Talk:Stephen C. Meyer

Censorship

Both the Stephen Meyer page here and that of Intelligent Design require editing for Wikipedia to maintain its pursuit of truth. The application of Darwin’s scientific method of reasoning: inference to the best explanation applied by scientist, Stephen Meyer, in the theory of Intelligent Design has replaced natural selection as the best explanation for the origin of life. PursuingTruthNotPolitics (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

...the theory of Intelligent Design has replaced natural selection as the best explanation for the origin of life.

According to which reliable sources? Squeakachu (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023

This article states that Stephen C. Meyer is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design. This shows an unfair bias against Stephen C Meyer, an academic who has presented some perfectly legitimate views challenging Darwinian evolution. I am requesting that the word pseudoscience is removed. Douglas Hamilton-Williams (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted but false. It is consensus within science, among those who understand those things, that ID is pseudoscience.

Articles about pseudoscientific subjects are regularly called "biased" by people who have been fooled by those pseudosciences. Most of them use reasoning as bad as yours. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

What a joke has Wikipedia become in recent years because of the “science” zealots! Armaggideon (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Armaggideon: It is you who have a choice in this matter. Wikipedia has no other choice than to follow the consensus of mainstream science for what it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

By this logic multiple fields of study in the same scientific community your “consensus” is derived are actively engaged in “Pseudoscience”. SETI would be a prime example. The placement of the word “Pseudoscience” in the paragraph in question has been inserted for the sole purpose of discrediting the subject and is further evidenced by your smug dismissive responses to those who’ve called this error out. Simply removing the word altogether removes the bias and allows for adherence to Wikipedia’s increasingly sagging standards. 174.54.9.68 (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have good sources that call SETI pseudoscience, please add them to the SETI article.

We have very good sources that say that ID is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is based on such sources and not on the uninformed opinions of random internet denizens such as you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Case in point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Consensus" is pseudoscience. Labeling something as pseudoscientific because it is a contentious topic Wikipedia:Contentious topics is a category error. Just because something is contentious doesnt mean it is pseudoscientific.

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, something is labeled pseudoscientific if it "fails to adhere to Scientific method. The problem is that all origin of the universe and origin of life hypothesis including Darwinism are weak or lacking in "test with experiment." Yet, it's only ID that receives the label of pseudoscience. This is bias special pleading and intellectually inconsistent.

Hide behind words all you want. It is clear that the word "pseudoscience" is disparagingly placed in the opening section of Stephen Meyer's wikipedia page in effort to swiftly destroy his credibility. This is discrimination against theistic scientists. ID is no more a pseudoscience than theoretical physics, yet Lawrence Krauss enjoys a wikipedia pages describing this field without the denigration of being labeled "pseudoscientific." Dburn10251 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many Christian/theistic scientists who wholeheartedly agree that ID is pseudoscience. In fact, they are by far a larger majority than those who support ID.

Your argument that all theistic scientists support ID is like saying that all Christians are Protestant fundamentalists. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Although "theistic" could encompass many beliefs, it is not a stretch to say Christian scientists would share a belief in God as a creator. Consider the Apostle's Creed - a traditional, shared "bare minimum" of Christian denominations. The first statement in this creed refers to God as the creator role. 2601:547:C600:9FF0:A8F0:C6B7:28A6:51C9 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Christian scientists would share a belief in God as a creator—that's correct, but it is not to say that Christian scientists are willing to dress up their belief as science. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There are so many fallacies in those few sentences that one immediately knows it comes from a creationist.

"Consensus" is pseudoscience Citation needed, to put it mildly.

Labeling something as pseudoscientific because it is a contentious topic is not what we are doing here. See Straw man. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hob the first sentence of your comment is full of disdain for your opponents and doesn’t seem appropriate here. 2601:547:C600:9FF0:A8F0:C6B7:28A6:51C9 (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone's reasoning is abysmally bad is disdain, but it is disdain against bad reasoning. Creationists are the incarnation of bad reasoning, and they usually are WP:NOTHERE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

all origin of the universe and origin of life hypothesis including Darwinism are weak or lacking in "test with experiment." Citation needed, again. And not a citation to creationist literature. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Those representatives of “science” seem extremely defensive. Claytool (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What representatives of “science”? Looks like a non-requiter, and be aware of WP:NOTFORUM. . dave souza, talk 03:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

How could there be a consensus among scientists, about a proposition that is essentially metaphysical? Would you like to label it "pseudophilosophical", or is the gatekeeping a bit less rampant here under that banner? Why is it that numerous pages on unfalsifiable, essentially metaphysical ideas popular with atheists currently, such as multiverse, don't get the "pseudoscience" slur? --Russell E (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that the reasoning used by ID proponents is clad in sciencey-sounding language but not scientific. That is the definition of pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

saw that as well. Strictly opinion. 2601:982:4200:533:D486:4CC:8277:C267 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a double standard as well, where proponents of the "Simulation hypothesis" such as Nick Bostrom or David Chalmers don't have the word "pseudoscience" in the first paragraph of their bio, even though Simulation Hypothesis is one that purports an intelligent designer of the fabric of our reality. 2A02:8108:41C0:5D2C:6451:F5CF:3C70:49E2 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That issue would need to be addressed at the respective pages, not here. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

Raoufdzstor (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.

In addition to Meyer’s two landmark books, the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Times (of London) Literary Supplement Book of the Year Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, his many other publications include contributions to, and the editing of, the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004) and the innovative textbook Explore Evolution (Hill House Publishers, 2007).

You are against of freedom of speech

You're right, this is not a WP:FORUM, so merely the fact that you hold an opinion does not mean we publish it in our articles. We are reliably sourced, not democratically sourced.

Wikipedia isn’t a free speech website. It isn’t democratically sourced, it is reliably sourced. That means that the mainstream academia (Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and Yale) gets the lion’s share. Your religion will be presented from the perspective of CHOPSY. There is no point in protesting against it, since Wikipedia is interested in the academic truth, the CHOPSY truth, not in the truth of your religion, nor the truth of political correctness. So, don’t waste tears if you see your religion bashed by CHOPSY, since this is the only choice Wikipedia has. You have the choice to disregard CHOPSY, Wikipedia doesn’t.

To tell you the truth, there is no real difference between Wikipedia, Britannica, and Larousse. They all have the same norms and values about what amounts to knowledge. So, if you see Wikipedia, think it is Britannica 2.0.

Oh, yes, in case you missed the memo: Wikipedia isn’t WikiLeaks. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design"

Imagine calling Stephen Meyer and all of his work for psuedoscience when you have not made the attempt to read just one of his books? Who on earth are you decide and write what is psuedoscience and not. This is the reason why wikipedia is disgustingly biased.

Funny thing is, even Darwin himself said "If the changes in the fossil record are not oberserved (in the future) my theory is wrong", well after about a couple of millions of fossils later, it's safe to say, even Darwin would not believe in evolution..

But luckily, we have to "obtain consensus" to clear this false description of someone as if consensus means anything regarding anything in life. Actually, the greater the consensus there more reason it is to be wrong as most people are stupid as hell.

