The Wikipedia Entry on Intelligent Design: bias!
I think the claim of bias is easily established by comparing the page for “evolution” to the page of “intelligent design”.
–The attacks against ID are given more space than the actual explanation of ID.
–The evolution page doesn’t even have a Criticism section (and it’d likely be deleted by the editors if created).
–To the right of the heading for “Intelligent design debate” you’ll see several other links. As with the main page, the critiques are often as long as or longer than the available information on the subject matter.
–In the evolution page not a single critical statement is allowed nor are any of the problems of the modern synthesis discussed (even from those who think the overall concept of "evolution" is sound but still think the mechanism of RM+NS is mostly dead in the water).
–They include ID in the series for Creationism even though the major proponents of ID clearly state that is not the case. Even the Creationist organizations say ID isn’t Creationism…
–Advocates of ID always seem to “claim” while the critiques are generally stated in a matter of fact manner.
Some of the points in the article could only be due to ignorance…either that or they’re purposefully misdirecting the reader by including the critiques and ignoring the responses by ID proponents. They've already had a POV conflict discussion and the editors entirely ignored my points, instead choosing to focus on hostile members. Otherwise, Wikipedia seems to be decent when it comes to topics that don't touch on people's personal beliefs.
Wikipedia is run by liberals, and a LOT of the content that you will find there is biased. HOWEVER, I have managed to be able to use some of their content against them.
You have to be able to pick and choose your battles, and sources. You will find most liberals, atheists, and the like prefer to use unreliable "biased" sources such as Wikipedia, that is why they are there.
But, don't feel discouraged by it because more often than not...it does come back to bit them where they lease expect it.
Yes it is pretty obvious Wikipedia is run by leftists with political motivations against ID.
a good Example of the stuff that generates,
Commenting on Behe's Darwin's Black Box, Wikipedia says:
"Robert Shapiro has said that he did review the book, and while he agreed with some of his analysis of origin-of-life research, he thinks Behe's conclusions are false. He did, however, say that he thought that Behe's book was the best explanation of the argument from design that was available"
What Shapiro actually said:
"Dear Mr. Evans,
I felt that Professor Behe’s book has done a better job of explaining existing science than others of its kind. I agree with him that conventional scientific origin-of-life theory is deeply flawed. I disagreed with him about the idea that one needed to invoke intelligent designer or a supernatural cause to find an answer. I do not support intelligent design theories. I believe that better science will provide the needed answers.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Shapiro"
Source
Interesting. Now unless my eyes decieve me, Shapiro says "the existing science" while wikipedia says he said "the argument from design".
Now either 1 the writers of wikipedia assumed that the argument from design was science, or 2 they are pathological liars lying about what he said. The proof is in black and white.
(all bolding mine)
quote = Skyradier7
Well, what do you mean by evolution?
/quote
The word 'evolution' on the Wiki page is a link. You can follow it to see what is meant by evolution. As a side note, evolution isn't concerned with the origin of life.
You should be able to edit the Wiki page. There's a little edit link at the end of each section. That's what the Wiki is all about. You can also report the page as biased. You can do something about the bias, or not.
You can do something about the bias, or not.
Actually, you cannot since the moderators will undo the changes within a short amount of time. A while ago I simply attempted to modify the page on the vermiform appendix, listing the known functionality, and that was deleted in favor of this current statement:
"One explanation has been that the appendix is a remnant of an earlier function, with no current purpose."
Oh, gee...that statement is so much more informative compared to this:
As shown above, for years the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.
Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.
In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix–like the tiny structures called Peyer’s patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract–takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual’s own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation.
In the past, the appendix was often routinely removed and discarded during other abdominal surgeries to prevent any possibility of a later attack of appendicitis; the appendix is now spared in case it is needed later for reconstructive surgery if the urinary bladder is removed. In such surgery, a section of the intestine is formed into a replacement bladder, and the appendix is used to re-create a ’sphincter muscle’ so that the patient remains continent (able to retain urine). In addition, the appendix has been successfully fashioned into a makeshift replacement for a diseased ureter, allowing urine to flow from the kidneys to the bladder. As a result, the appendix, once regarded as a nonfunctional tissue, is now regarded as an important ‘back-up’ that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy.
That information was considered "vandalism". When ID proponents attempted to edit the ID related pages that was considered to be a "point of view war".
If you think the Intelligent_Design definition is biased, you should see the page on Intelligent_Design_Movement!
I got one little change made to that page. It looked like the change took hold. However, I had to make the case very persuasively, and I had another I.D. advocate who submitted the change, and I also re-submitted the change after someone changed it back to the original. The more persuasive the case, and the more people you get to submit the change, the more likely you are to be successful. Of course, the question is, is it worth the effort? Even if you get changes made, they could just keep tacking on more crap so it could become an endless process.
Ok, if you've ever visited Wikipedia and searched for Intelligent Design, you probably saw the primary ID article over there. It's a bunch of biased balogni (say that 3 times): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
1. The fact of evolution?
"Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution."
According to whomever wrote this line, "evolution" is an undeniable fact, and ID is presented as an alternative explanation for how "evolution" happened. Well, what do you mean by evolution? Does that encompass the origin of life, macroevolution, tiny variations that don't amount to evolution (microevolution), all three, or does "evolution" simply mean "change over time"? Maybe they mean change over time in species with the mechanism of natural selection and random mutation, i.e. Darwinian evolution. Or maybe they aren't talking about Darwinian evolution at all! This leaves us hanging.
The article starts off with the assumption that "evolution", whatever that means, is a fact. That's no way to start off an unbiased article, pal.
2. Intelligent Design doesn't argue for design in life at the molecular level?!?!?
"Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence" — physical properties (emphasis added) of an object that point to a designer. For example, if an archeologist finds a statue made of stone in a field, he may (ID proponents argue) justifiably conclude that the statue was designed and then reasonably seek to identify the statue's designer. He would not, however, be justified in making the same claim if he found an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size."
This an ignorance of ID's basic claims. Intelligent Design argues primarily for design in life. ID theorists use physical objects exempli gratia - for the sake of example. Chemical properties, not physical properties, are ID's main concern.
The article goes on to recognize that ID argues for design in life at the molecular level.
3. The article is one-sided. In nearly every presentation of ID concepts, the article defines the concept as defined by ID theorists, and follows up with an argument agains the concept from people like Ken Miller and the National Academy of Sciences. That's fine, but the majority of the arguments against ID concepts have been out there for years now, and counter-arguments have shut many of them down. There are virtually no examples of counter-arguments by ID theorists in the article.
It's good to present both sides of an issue, but the Wikipedia article doesn't do that. It defines the ID concepts and presents arguments against them, with no room for counter-arguments. The best place for information on ID is the Discovery Institute or the IDEA Center's site, www.ideacenter.org. Wikipedia just doesn't do a good job.
The Dex View
login or register to post comments | 0 points