Talk:Center for Science and Culture

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Creationism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 216.163.84.151 (talk · contribs) Truthologist (talk · contribs)

I have removed several unsourced quotes from persons assoicated with the CSC, and materials that violate WP:NPOV, specifically relating to funding of the program.Truthologist 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Creative Response Concepts PR campaign on behalf of the Discovery Institute has extended to this article and beyond deletionism to making exaggerated claims: [1]

1. "CSC conducts scientific and academic research into the theory of intelligent design." 1) There is no ID "theory". 2) Exactly what specific scientific and academic research program is there? The DI has never point to an actual research program and the Judge in the Dover said there isn't any in his ruling: [2]
2. Changing "The Center is funded through the Discovery Institute, which is largely underwritten by grants and gifts from wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservative individuals and groups" to "The Center is funded through the Discovery Institute, which has received grants and gifts from wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservative individuals and groups" is clearly a POV whitewash. As detailed at the DI article and in the source here provided the DI's CSC was completely underwritten by Howard Ahmanson Jr., Philip F. Anschutz, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the MacLellan Foundation: "Discovery Institute, however, with its $4 million annual budget ($1.2 million of which is for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) is heavily funded by evangelical Christians. Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, awarded $350,000 to the institute with the hope researchers would be able to prove evolution to be a false theory. Fieldstead & Co., owned by Howard and Robert Ahmanson of Irvine, Calif., pledged $2.8 million through 2003 to support the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture." [3] and [4]
3. Changing "This group formed the CSC and has continued to operate through it, forming the nucleus of the movement, which it remains to this day, with both Johnson and Meyer serving as CSC officers." to "This group was instrumental in forming the CSC and has continued to operate through it, forming the nucleus of the movement." As the cited Johnson interview [5] says, Meyer, Johnson, Nelson and others formed the CSC. And they remain there today: [6] Claiming ""This group was instrumental" instead of "This group formed" the CSC is weasely, ambiguous, and unsupported.
4. "CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, admits most of the Center's money comes from wealthy donors from the Christian right." Was and is supported by the Washington Post article found in the same section: "We'll take money from anyone who wants to give it to us," Meyer said. "Everyone has motives. Let's acknowledge that and get on with the interesting part." --Stephen C. Meyer, Washington Post, 2005 [7]

So, once again I've had to restore accurate, supported deleted by you, and I've added additional cites just so it's clear. FeloniousMonk 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag added to the Teach the Controversy section. I took a peek at the main article and it appears to have a much more neutral tone. Specifically have a problem with the first sentence especially the unsourced "theory in crisis" and "undermining" in the second. I think this section should resemble the main article in neutral tone and content. Right now it seems like it was written from a one-sided point of view. I'm going to make the edit myself, let me know if there are any problems with it. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In crisis" (along with new addition "dying theory") is sourcable to the Forrest paper. IDers have been refering to evolution as a "theory in crisis" since before the movement's founding -- see Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. This would seem to be a WP:V issue, not a WP:NPOV one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page in Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors? The discovery institute is not fellow or advisor in itself. Should perhaps a Category:Discovery Institute be created to go between Category:Intelligent design and Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors.--ZayZayEM 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Might want to take it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Richard001 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that, strictly speaking, Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors should in fact be 'Fellows of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture' (as the CSC has a fellows list[8] independent of the DI's[9]), but for reasons of brevity this is contracted down to its current title. As many in the category (about half I would suspect) are fellows of the DI's CSC, it is not unreasonable to include the CSC as a 'co-parent' article along with the DI's article. While it is possible to reflect this with a more accurate category tree, this would require at least two additional categories: 'Discovery Institute' and 'Center for Science and Culture Fellows', for not much in the way of additional benefit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed, the category explicitly states this: "A list of past and present fellows, advisors, and staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture (CSC)." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence reads: In an immediate response to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard against creation science being taught in United States public school science classes, the term intelligent design was coined as a substitute in the textbook Of Pandas and People which was published in 1989