I'm not even religious but his points are valid and should be treated as such. Xemnuz (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You do not make the WP:RULES and you do not seem to understand science: evolution would be very well proven even if there were no fossils at all.

As someone argued on Quora, you only need to understand the role of DNA in reproduction and the theory of evolution necessarily follows. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Funny thing is, Darwin obviously didn't say "If the changes in the fossil record are not oberserved (in the future) my theory is wrong", looks like a creationist claim but is it one made by Meyer? For information, what Darwin said . . dave souza, talk 03:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

It is an insult the this article labels 'intelligent design' as 'pseudoscience'.

This needs to be corrected.

I did not think Wikipedia supported biased information on their site. But unfortunately with statements like this it appears so... Nickduplantis (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The neutral point of view policy does not mean no point of view. The policy states: Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. See also this Arbitration Committee ruling. Tollens (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Then put the statement describing his work as widely accounted as being pseudoscience rather than making a based statement. Marking his beliefs as any particular objective view pulls unnecessary personal bias into a supposed information article on the individual. Don't contradict your own mission statement of neutrality. 174.218.21.198 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems you may not have read the policies and ArbCom decision linked above, which clearly states that theories generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community can and should be labeled as such, and do not require any additional qualifiers. Tollens (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a sarcastic statement, right lol? Wikipedia is very bias and it's common knowledge to most. And this is just another example the left leaning politics that influence this site. John Linker (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a leftist, and Wikipedia is seen in many countries as a bastion of the libertarian right.

And yup, we are biased for mainstream science and for the medical orthodoxy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Pseudoscience should not be used as the primary description. Dr. Meyer is a well-respected author and academic with decades of experience. He is an advocate for Theism, which is a philosophical school of thought that necessarily includes Intelligent Design as a component. Nkjames (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Pesudoscience should be changed to hypothesis. Nkjames (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Saying it’s pseudoscience is so bias. This is why Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source on most school papers and they’re always asking for donations. It’s just a couple peoples opinions on a subject, rather than real analysis. 166.182.253.73 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit. Calling a spade a spade is not bias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you don’t get it lol 216.212.19.204 (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody except you doesn't get it. That is the general attitude of pseudoscience adherents. Again: See WP:PSCI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

Pseudoscience is an opinionated and biased word. Wikipedia does not decide what constitutes science, and it drags the credibility of the website down. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree, then you must provide proof against his claims. If you have no proof against it, you cannot claim it’s pseudoscience. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023 (2)

Pseudoscience should be replaced with hypothesis. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources write about our subjects. Reliable sources call "intelligent design" pseudoscience so Wikipedia does, too. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100006119#:~:text=The%20theory%20that%20life%2C%20or,Dictionary%20of%20Phrase%20and%20Fable%20%C2%BB 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

why is Wikipedia changing the dictionary? 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This statement, evolutionists have responded, may have theological validity, but it destroys intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides it with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions of how “intelligent” or “perfect” a design will be. Science tests its hypotheses by observing whether predictions derived from them are the case in the observable world. A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientific. The implication of this line of reasoning for U.S. public schools has been recognized not only by scientists but also by nonscientists, including politicians and policy makers. The liberal U.S. senator Edward Kennedy wrote in 2002 that “intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation’s public school science classes.”

— Francisco J. Ayala, Britannica, Intelligent design and its critics

Intelligent design is in fact theology, it cannot be science. In so far as it pretends to be science, it is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

174.62.129.125, this is not the right place to further discuss how Wikipedia describes ID. That would be Talk:Intelligent design. Make sure you read the FAQ there before starting any discussion. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove the word "pseudoscience". No thinking person would consider his level of expertise on the origins of life as "pseudoscience". 216.164.82.214 (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Please tell us more about his level of expertise on the origins of life. Simply studying history, and even the philosophy of science, does not make one an expert on the origins of life. That requires studying biochemistry to PhD level and beyond. E.g. Richard Feynman was extremely dismissive of the philosophers of science. This is not to say that I share his opinion, but it is an opinion which many scientists have. That is, people who have a good understanding of neither mathematics nor chemistry pontificate about how mathematicians and chemists should perform scientific research.

His (Meyer's) criticism of mainstream biology is: "science has assumptions, which is bad". Sorry to say it, but that is a very silly statement.

his level of expertise on the origins of life is situated at the level of the meta-narrative, there is no evidence he engaged in biochemical research about the origins of life, but again, he sees such research as part of some kind of plot against creationism. So, even if he were fully competent in biochemistry, for him there is no incentive to advance the positive understanding of the origins of life. Which means he's an ideologue, not a scientist. Meaning: his ideas have virtually nothing to do with actual scientific research, and all to do with making science fit a preconceived meta-narrative. That is, he does not care about empirical data, all he cares about is about making science subservient to Christian apologetics.

Morals: prove me wrong by showing actual biochemical peer-reviewed research done by him about the origins of life. Simply put, the Discovery Institute is incompetent at performing such peer-review. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Just the notion of calling anyone pseudoscientific implies you've got some well defined solution to the demarcation problem of science and and accurately define what "pseudoscience" is as if it isn't contentious in the philosophy of science -- which it is. How ironic it is to call someone who is a philosopher of science that label! 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:DDBA:B9B5:692C:F023 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

and can* accurately define. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:DDBA:B9B5:692C:F023 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You have to understand that the problem of demarcation isn't ours. It has been outsourced to WP:RS, like those published by the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. If you have a problem with that, this is not the place for your complaint. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.

— A statement by the Royal Society on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, April 2006

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Having more in common with creationism wouldn't make it pseudoscience though, and it isn't necessarily a view thats incompatible with evolution that Meyers proposes.

By the standards being imposed, we can infer that Karl Popper is a pseudoscientist, since he refused to listen to scientific scrutiny of what he was saying about quantum mechanics from actual scientists in the field and continued to publish armchair philosophical ideas that were completely rejected. Meyers, at worst, is just doing the same thing but with evolutionary biology.

It sort of feels like because Meyer's bias comes from a Christian background, it has to be highlighted in his description. Even if its necessary to say that some think he is a pseudoscientist, it certainly isnt the majority opinion (and if it is, please show me actual evidence instead of inferring it [or if you do infer it, make the equivalent inference for Popper]). It's not like he's trying to give a pseudoscientific account, he's just trying to be a philosopher. So I think that should come first and foremost. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:67A2:4750:F04F:F1E7 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The tune has changed from his level of expertise on the origins of life to he's just trying to be a philosopher. There is nothing wrong with doing philosophy (as philosophy), but creationism presented as science is pseudoscience. ID isn't science, it is theology, or, to use the uncharitable word, mythology. ID is mythology, and mythology dressed up as science is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right. The tone has changed, my bad.

Regardless, that doesn't address my contention and is just an uncharitable use of the words mythology, theology and intelligent design. The first two have no bearing on whether or not something is pseudoscience, and the latter depends on the presentation.

