Talk:Michael Egnor

Out of date ref

reference 2 is clearly years out of date and the figure needs updating. -- user:Steinsky (too lazy to look up my password), 193.201.197.88 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS for the updated number? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

Of the 11 references in this article:

• 2 are to Egnor's emplyer's website
• 2 are to articles written by Egnor
• 2 are to the DI's Evolutionnews.org blog

That makes over half the sources "sources affiliated with the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Due to the lack of significant third-party sourcing, I'm proposing that this article (in a slimmed-down form) be merged into List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

POV

There are HUGE POV issues in this article. For example: "Egnor responded by posting an essay on the Discovery Institute's intelligent design blog falsely claiming that evolution was irrelevant to medicine" - Who says so? Did this person actually read the article that is cited at the end? I'm almost certain Egnor would say that "micro-evolution" is relevant to medicine while "macro-evolution" is not, which someone would know if they actually followed these types of arguments. See what disturbs me is that people are willing to claim someone is lying by distorting their position to an extreme or making up outright falsehoods about them. Even YECs believe in "micro-evolution" and it would be false to claim that even they don't believe it's important to medicine (it's hard to develop drugs without understanding well known processes about viruses mutate). 72.92.4.55 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

another disgusting WP hit piece

Why is Jerry Coyne's unsubstantiated slander allowed on a biography of a living person's article?

"Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century."

And it's the first thing mentioned in the article's body no less. The editors here really need to grow up. This article is a joke. 70.20.37.114 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Continued criticism of Coyne

Michael Egnor has published a new article arguing for the existence of god and attacking Jerry Coyne - see here.

Coyne's response is here. JezGrove (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Aristotelian Dualism?"

I'm sorry, its a little difficult to take an article seriously that uses terms like "Aristotelian Dualism". You're thinking of Aristotelian forms or essences, which are utterly integrated into matter, whereas cartesean or other kinds of dualism are not. Dualism opposes Aristotelian essences. To say "Aristotelian Dualism" is like saying "A Darwinian young earh creationist". That term would make little sense in that discussion. 2600:1009:A01D:A04D:430:F4F0:5C0:332B (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:OR. What you are stating is personal opinion. Michael Egnor has described his own position as Aristotelian dualism and we have references on that so that is what our article says. Veg Historian (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)