Talk:Michael Behe

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Behe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 12 months

Other talk page banners

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Creationism: Intelligent design Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as High-importance).

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Michael Behe is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lehigh Valley Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lehigh Valley, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania 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.Lehigh ValleyWikipedia:WikiProject Lehigh ValleyTemplate:WikiProject Lehigh ValleyLehigh Valley
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania 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.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. 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. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, 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 pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Reworded article summary

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 of the reviewers."

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 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."

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.

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.[reply]

Reliable sources disagree with you. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

Not done: see above sections Cannolis (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

it must be demonstrated how creation science is "fake science" 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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the word “pseudoscientific” It is prejudicial. 90.208.72.168 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It is well-sourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]