The fact that his proposal for ID isn't inconsistent with evolution, the fact that the agreement of him being a pseudoscientist is an inference, not a statement of consensus of experts, and the fact that we wouldn't call others who engage in similar (even if this is only an accusation) denials of science pseudoscientists on this wiki are all important and should be addressed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

According to your own criteria, WLC meets the conditions of being called a pseudoscientist. Would you be willing to propose that change? 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:C297:20F4:D449:63DF (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't get it.

We just repeat what reliable sources say about him. It's the rules. Even if you could convince everybody here that what Meyer does is actually science (you will not, because it is not), that would not change one bit in the article. See WP:OR.

If you want to change the gist of the article, you need to change the way the scientific community thinks about Meyer, resulting in reliable sources saying he is not a pseudoscientist. Then we can change the article accordingly. There is no shortcut around that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You've not read what I've said.

Nowhere does the national academy of sciences say that Meyers is peddling pseudoscience. It's an inference made based on a snippet of a paragraph from what I can see. If we take that inference seriously, then we have to take it seriously elsewhere, which we obviously don't.

I have made zero attempts to say that what Meyers does is science, which further shows that you've misread what I've said.

We can change the article in such a way as to be neutral, without agreeing or establishing what Meyers says as science, and we can use much more well established and researched articles (for example the one on William Lane Craig who has written extensively on intelligent design, and whose writings on intelligent design have not lead to any reference of pseudoscience on his page) as motivation for doing so. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:C297:20F4:D449:63DF (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: I am not against the article even making reference to pseudoscience. I think that the accusation of him being a pseudoscientist is an important thing to include. I think the statement that "he is an advocate of pseudoscience" is obviously overreaching. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:C297:20F4:D449:63DF (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

In what you said (01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)), I could not find anything related to reliable sources. That is why it is irrelevant what you said, and that is why you think I have not read it.

I did not say you made any attempts to say that what Meyers does is science, I said Even if you could convince everybody here that what Meyer does is actually science. You are definitely trying to convince people that we should not say it is pseudoscience. The intricacies of your intentions are secondary as long as you are talking about things unrelated to RS. You were talking about your opinion of what ID is.

The article does not say he is an advocate of pseudoscience, it says, He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design.

Saying that Meyer advocates ID is WP:SKYISBLUE territory. RS unanimously clearly say ID is pseudoscience. See Intelligent design. Calling it pseudoscience is also WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Adding "the pseudoscience of" is just a short explanatory snippet for those who do not know what ID is. There is no problem here.

If you want to change the Craig article, do it on the Talk page of that article, not here. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If you need to explain what ID is, then it's not skyisblue territory. Even if you didn't, it's not obvious at all that it is in fact pseudoscience. That's a different argument from saying that reliable sources claim he is promoting pseudoscience, which was the original argument.

If you follow this line of reasoning:

1. The national academy of sciences (and some subset of other scientists) have said that creationism = intelligent design = pseudoscience (I doubt this is a formal demarcation that they've made to be used in inferences).

2. For the purposes of Wikipedia, NAS is a reliable source and is true (true here, meaning we're justified to make a deductive inference and write things in an article based on this)

3. Meyers is an advocate of intelligent design.

Conclusion. Therefore it is true (in the same sense) that Meyers is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design.

then you're engaged in a very unobvious and very pedantic chain of reasoning that can only link Meyers to a word said once in a snippet of a paragraph and not even to the actual meaning of pseudoscience. You have to be using a line of reasoning akin to this, since there doesn't seem to be a set of reliable sources. If there was, you'd just cite them instead and it wouldnt be a contentious point.

I think you and I both know that if I attempted to change WLC's page to say that he "is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design", that such a change wouldn't stand the test of time, since intelligent design is not even an attempt at science. It's more related to metaphysics if anything, which is just not a matter at all of scientific demarcation (my original point). You can cite a random (not wikipedia policy) essay about how I'm free to change any article I want, but I'm not actually free to change any article I want. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:C297:20F4:D449:63DF (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Meyer's WP:N is wholly due to his promotion of pseudoscience. He is not notable otherwise. He has a Wikipedia article only because he is a famous peddler of pseudoscience.

You say that he is a philosopher. But he has done nothing worthy of WP:N in philosophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt this is a formal demarcation Pseudoscience has no clear borders, but ID sits right in the middle, it is far away from any doubtful areas. I repeat: even if you convinced everyone here of whatever you want to convince people of (probably "ID is not pseudoscience"), RS win.

if I attempted to change WLC's page [..] such a change wouldn't stand the test of time That is neither here nor there: as I said, WP:OTHERCONTENT. This article is not about Craig, and the article about Craig is not a model for this one. Meyer is one of the remaining leading ID figures, while Craig is an all-round goddie with ID as a side issue. You cannot draw conclusions from your models of the consequences of your hypothetical actions somewhere else to how this article should be. Why is that so difficult to understand?

intelligent design is not even an attempt at science Now that is ridiculous. From the very beginning, ID was an attempt do disguise religion as science. Of course, it failed miserably because the disguise was obvious, but the attempt was there. Everybody who is familiar with it knows that. See also Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. And WP:NOTDUMB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is just cherry picking and ignoring what I'm saying.

"That is neither here nor there: as I said, WP:OTHERCONTENT. This article is not about Craig, and the article about Craig is not a model for this one."

If you look at the essay provided, other content is only irrelevant as a model for other pages on the basis they can be freely edited. They can't be freely edited, therefore bombarding me with an essay link that has nothing to do with wikipedia policy is irrelevant.

"Meyer is one of the remaining leading ID figures, while Craig is an all-round goddie with ID as a side issue."

Being all round is irrelevant. He has substantial arguments in favour of the argument from design and dedicated an entire chapter for the justification of design in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

"Now that is ridiculous. From the very beginning, ID was an attempt do disguise religion as science."

According to the wikipedia article on intelligent design:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God..."

Science, as far as the kinds of scientific epistemology that denies ID is concerned, isn't about making ontological claims about the existence of certain objects. Intelligent design is about establishing the existence of God on the basis of the complexity of the natural world. Therefore, its an argument of natural theology and metaphysics, not one of science. There is something that puts me at unease saying that Meyers is an advocate of natural theology and metaphysics, since it almost seems to be too positive. But that's what it is at the end of the day before being paeudoscience. The article further goes on to say:

"...presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"".

This may or may not be true, but it wouldn't make it pseudoscience or an attempt at science. The psychological character of Meyers has nothing to do with what he is actually in fact attempting to do. He could be wrong about what science is. An idea could be scientific without being science, etc. If Sean Carroll attempts to construct a philosophy which establishes the literal existence of quantum wave functions, that is a metaphysical claim and not actually one of scientific or empirical origin. It doesn't matter if he calls himself a cosmologist, physicist, or quantum theorist. What he'd be doing is metaphysics.

