Talk:Michael Behe
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Behe Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Banner holder Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice Template:If in category
- Redirect Template:Dated maintenance category
Template:Rcat shell Template:Arbitration ruling on pseudoscience User:MiszaBot/config
The term "intelligent design" is a generic expression. It is not, as the article claims, "pseudoscientific."
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. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:7D70:218D:579B:EBC5 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC) James.
- Reliable sources disagree with you. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2023
Template:Edit semi-protected 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 word is to be kept, then it must be demonstrated how creation science is "fake science" otherwise.
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"? Neuroplexus (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see above sections Cannolis (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- To answer the charge, string theory isn't physics, it is applied math. The other two made testable predictions, which were tested. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Tq You forgot to put your cheap tuxedo on.
- 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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024
Template:Edit semi-protected Unnecessary bias. “ Michael Joseph Behe[2] (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.”
Should read: Michael Joseph Behe[2] (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and an advocate of the of the principle intelligent design.
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. 67.61.91.91 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:CSECTION. No, the invalidity of his belief (which he camouflages as science) is the only reason we have an article about him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2024
Template:Edit semi-protected Remove the word “pseudoscientific” It is prejudicial. 90.208.72.168 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:X mark.svg Not done It is well-sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