My questions: 1. ID is a substitute for what? 2. How can the term ID be a substitute in the first edition of a book? Where did ID substitute for what? Northfox (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i) A substitute for "creation science" (and "creationism" more generally), as should be obvious from the context. (ii) It was substituted in drafts of the textbook, as was revealed in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in fact, third-party sources establishing notability of C. John Collins. In any case, the Center for Science and Culture is not the appropriate topic to merge the article with, even if a merge were appropriate. The subject in question works for Covenant Theological Seminary, not the CSC. I propose to split the article C. John Collins from Center for Science and Culture and develop the article further. Cuicmac (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)— Cuicmac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Covenant Theological Seminary is wholly unreferenced, and the claim that "there are, in fact, third-party sources establishing notability of C. John Collins" is wholly unsubstantiated. I therefore oppose this split proposal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed a problem that Covenant Theological Seminary does not contain references. However, that is not the issue at hand, as I am not proposing a merge between C. John Collins and Covenant Theological Seminary. The fact is that C. John Collins is a published author, and his books are readily available from many different sources (for instance: [10]). He also receives press for his books (for instance: [11]). I therefore deem your opposition to the split to have insufficient grounds. Cuicmac (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required, and World Magazine is hardly a reliable source -- nor does their coverage "address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• World Magazine may not have an appropriately referenced Wikipedia page, but that does not prevent it from being a reliable source. They are wholly independent from C. John Collins. I'm sorry if my proposal is confusing to you. I am not saying that there are reliable sources to support whatever philosophical positions C. John Collins may or may not endorse. What I am saying is that there is sufficiently reliable material on the original Wiki article to support the information present there (e.g., place of occupation). There are many Wikipedia articles that are "works in progress," C. John Collins is just such a one. Merging the article with Center for Science and Culture, which neither employs nor represents C. John Collins, is not the best way of "progressing" in this case. My proposal is to split the article once more and develop it further. Cuicmac (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• World magazine can be classified among "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" and is thus a questionable source, which can only be used to describe itself per WP:ABOUTSELF. What little notoriety Collins appears to have generated has come from his advocacy of intelligent design creationism in association with the Center for Science and Culture (of which he is a Fellow). It therefore seemed appropriate to merge his article here, and it still seems appropriate to do so rather than to compound the problems of the Covenant Theological Seminary article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To make an accusation against a publication such as World Magazine, you will need to provide proof. A religious bent to a publication does not equate to extremism, nor does Wikipedia state as much when describing a questionable source. But please see my previous comment for what I am actually arguing. You misrepresent me when you say I am trying to "compound the problems" of the Covenant Theological Seminary article. I am not proposing anything in regards to that article. I, like yourself, am trying to expand the reliable body of knowledge on Wikipedia. Merging articles that do not have to be merged defeats this purpose. My proposal stands. Cuicmac (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (i) On talkpages we indent replies to other comments (see WP:Talk page formatting). Please cease and desist removing this indentation. (ii) A search for 'world magazine' and 'wingnut' returned 23,000 hits. That rather demonstrates that its views "are widely acknowledged as extremist". (iii) You have not demonstrated "significant coverage" with or without World Magazine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A search for 'New York Times' and 'wingnut' returned 2,360,000 results. If you had looked closely at just the first page of the search results for your Google search, you would have realized that many of the hits do not actually pertain to World Magazine. But again, this is not the issue at hand.The fact that C. John Collins is employed at a recognized institution and has published several books that are widely available to the public is coverage enough to warrant the information that is in the original article. The article neither endorses nor criticizes--nor even addresses--any opinions held either by or about C. John Collins, and only facts are presented. The integrity and usefulness of Wikipedia is upheld by splitting off the article from Center for Science and Culture. Cuicmac (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The fact that C. John Collins is employed at a recognized institution and has published several books that are widely available to the public" is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to Wikipedia's criteria for WP:Notability, which I have already cited to you above: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" There are hundreds of thousands of obscure academics who are "employed at a recognized institution and [have] published several books that are widely available to the public" (for that matter, in these days of Amazon, even self-published books are "widely available to the public"), that does not mean that they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully submit that C. John Collins does in fact meet the criteria for WP:Notability. None of the sources in the original article were self-published, nor were they unreliable in any way. Nor does it matter that there are hundreds of thousands of "obscure academics"; C. John Collins is not obscure when looked at in context of the authorial audience. His latest publication is currently #96 in the best-seller list on Amazon in his area of expertise. I would also suggest that when there is a choice between expanding the body of reliable knowledge on Wikipedia and decreasing it, expansion is in keeping with Wikipedia's end goal as an Encyclopedia. Furthermore, the article C. John Collins does not meet any of the qualifications for What Wikipedia is not. The proposal stands. Cuicmac (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (i) You may "respectfully submit" anything you like, but you have not demonstrated that he meets this guideline. (ii) My reference to "self published" was merely a parenthetical explaining that your claim of "widely available to the public" doesn't mean much in the internet age. (iii) Amazon rankings do not imply notability, particularly as the "area of expertise" is often quite narrow. (iv) I would suggest that Wikipedia is not in the business of regurgitating blurbs from affiliated websites (per WP:RESUME & WP:AUTO). (Ω) Your proposal can do cartwheels for all I care -- it remains both unsubstantiated and, to date, unsupported. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep your tone cordial, as these forums are not meant to foment animosity. Amazon actually has 66,000+ books in its "Theology" section, so the area might not be as narrow as one would think. The WP:RESUME and WP:AUTO stipulations are only relevant when the subject of the Wikipedia article actually created the Wikipedia article; moreover, the C. John Collins article is recognized as a stub and needs expanding. My proposal is perfectly valid and is in the general "Wikipedia spirit," as it were. You and I are really working towards the same goal, since I understand that you are working to preserve the serious and encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