This isn't an attempt to "cite wikipedia" as justification for a change! What it is, is demonstrating that the inference being made isn't as obvious as claimed and therefore we need better sources and consensus before we can isolate an individual and say "he is in fact advocating pseudoscience. This leads to the original point on demarcation:

"Pseudoscience has no clear borders, but ID sits right in the middle, it is far away from any doubtful areas. I repeat: even if you convinced everyone here of whatever you want to convince people of (probably "ID is not pseudoscience"), RS win."

There are no reliable sources presented, and the debate wasn't even whether or not ID is or is not pseudoscience.

If you actually look on the wikipedia page for pseudoscience theres an entire section dedicated to respected philosophers on the demarcation problem some of which explicitly do not think that ID is pseudoscience. So it is not a "this is a very obvious inference every reader can make" type of scenario, since we can easily pull in sources that say otherwise.

It's about the statement of it as fact on this wikipedia article with Meyers being an active advocate of it or not. Advocating for something implies there is an intentionality to be anti scientific or something. You will most likely say his intentions do not matter, but then neither does the nature of ID being presented in schools, nor the nature of whether or not he wishes for his ideas to be presented as scientific or not. The only questions to be answered are:

1. Is the thesis of ID an attempt at science?

2. If yes, is it pseudoscience?

3. If it is pseudoscience, is he /advocating/ for pseudoscience?

Those questions are not clear (if they were actually as clear as you claim it wouldn't need to be in the article), and we can do a better job at presenting him neutrally. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:EA24:2CA2:3366:5150 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This means that you have nothing to say about how to improve the article. Talk pages are not for freely debating what is pseudoscience, but for improving articles, based upon WP:RULES and specific WP:RS. This discussion should be closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

Change “advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design” to “advocate of intelligent design”.

Reason: The word pseudoscience is defined as a collection of beliefs or practices MISTAKENLY regarded as being based on scientific method. Saying this is a pseudoscience assumes that it is mistaken therefore poisoning the well for dialogue. Not saying intelligent design is a fact, but to call it a pseudoscience is already assuming what the author of those words believes to be true, they are likely an atheist or anti theist. 2600:1700:B851:7F80:9A5:48B5:A58B:1F0D (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done It's not us saying it's a pseudoscience, it's independent reliable sources. Wikipedia provides the sources so readers can do what you did- look at them and formulate an opinion. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. If you have independent reliable sources that say intelligent design is not a pseudoscience, I would suggest that you offer them first at Talk:Intelligent design- and you will need to show that the preponderance of sources give that view. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

they are likely an atheist or anti theist—wrong! I think that the overwhelming majority of scientists who are Christian would grant the point that ID is pseudoscience. Yup, ID is a WP:FRINGE belief, even restricting the sample to Christians. Who believes in ID? A part of Christian fundamentalists and a part of evangelicals, i.e. those who don't think that the ID movement are turncoats from Young Earth Creationism. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also a few Catholics. ID is unfalsifiable enough and its science camouflage near enough to appeal to them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, they got some rich donors who want to stick it to "Darwinism" in any way they can (thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend), but the Christian masses are not exactly enthusiastic about ID. Just because they claim that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God, it does not mean ID won the approval of the bulk of creationist organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Biased sentence

The term the pseudoscience of intelligent design is biased and implies the theory of intelligent design is automatically wrong and ‘inscientific’ 193.32.30.32 (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, that is how it is, so that's how we say it. Reliable sources say so, the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District said so, all competent scientists and philosophers of science say so. Of course, those who have been fooled by the pseudoscience disagree, same as with every other pseudoscience. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The theory of intelligent design is not even wrong, it is a collection of vague (i.e. unoperationalized) concepts which seek to change the meta-narrative of mainstream science. It is still below the minimum level for being considered a scientific hypothesis. To put it frankly: nobody knows the hypothesis of ID, not even the Discovery Institute staff. ID seeks to convince politicians and theologians; it never really spoke the language of science, so it is not aimed at scientists. If one cannot distinguish between a philosophical statement and a scientific statement, they are not a good scientist. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The remark by tgeorgescu possesses the rare distinction among multi-sentence paragraphs of being completely wrong.

Consider: archaeologist Alice and archaeologist Bob are digging at a site and uncover a stone bearing two converging marks that look to Alice like the letter V.

Alice says, “This looks like writing.”

Bob frowns and says, “I think it’s just natural scoring.”

Then they uncover more of the stone and see the word

PILATVS

Bob says “I’ll be damned. It is writing”

Now, if tgeorgescu were right, the initial disagreement between Alice and Bob would be meaningless, devoid of scientific content, since they were disagreeing about whether the marks on the stone were the product of unguided natural forces or of intelligent design. But clearly their disagreement was meaningful, as supported by the fact that further evidence convinces Bob that he had been wrong.

tgeorgescu, like all dogmatic atheists, clings to his atheism with a deathlike grip, unwilling to reason about the key questions. Obugov (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So, you invent a story where somebody wins an argument that is superficially similar, but actually totally different from the ID versus biology situation, and you think that will convince anybody to replace the correct text, based on reliable sources, by your opinion? Read WP:FORUM, WP:OR and WP:RS and then think again. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Hi, Obugov, I wrote something about being an atheist at my user page. Hint: you might not like it. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

To tgeorgescu:

I am sorry if I have misidentified you as an atheist. I admit that I was only guessing, but the way in which you dismissed intelligent design as meaningless was so familiar to me that I leapt to a conclusion about the beliefs underlying your assertion.

I like your choice of Jewish prophets. Your remarks remind me of something I once said (or at least thought): “the genuine Jewish messiah was Sigmund Freud.”

I too admire Admiral Arkhipov.

I fail to understand what you find unclear about the hypothesis of intelligent design. As I attempted to show in my little dialogue between archaeologists, in many cases we have no difficulty knowing what someone means when they say that something is an artefact, or designed, rather than being a purely natural formation. I might offer an analysis of the reluctance to accept some but not all design hypotheses, but I fear that I might again falsely attribute attitudes to you. Would you care to explain why you deny the existence of a clearly stated hypothesis of intelligent design?

Best wishes,

Obugov 71.245.188.249 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A cogent scientific hypothesis is "if A then B", wherein A and B are empirical data. Something like this has never existed for intelligent design, and some years ago they admitted it's true:

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

— Phillip E. Johnson

Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design.

— Paul A. Nelson

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Now please tell us what is the formulation of Darwinism in terms of "If A then B." 71.245.188.249 (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This is drifting into WP:FORUM territory, but here goes: "If phenotypes of creatures are heritable, those creatures will over time adapt to their environment." Just one example of many.

But if you think there is a "hypothesis of intelligent design", it is up to you to supply it, not to others to prove its absence. See Proving a negative. Every time people are asked to provide it, the response is either crickets or evasions. You are an evader; I recommend crickets instead.

