Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Chance or Dance

I see a linkspam to Chance or Dance was appropriately deleted. I wonder if it may be appropriate to reinsert the book under further reading without the promotional hyperlinks? The book does seem to be about limited critical analysis of ID within a framework of God-belief.

Chance or Dance: An Evaluation of Design provides an overview of design and clarification of the controversial Intelligent Design (ID) movement, and ultimately concludes that there is no scientific proof behind Intelligent Design...
The authors discuss that the idea of design is far more expansive than the ID movement’s version of it...
The book concludes with an argument for the correlation of faith and sensory experience and with the suggestion that science has been successful at describing processes, but has failed at explaining origins.
Chance or Dance is ideal for students and general readers interested in understanding how modern science gives evidence for the creation of nature by the God of the Bible.

Is there a reason for not including it as a further reading book?--ZayZayEM (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Others may chime in, but I don't have a problem with including it in Further Reading, using the description "Criticiam of the Intelligent Design movement from a Christian perspective" or some similar wording. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At first glance it would seem to add some balance. Too often people mistakenly think ID = religionists, evolution = atheists which is demomstrably false. I have Christian friends who have nothing but contempt for ID. Angry Christian (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Elusive definition of ID

I'm a little confused. Today I looked at the DI's web page and found this criticism of a Wired article:

"Leaving aside the ridiculously false assertion that ID proponents are trying to use scientific methodology to prove divine intervention....."

Does anyone find this contradictory, to both the article and previous utterances of the DI? --Trishm (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some inconsistency in the statements of the DI. But this is for several reasons, not the least of which is that if they say they are trying to prove divine intervention, they will get burned in court. So they cannot say that at least all the time. They have to say it when they are talking to their base or trying to raise money, since that is the only way people will give them money. So you find all kinds of weird statements and hairsplitting from the DI about whether there are supernatural or numinous or immaterial or whatever effects visible in nature. They want to define things very carefully to pass legal muster but still enable them to raise money, have support from religious groups and make their basic claims. And I think they enjoy just issuing confusing statements, as most religious arguments are full of confusing statements of a similar nature.--Filll (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, it's ridiculously false to assert that ID proponents are trying to use scientific methodology for anything – their case is built on misrepresentation and dubious philosophy. .. dave souza, talk 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically the "previous utterances of the DI" have repeatedly contradicted themselves, so that isn't too surprising. Basically the loophole that Scalia left in Edwards was for a scientific theory of divine intervention, and that is the loophole that ID was "cdesigned" to fill. On one hand, as a matter of dogma, they say that they cannot speculate on the nature of the cdesigner. On the other hand, they admit that they believe the cdesigner to be the Christian God.