Perhaps other editors would like to comment. Cuicmac (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose splitting. There was a clear consensus to merge and no evidence of notability has since been produced to justify reversing that decision.--Charles (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For evidence of notability, please see the original article C. John Collins and my above remarks. The article needs to be improved, but to do that it must first be split from Center for Science and Culture. Cuicmac (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The only three sources cited in "the original article C. John Collins" were the Covenant Theological Seminary website (not independent/third-party, and not significant coverage), the Discovery Institute website (not independent/third-party, and not significant coverage), and the ESV Study Bible (not independent/third-party, and not significant coverage). To which you added a World Magazine article on a number of books including one of Collins' (not reliable, and not significant coverage) and a link to Google Books (which merely demonstrates that one of his books exists). This is nothing like "evidence of notability". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You have not been able to prove the unreliability of World Magazine. If you looked closely at the original C. John Collins article, you would have noticed that all four of his books are listed on Google Books. If you conduct a Google Books search for "C. John Collins," you will find other publications as well. A careful Google search will verify that several other articles he has authored are available, at least partially, online. The very fact that he was the Old Testament editor for one of the best-selling Bible versions on Amazon also speaks to his notability. As you know, the rules for Wikipedia biographical articles do not specify in what area a person must be recognized in order to be "notable." Again, we are working towards the same end. I, like you, support the encyclopedic ends of Wikipedia. Splitting and expanding this article will work towards this goal. I respect your dedication as an editor. Cuicmac (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (i) Given it doesn't give substantial coverage it is largely superfluous to prove that it's also unreliable. (ii) Your point that "all four of his books are listed on Google Books" is likewise irrelevant, as the requirement is for independent sources (and regardless, all sorts of stuff turns up on Google Books -- including republications of Wikipedia articles). The same applies to "several other articles he has authored". (iv) WP:BIO requires that "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Nothing you have provided comes close to meeting this criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've made my points here, and I think I can guess that you will simply repeat your above sentiments in response. I still submit that splitting this article is in keeping with preservation of Wikipedia standards of notability. However, I understand that your time as an editor is valuable, as is mine. Hence I propose to put off this discussion until such time as other "reliable sources" about C. John Collins become readily available (not that we have exhausted the reliable sources at hand, but in any case), at which time the page may be easily expanded once this merge is reverted. Cuicmac (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You have asserted numerous points, but you have substantiated very little -- and virtually nothing that is relevant to actual notability criteria. You may submit, stand, sit, or whatever you like, but until you are able to convince other editors to form a WP:CONSENSUS supporting your view, you are getting precisely nowhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If other editors wish to bring other ideas to the discussion, I am happy to interact with them. For now though, further conversation between us is fruitless. You've made your opinions quite clear. Cuicmac (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says

In another instance, the CSC frequently mentions the Nobel Prize in connection with Henry F. Schaefer, a CSC fellow, and chemist at the University of Georgia. Critics[who?] allege that CSC is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" since Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years.

It is possible, even likely, that the CSC learned of Schaefer's nominations for the Nobel from Schaefer himself. When he was at Berkeley, he was well-known for trying to bully other chemists into nominating him for the prize, and for contacting them and asking whether or not they had done so. (He also pressured members of his research group to participate in group prayer.)

I know this is original research, but I'm just sayin', on the TALK page. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]