Please read WP:FORUM: This page is for improving the article Stephen C. Meyer and nothing else. Please go somewhere else to get an education about biology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I abandon my quixotic attempt to get you folks to reason rather than citing authority; but I must point out the radical injustice in calling me an evader for failing to answer a question that was not put to me: I infer that you had in mind the question: what is the clear formulation of the hypothesis of intelligent design? My point has been that in science (the example I chose was archaeology) we without protest adopt a hypothesis of intelligent design -- but that scientists run away from that kind of hypothesis whenever it seems to be leading in a theistic direction, hence my use of the term "dogmatic." 71.245.188.249 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You are still in the wrong place. Go to a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, we simply report science for what it is. We do not seek to solve scientific problems, nor to make advances in science. It is not the task of Wikipedia to change/correct/improve science. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Examples of predictions of the theory of evolution: finding new oil fields, where to dig for Tiktaalik, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Gatekeeping

I have to join the chorus of voices here calling out the gatekeeping of biased materialists who are desperately attempting to frighten readers with an accusation of "pseudoscience". The word demonstrates nothing more than the insecurity of the theory's opponents. It's an inaccurate claim which ought to be removed. Bryan (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Random people on the internet cannot vote down scientific consensus.

I have discussed ID proponents. Their reasoning is, without exception, vacuous, stupid, and presumptuous. Everybody who knows anything about evolution and has met those fakers agrees, and the reliable sources do too.

If you want to change the article, you need to publish your thoughts in reliable sources and convince the scientific community. Bullshitting about "materialism" or other "ism"s will not help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Imprecise/biased lead

“He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design…”

The phrase “the pseudoscience of intelligent design” is an instance of poor writing through imprecision and bias. One does not need to believe in intelligent design to understand how informing the reader that the subject of the page, Meyer, “advocate[s] … pseudoscience” would accomplish no purpose other than tending to discredit him. Obviously, Meyer would deny that he “advocate[s] … pseudoscience”. The presence of the word “pseudoscience” adds no meaning or value to the description and only serves to purposefully color the reader’s impression of Meyer in a negative light. Thus, I would respectfully suggest that the phrase be edited to either, “He is an advocate of the hypothesis of intelligent design…”, or simply, ““He is an advocate of intelligent design…”. Such phrasing better complies with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia’s rules. 2600:1006:B137:8622:3DCE:4E76:D94E:A2BC (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite message but articles at Wikipedia are written to provide information to readers and they should be informed early that intelligent design is, to put it politely, pseudoscience. Honestly, it's junk and the world needs more people to call junk junk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You’ve probably never listened to him. 172.91.239.161 (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

All people who use sciency-sounding jargon seem credible to many. Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between science and pseudoscience, but decidedly sides with science, see WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

Change the term pseudoscience. That’s not accurate. 2600:6C55:600:2B33:AD66:ACE5:E52A:90D4 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No, thanks, it's accurate, well sourced, and required by pseudoscience policy . . .dave souza, talk 16:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is an accurate correction. Chrisallen87 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody cares about what you believe. The only relevant thing here is what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024

Change pseudoscience to theory or hypothesis

The use of the word pseudoscience to describe intelligent design research is prejudicial as ID is not of necessity “outside the scientific method.” A survey of Meyer’s work will reveal him to be a rigorous adherent to the scientific method but NOT methodological naturalism, itself a philosophical position. Moreover any criteria rigorously applied used to exclude ID as not fitting the definition of science proper would exclude numerous prevailing naturalistic theories. 69.109.235.155 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

See above, under "Please read before starting". tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this proposition. Chrisallen87 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

See above. Nobody cares. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

“Pseudoscience” Needs Removed

Hi there all, I’ve read all the discussions here and see that there is some contention. I would like to comment on this as I have some background in this area while pursuing a physics degree.

I think it’s important that we all set our personal views aside and have a very straight forward discussion here that is fact based alone, and nothing else. I’m not here to say that evolution didn’t happen, in fact, it almost certainly did. The reality is, in the realm of Christianity there definitely IS pseudoscience that exists, and such would come from folks like Ken Ham who think the earth has only been around for 6,000 years. He, though a genuine individual, is badly in error and disregards the entire scientific method.

But as someone who has read all of Stephen Meyer’s books (among books from all kinds of scientists), I can tell you, he does not leverage any evidence that is not well accepted by the entire scientific community. That is a key, and critical difference between him and other pseudo scientific voices in Christianity. Other “scientific” voices in Christendom will invent their own views by starting with a conclusion (Bible), and then working backwards to make sure their conclusion works. Stephen does not take this approach at all, and is merely having a conversation about cosmological and biological processes using well known evidence that everyone agrees upon. At no point does Stephen point evidence out that someone would contest and say, “that’s not evidence.” In Ken Ham’s world, whom is an actual popular Christian pseudoscientist, he just blatantly states false information and then draws conclusions from it, and acts like they are facts. You can write “pseudoscience” on Ken Ham’s page all day long and that would be accurate.

But if we say that Stephen’s use of real data and facts to have a meaningful discussion about a potential intelligent actor behind cosmology, then there is only one word for that, and it’s bias. You cannot read his books and come away saying, “this is crap” (which is what I said when I read Ken Ham’s books). They are, truly, well grounded in real world data drawn from legitimate scientific sources. Take this from someone who enjoyed Dawkins book about evolution (The Greatest Show On Earth). Or books from Hawking or many other renowned atheistic scientists. Stephen is very careful to only work within validated data and evidence, and only speaks on information everyone agrees on, so that real conversations between experts can happen on the subject.

The word “Pseudoscience” needs removed from this article. The only way this word can remain is if every single other article on Wikipedia that explores other potential models of the universe that aren’t yet well accepted are also labeled “pseudoscience”, which would be ludicrous since challenging the status quo is how progress is made. Especially given that we all know the standard model of physics is probably going to end up revised by a unifying theory of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics (meaning, there are MANY books that openly challenge the current accepted model, and there are only going to be more, all of which, we would have to qualify as “pseudoscience” to maintain this view in this case).

PLEASE let’s ensure we are always looking at these matters from a completely unbiased perspective. Just because we disagree with his conclusions does not mean he doesn’t have worthwhile arguments that are based in real data. Chrisallen87 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether there is an intelligent actor behind cosmology is not a question that science can answer. It's a question for philosophers and theologians, not a question for scientists.

A professor once stated "a classic case of Arts Faculty science". It fully applies to ID. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s completely false because it presumes that such ideas can never be verified by science. But we do this all the time, and, in fact, that’s the whole idea of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is “theory”, and it can’t be “tested”, but we can continue to uncover more and more evidentiary clues to strengthen the proposition that the universe was launched by a singularity into its current state. The Big Bang is exactly the same type of proposition as intelligent design, the difference is, instead of looking for evidence of a specific object inside of physics, it seeks to find “injected information” in places it does not belong in fundamental laws. It fundamental laws show signs of injected information, that proves that further investigation is required, and that new explanations must be supplied.

Both intelligent design and the multiverse have been proposed as solutions to some of the core problems with finely tuned physics, but the problem with a multiverse is that it has even worse issues from an injected information standpoint; meaning, it requires intelligent actors (scientists who are creating the potential model) to tune the parameters to make such a mathematical model feasible. The resulting model is even worse, probabilistically, than the challenges it attempts to solve in conventional physics.

