:) 5574:( 5561:. 5554:. 5421:( 5366:( 5345:( 5302:( 5281:( 5265:( 5209:( 5193:( 5162:( 5158:( 5135:( 5117:( 5094:( 5076:( 5062:› 5058:‹ 5056:› 5052:‹ 4984:( 4966:( 4944:( 4902:( 4883:( 4861:( 4841:( 4819:( 4801:( 4763:( 4742:( 4723:( 4701:( 4683:( 4668:( 4639:( 4621:( 4585:( 4570:( 4548:( 4520:( 4506:( 4483:Æ 4481:S 4464:( 4442:Æ 4440:S 4420:( 4359:( 4320:( 4293:( 4247:( 4213:( 4194:( 4178:( 4132:( 4112:( 4082:( 4053:( 4039:( 4019:( 3988:( 3939:( 3924:( 3908:( 3894:( 3876:( 3837:( 3822:( 3794:( 3780:( 3765:( 3633:. 3629:: 3540:( 3516:( 3462:( 3444:( 3430:( 3414:( 3395:( 3378:( 3363:( 3349:( 3334:( 3320:( 3306:( 3292:( 3278:( 3259:( 3236:( 3204:( 3190:( 3153:( 3127:( 3106:( 3091:( 3061:( 3043:( 3020:( 2997:( 2929:( 2902:( 2877:( 2852:( 2828:( 2803:( 2725:( 2697:( 2676:( 2654:( 2592:( 2570:( 2476:( 2399:( 2380:( 2361:( 2341:( 2326:( 2283:( 2267:( 2250:. 2231:( 2199:( 2185:( 2169:( 2154:( 2139:( 2125:( 2103:( 2077:( 2054:( 1999:( 1952:( 1915:( 1900:( 1858:( 1804:P 1797:. 1781:. 1740:( 1732:? 1705:P 1664:( 1640:P 1616:( 1597:( 1581:( 1546:( 1532:( 1500:( 1451:( 1394:P 1363:( 1329:P 1307:( 1292:( 1278:( 1263:( 1218:( 1122:: 1109:: 1096:: 1086:: 1079:. 1070:: 1024:. 1012:. 914:. 825:. 732:. 627:. 593:. 495:. 400:. 364:. 290:: 258:. 233:( 199:3 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

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

Index