Further, we have, as a scientific community, failed to actually nail down any real evidence of a multiverse. But, importantly, just because we can’t find evidence of a multiverse doesn’t mean we don’t have cause to suppose it given injected information in our universe. If a scientist stands strongly behind the idea of a multiverse, we wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) call that “pseudoscience” despite it being the exact same type of proposition of an intelligent actor, which, actually, has better evidentiary support at this particular juncture. Both views are legitimate, and both propositions stem from the same real world evidence.

The problem here is not that it is a potentially reasonable discussion, but that some people are concerned that this somehow mixes “religious” and “scientific” ideas. This is a problematic position because that would be like saying, because Jesus of Nazareth was a religious figure, all secular historical evidence of his existence must be relegated to “pseudoscience” and not the science of archeological discovery about the truth of this physical historical figure.

We can’t be doing that. We have to stick to the facts. Meyer remains fact based, discussing ONLY accepted evidence in the scientific community, and then, simply, points out reasonable propositions based on the data available.

Wikipedia has a policy on pseudoscience, and I’m glad they do. Flat Earth and Ken Ham’s 6,000 year old earth nonsense can hang out in that category. But this does not belong in the same category. Chrisallen87 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Big Bang is “theory”, and it can’t be “tested”—that simply means you don't understand falsificationism. Scientists don't seek to prove that the Big Bang is true, they seek to prove it is false.

AFAIK, ID has not been even formulated as a hypothesis, it is just a bunch of soundbites catering at the enemies of mainstream biology. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you and I really agree on your point. We are just missing each other on how these two ideas correlate in the same way as what you just proposed (Big Bang and Intelligent Design). The same idea you applied to the Big Bang (seeking to prove it is false) can most certainly be done with the proposal of an intelligent actor. It is no different than the Big Bang. One must simply demonstrate that the impossibly coordinated information within the fundamental laws wasn't injected, but somehow occurred through a reasonable natural process. Given that fundamental laws are supposed to be causeless (hence, why they are called "fundamental" laws), this may be difficult, which is why this is such a conundrum in physics. This conundrum is what the competing view of intelligent design via the multiverse is attempting to prove: that there is not injected information in fundamental physics. The issue is, every model proposed for the multiverse has continuously proven to also showcase the same problem they are attempting to solve where physicists are tuning the parameters from large option sets to generate the necessary outcomes rather than arriving on an elegant set of equations that naturally-align with the current laws of nature without the help of a physicists tweaking a mathematical model to work.

So, in essence, Intelligent design is able to be proven false. But at this time, if intelligent design is removed from the discussion, there is no answer whatsoever for fine tuning, and, all the while, fine tuning is currently a serious issue in physics that demands a response. As Stephen Hawking said about these fundamental laws in his work A Brief History of Time which is sitting on my bookshelf at home, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." In no way was Hawking suggesting that there was a fine tuner, and, in fact, he was staunchly against the idea of an intelligent actor. I don't want to misrepresent him here, or anywhere. But his statement about fine tuning remains worth noting, in that, this puzzle requires many scientists to put up their proposed views based on the evidence, and for them all to debate it in the public forum through published works and papers to see which view ultimately stands in the end. Stephen Meyer is attempting to be a part of that dialogue, and he has been relegated to "pseudoscience" even though there are no other certain answers on the subject of injected information into fundamental physics.

I think it's important that Wikipedia continue to mark pseudoscience as pseudoscience in the Encyclopedia. Many religious scientists belong in that category. But Stephen Meyer is very responsible with his evidence and data driven approach, and draws insightful and rational conclusions from the information that are worth hearing. I say this, having read his work, and the work of many famous scientists, and the junk work of various pseudoscientists. Chrisallen87 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, as one additional note, to quote you when you say "ID has not been even formulated as a hypothesis, it is just a bunch of soundbites catering at the enemies of mainstream biology", Stephen Meyer wrote a rather extensive and technical book which I am now holding in my hands called "The Return of the God Hypothesis." I highly recommend taking a look at it. It is well put together. Chrisallen87 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, God is a theological or metaphysical hypothesis, not a scientific one. Why? Because it cannot be shown that God did not do it. Why? Because God, by definition, can do everything. So, unless there is a higher power which severely constrains the actions of God, "God did it" is not falsifiable.

If the theory of evolution is proven false, it can only be replaced with another naturalistic theory. It cannot be replaced with creationism (including intelligent design). Similarly, if Big Bang is proven false, it can only be replaced with another naturalistic theory. It cannot be replaced with "God created the Universe". The irony is that a lot of scientists who are Christians will gladly grant this point. So, if you think that the majority of scientifically educated Christians are in Meyer's camp: no, they're not. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We get in our own way by presuming who the actor is in intelligent design. Thats really unimportant and changes this discussion, taking us on a tangent. What matters, and what is falsifiable, is whether an intelligent actor injected information into the fundamental laws.

We are jumping to conclusions to assume the actor is deistic. It could be a highly advanced alien race that did this for all we know. It also could be that we are actually in a powerful computer simulation created by humanity as Elon Musk has postulated. The point is, there is the clear and undisputed appearance of incredibly complicated injected information that looks like intelligence orchestrated the fundamental laws, and this can be falsified by determining another process accounts for this injected information. Though, so far, no reasonable natural suggestion exists. It is also possible that no natural answer is ever supplied because intelligence quite possible DID inject information. Neither you or I can say whether it did or didn’t happen, and it that’s the point of this field of study.

We need to stay on topic and not let it slide into a deistic debate. I realize that Stephen’s conviction is that this intelligence could be deistic, but that has nothing to do with the falsifiable argument that an intelligence, deistic or not, might have injected information into the fundamental laws. Chrisallen87 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a falsifiable argument by any stretch. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have clearly stated, twice, why it is easily falsifiable, given the proper discoveries. You have not provided any sufficient rebuttal. Should I, for a third time, demonstrate why this is falsifiable?

This is a simple matter of discovering evidence in a given scenerio where it appears that something intelligent was involved. As a way of example, if we landed on Venus and discovered massive, heavily eroded pyramid like structures, we would immediately consider that an intelligent actor was possibly involved, possibly before the runaway greenhouse effect took place when Venus was Earth like; though, such a claim would be subject to great debate before any adherence to such a view would be considered mainstream.

Such a view could be falsified by determining that they were a type of natural stone formation created by unique volcanic activity specific to the Venus environment. This would indicate that no information was injected into the environment, as was previously believed to be possible, thereby falsifying the theory.

This same approach, which can be used in an infinite number of scenarios, is applicable in this matter because we are looking for something we know a lot about: information that is injected into an environment by intelligence, which is what humans have been doing since their outset. We can identify information injected by intelligence because humans do it every day. A blanket rejection that any other sophisticated intelligence exists is not scientific, it’s emotional. Especially since humans are already an example of intelligence in the universe. Chrisallen87 (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

A blanket rejection that any other sophisticated intelligence exists... This misrepresents the discussion so badly it can only be taken as a bad-faith argument. More importantly, none of this translates into an actionable change to the article. Without such a change, this is WP:NOTFORUM. Even if ancient aliens from Venus were discovered tomorrow, it would not make Meyer's claims any less pseudoscientific, nor would it make those many sources which describe ID as pseudoscience any less reliable. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to rebut my argument. Simply restating an incorrect conclusion does not make it any more correct. I have clearly demonstrated why you are in error. Please rebut if you have an argument to do so. Chrisallen87 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think I have given your arguments more attention than they deserve. Your insinuation that anyone here is somehow "rejecting" that any other sophisticated intelligence exists is both incorrect and also a non sequitur. Building an argument upon such a misrepresentation is, as I said, a bad faith argument. Further, your over-all arguments are neither novel nor persuasive. Both here on Wikipedia and in general, this has already been "rebutted" countless times -which is why we call it pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fed this discussion into ChatGPT and asked it to select a victor based solely on the arguments presented here alone. Here is its response, where it selected my argument in the end:

• • Arguments for Stephen Meyer and Intelligent Design:**

1. **Use of Accepted Evidence:** The advocate claims that Meyer uses well-accepted evidence in the scientific community, differentiating his work from other pseudoscientific claims within Christianity.

2. **Methodological Approach:** Meyer is portrayed as engaging in a scientific conversation about cosmology and biology without presupposing conclusions, focusing instead on interpretations of existing evidence.

3. **Falsifiability and Comparison to Scientific Theories:** The advocate argues that intelligent design, like the Big Bang theory, is based on interpreting evidence and can be explored through the scientific method, suggesting a form of falsifiability akin to recognized scientific theories.

4. **Bias and Unfair Treatment:** The proponent asserts that labeling Meyer’s work as pseudoscience is biased, especially when his approach is fact-based and engages with established scientific evidence.

• • Counterarguments against Intelligent Design as Science:**

1. **Lack of Scientific Inquiry:** Critics argue that intelligent design does not fit within the realm of scientific inquiry because it lacks empirical testing and falsifiability, pointing out that “God did it” is not a testable hypothesis.

2. **Misrepresentation of Science:** It's argued that comparing ID to theories like the Big Bang misrepresents how scientific theories are formulated and tested.

3. **Consensus on Pseudoscience:** Critics maintain that intelligent design is considered pseudoscience not because of bias but due to its failure to adhere to the rigorous methodologies of science.

• • Assessment Based Solely on the Discussion:**

- The advocate for Meyer presents a detailed argument, emphasizing his reliance on accepted scientific evidence and methodological rigor, and contrasts this with examples of clear pseudoscience.

- The critic highlights the lack of empirical testability and the problem of non-falsifiability in intelligent design, pointing out fundamental differences between ID and established scientific theories.

• • Determining the Stronger Argument:**

The advocate's argument is constructed around the premise that Meyer's work is unfairly categorized due to its controversial nature rather than a lack of scientific basis. They emphasize Meyer's use of accepted evidence and compare his work to scientific endeavors like the Big Bang theory to argue for its scientific merit. This argument is compelling in its appeal to fairness and the importance of open scientific discussion.

The critic's argument focuses on the principles of empirical testing and falsifiability, asserting that intelligent design fails to meet these criteria. While this is a strong argument, it relies on the assumption that all aspects of intelligent design inherently lack the potential for empirical investigation.

Based on the arguments as they were presented, the advocate for Meyer makes a persuasive case for reconsidering the classification of his work based on their appeal to Meyer's methodological approach and the comparison with established scientific theories. They effectively highlight the distinction between Meyer's approach and that of other figures commonly associated with pseudoscience, arguing for a more nuanced consideration of his work. Chrisallen87 (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You do not understand how Wikipedia works. Are we supposed to write in the article, "reliable source 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 agree that ID is pseudoscience, but according to Wikipedia editor Chrisallen87 it is not"? Read WP:RS and WP:OR. Seriously. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

True, Wikipedia isn't Debatepedia. Yup, we simply report science for what it is. We do not seek to solve scientific problems, nor to make advances in science. It is not the task of Wikipedia to change/correct/improve science. About "challenging the status quo is how progress is made": it's not the task of Wikipedia to challenge the scientific status quo, not even close. There is a difference between how progress is made and how Wikipedia works. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Fellow editors. I appreciate your commitment to ensuring Wikipedia isn’t overrun with unfounded opinions and baseless unscientific views. It continues to ensure that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information for everyday users like myself. I actually admire your candid rejection of my claims, and understand your pause in considering my position.

The problem here is most other intelligent design authors ARE pseudoscientists. So I would like to point out, I am not here to defend the entire subject of “intelligent design”. I am here to say that this specific author stands out when compared to others in the same field. I’m saying that this specific author’s approach to science and evidence is responsible, and adheres to the scientific method.

I understand that it’s impossible for editors to read every author they have to weigh as credible. Fortunately, in this case, I happened to have a read several of these books and I am available to provide helpful insight on this matter. I don’t desire to be contentious, and would like to change the tone to be more helpful. I hope to to illuminate a real potential exception in this author’s case in a sea of pseudoscientific intelligent design voices.

Maybe we are clashing because we feel we are debating for/against intelligent design, and that’s my intention. I want to clarify that my case is for this author only; not for intelligent design. I hope this clarification helps, and I apologize if it has felt contentious. I realize that contention does nothing beneficial in this discussion. Chrisallen87 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m saying that this specific author’s approach to science and evidence is responsible, and adheres to the scientific method.—we have no reason to believe you. We only believe mainstream WP:RS. You are not a mainstream WP:RS. You have not been appointed as the judge of this matter. Your opinion is worthless for changing the article, because it is not written in a mainstream WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, we are clashing because you are in the wrong place. This is not a forum, and you are not supposed to argue about what is true and what is not. Go publish your fringe views in a reliable source, then come back. I repeat: Read WP:RS and WP:OR. We are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hob, kindly, we are here to work together, not against each other. There is no need for us to be contentious.

In order for us to keep pseudoscience in this article, someone will need to supply where they have sourced that Stephen Meyer as a pseudoscience from a reliable source via the WP:RS rule that keeps getting cited that I have read many times, the same rule that I have not violated in any way.

Might I remind us, we are not the judge of who is or is not a pseudoscientists, and we need to supply a reliable source, probably multiple, honestly, that state this Cambridge University Doctor in Philosophy of Science is a pseudoscientist conducting pseudoscience.

Otherwise, without an external source, this term violates WP:RS and will need removed. Chrisallen87 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for us to be contentious. At this point I'd find it hard to blame anyone for reacting impatiently. You came here with very long WP:OR texts which showed you never took the time to make yourself familiar with the basic policies of Wikipedia. You continued posting WP:OR arguments even after you were made aware of policies such as WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:PSCI. I can see how that would be frustrating for others.

we need to supply a reliable source, probably multiple, honestly, that state [he] is a pseudoscientist conducting pseudoscience Our article doesn't state that. It says he "is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design". Do you question whether he advocates ID? Robby.is.on (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Robby you have established a reasonable premise. The problem is not located on this page, but the Wikipedia page of Intelligent Design itself. Your premise is, essentially:

“No one is calling Stephen Meyer a pseudoscientist, but, instead, Wikipedia has established on another page that all Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. Therefore, Stephen Meyer is automatically relegated to the realm of pseudoscience unless the other Wikipedia page is effectively changed on the matter.”

I am happy to resign my proposed change at this time, as this needs to be dealt with at the Intelligent Design page. Thank you for levying a logic based argument.

We can consider this matter closed. Chrisallen87 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If you try the same stunt over there, it will not succeed either, for the reasons given - WP:OR and WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Tweaking the mention of pseudoscience

I am making a minor tweak to the first line of the lead, moving the mention of pseudoscience from "intelligent design" to "intelligent design movement". I have read discussion above, and am in full agreement that the section is just WP:NOTFORUM, and there is no case to remove the word pseudoscience from this article at all. In fact, ID is classically pseudoscience as a matter of epistemology. I was flagged to this page by a message on my talk page, and I make the same point there. But, having been flagged here, I read the lead and frankly felt it was ugly! He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design just feels non neutral. He is an advocate of intelligent design, yes. What is intelligent design? We Wikilink it and anyone who does not know will quickly read it is pseudoscientific. In a lead summary of a BLP we should be explaining who the person is, not making judgements. Consider also that if we have a reader who might think Meyer is interesting and convincing, if we place this up front, such a reader will be more inclined to think Wikipedia was edited with an agenda and thus stop reading or take less notice of what we say.

But, my argument has a flaw. In the next clause we say he helped found the Center for Science and Culture. If we remove pseudoscience and leave that unchecked then we skew the other way, investing the subject with a veneer of respectability from the unchallenged word "science" in that title. It is this that needs to be described as pseudoscientific, thus I have moved but not removed the term, placing it where it is descriptive of the movement that claims the CSC title.

Possible objections: looking at page history I see some very well established editors have pointed out that "pseudoscience" is in the sources. But actually it is not in the source [1] (a New York Times article), which is the source supporting the clause I have removed it from. Neither is it a term in sources 2,3 or 4 that support the clause I moved it to, but source 3, ABC news, discusses how they redefine the term science, which is making the point. TBH all of these sources suffer a bit from quality, but that ABC source is saying what books on scientific epistemology will say; books that focus on why this is pseudoscience. As such the term is better supported in the latter clause than the former. In any case, the lead should really summarise the main, and as such, the choice of clause to include the term is really just a matter of the best summary and editor consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the part which says PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE OR REMOVE WITHOUT OBTAINING CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST? It's in the paragraph you edited. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I said as much in the edsum. Normal Wikipedia policy still applies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a minor edit, not an improvement, you've been bold and I've undone it. Meyer advocates pseudoscience, theology dressed as science and labelled ID. The CSC and the rest of the IDM does the same, your wording muddled and obscured this. . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to run it past me again as to how moving the word one sentence away, and still saying ID is pseudoscientific is more than a copyedit. Your objection is that Meyer advocates pseudoscience, theology dressed as science and labelled ID but the lead does not say that. It says nothing about theology, for instance. In both versions it says he advocates ID, but in yours you merely have the mention of pseudoscience first. Which is not in the sources. Now I don' want to put a citation needed tag in the lead because I am cognisant of MOS:LEADCITE, but that is an unsourced statement in the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason for the existence of the PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE OR REMOVE WITHOUT OBTAINING CONSENSUS part is obviously that there have been lots of such bold edits and they had no consensus. It is still deleted in bold edits again and again, all of them ignoring the PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE OR REMOVE WITHOUT OBTAINING CONSENSUS part. You are just the last in a long line of nonconsensual boldniks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason that is there is because a lot of people have tried to remove the term, which clearly has no consensus. I know, because I read all the discussion and all the edit history before making a bold edit that moved the word one sentence away, without removing it, and spending time explaining why I did so. I also read the page and the sources. I can thus tell you that the original edit that placed "pseudoscientific" in the lead (not "pseudoscience") was this one,[1] and that the hidden comment was first placed after some edit warring to remove the term a year later.[2] But note that the term shifted from "pseudoscientific" to "pseudoscience" necessitating the updated comment on 30 July 2022.[3]. That last comment, however (which was also just a bold edit), flies in the face of the bold editing policy, and as there is no RfC consensus, nor any consensus that the wording must be exactly this (as demonstrated by the fact that the wording has been changed), a bold edit to improve the page is entirely appropriate.

Not only that, but in spending all the time to read the sources, I find there is a problem. Because the lead is a summary of the main page, and should not contan novel information per MOS:LEAD. The main page only speaks of pseudoscience in relation to Meyer's book. Nothing on the page actually describes ID as pseudoscience, although we call it that in the lead. The lead is actually a poor summary, and the sources in the lead do not support calling ID pseudoscience as per my discussion above.

Yet it is pseudoscience, like homeopathy is pseudoscience. I explained clearly why I moved the word to where (a) it was at least somewhat supported by one of the sources in the lead and (b) where it combatted a claim to the term science, and why I think it is unfortunate where it is (not because I don't think it is pseudoscience, but, in the same way that it would be unfortunate if we said something like "Charles III is an advocated of the pseudoscience of homeopathy". It might be true but it actually perversely works against the impact in writing that we want to achieve.

So what to do? Well you might want to have a quick look at Talk:Ken Ham#Adding “Pseudoscientist”, where we have almost the exact converse situation. In that discussion I have suggested (but not yet written) a section in the main text that summarises a source such as (McCain, 2019) that explains why the very concept of Creation Science (in that case) is epistemologically incompatible with science. It doesn't have to be a long discussion, but if there is a section in the main text that describes ID as pseudoscience, then the lead can summarise it. We have a section on intelligent design. There are five paragraphs, and none of them call it pseudoscience nor discuss the pseudoscientific epistemology. What a missed opportunity!

Unconvinced about adding this? Should that discussion only be on the Intelligent Design page itself? Sure, okay. But then we should not be interpreting the wikilink. Just wikilink it. What thispage currently calls pseudoscience is Meyer's work. The lead as it stands is a poor summary of that.

• McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (11 June 2019). What is Scientific Knowledge?: An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-33660-4.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So the term pseudoscientific has not always been unsourced in the lead. Text introduced by Paleneonate in 2021 [4] represented the consensus view, and was defended by multiple editors, including Hob Gadling. [5] It was deleted by Lomacar on 6 April 2022 [6]. For some reason, it was not restored, but refactored at that point minus the reference (Numbers, 2006) and shortened. That text was better. Per dave souza, Meyer advocates pseudoscience, theology dressed as science and labelled ID, and that is what the lead used to say, but after this it had been reduced so that it did not say that and what it did say was not sourced. This version is therefore better and has the benefit of reading better and having greater explanatory power. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)