The DI says that it is using science (although it isn't, it's a requirement of Edwards) to demonstrate (prove) the handiwork of the designer (divine intervention). So while Crowther can parse words, the only problems with that statement are (a) they aren't using the scientific method, they are merely pretending to, and (b) science cannot prove anything. But yes, in terms of common English, Crowther is contradicting the ID movement. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting on one hand they claim ID is science and should be considered a challenge to evolution, on the other they admit they have no developed theory whatsoever and therefore ID cannot challenge anything. This is what makes the intelligent design creationism movement so much fun to watch. This is what makes the ID "lab" so funny. Without a testable theory what exactly are they testing in this super secret ID bunker? Angry Christian (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Glancing over the whole article, slight violation of Neutral Point of View rule could be recognized, I think. Article is concentrated on single-sided scientifical evaluation of the topic. Criticism on aggressive ID-ists claim to be a science - it is OK, ID is not a science. Denying of evolution and natural selection - agree, is pseudo-scientific. But does every not-science authomatically be a pseudo-science? Are Plato and Aristotle pseudo-scientists? Have they something, what could be used against natural selection directly? Vice versa, does naturalism contradict to dualism in general? OK, it is out of scientifical method, because it is out of the logic - it is about existence of the logic itself. The whole philosophy could be then stated as a non-science. Is it pseudo-science then? Or the logic itself - if it is accepted as objective property of the World - is it not a kind of "intellectual design"? Probably there is lack of some remark in introductionary part - the article is not about intelligence of the world in common sense - it is about certain aggressive movement The Intelligent Design? Or perhaps one should be more accurate with the identification of Intellectual Design concept as pseudo-scientific - not every recognition of intelligence in the World is pseudo-scientific and not every intellectual activity should be evaluated in scientific terms. When ID is simply expression of subjective worldview, not contradicting to the science and not claiming revise scientific methods - it is simply and neutrally not-science, nothing more. Could it be true? Of course it could - not all the Thruth in the World is covered by the science. Mingis. 09:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern-day non-science that purports to be science, and illegitimately lays claim to the trappings of science, is pseudoscience. This is implicit in the prefix "pseudo-" which means pretended. Pseudoscience is non-science pretending to be science. Mathematics, logic and legitimate philosophy generally do not pretend to be science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was little bit confused at first glance because the article is not about an intellectual design of the World in common sense, but about certain movement having proper name Intelligent Design. May be is worth to add some paragraph to the very beginning, that not every attempt to look at the World as being initially intellectual (like dualistic philosophy does) should be necessary covered by the term Intelligent Design? Mingis. 11:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.59.93 (talk)

The phrase "intelligent design" has meant a number of things over the years, and still is a common phrase in engineerng for other things. This is noted in the text of the article. However, in the mid-80s, the intelligent design movement basically took the phrase "intelligent design" for their own, much as their antecedants had taken the phrase "creationism" for their own purposes, which are different than the original meaning of the word.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The disambiguation page linked at the top of the article is really just concerned with ID as we know it – think there should be a link to Slartibartfast? . . dave souza, talk 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to suggest a single position for ID. There are a range of views ranging from a simple belief in a "first cause" to the extreme of some anti-science creationists. Many aspects of ID are compatible with many aspects of evolution. Let's not try to polarize the issue: rather, lets include some common ground. This would be a better article for all. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

another solution would be for you to realize this article is about the flavor of intelligent design popularized by the Discovery Institute and their agents and sympathizers. It is not about first cause, it is not about Raelian intelligent design, and it's not about Mazda rotary motors. Angry Christian (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vroom vroom! Intelligent Design on wheels! Baegis (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are limiting this article to discuss ID only as defined by the Discovery Institute, then this restriction must be stated. We should indicate that other published material on ID is not inculded. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will make this clarification. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First you need to provide verification from reliable secondary sources that "other published material on ID" is notable, showing that you're not just producing your own original research. Please set out your proposals in a new section at the foot of this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to have a disambiguation notice at the top - phrases like "as defined by the Discovery Institute" does not really get the point across that there are unrelated concepts, and, with the quote in the first sentence, merely makes it look like quote attribution. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The largest UFO religion, Raelians, believe in ID and have a book called "Intelligent Design" yet the opening paragrapgh is: Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the United States-based Discovery Institute[6][7] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. This is not true nor is this the best case for ID. With the latest news stating that the chance for life in the Universe is statistically less than science thought, its time to accept that aliens involvement on Mother Earth just statistically became more probable, yet this Raelian concept is totally absent and we focus on Biblical arguments, which is ridiculous. The Bible is not a source of truth in science. However, if ET was involved in ID on other worlds, as humans are soon capable of, it better be listed as a possibility that we take seriously. Evolution has much lower odds when you consider that the Universe is 14 billions years old, the Earth only 4, then we may want to consider that life really did begin out there, Raelians believe that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7351428.stm Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"The largest UFO religion" is rather like being the 'tallest dwarf', and brings with it little presumption of prominence. The Raelians have had little impact (or apparent involvement) in the promotion of the idea of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. There is therefore no reason to consider them to be (even collectively) a "primary proponent" in the context of this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, this is the 2006 Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers, a recompiled English compilation of the 1974,1975 and 1979 books trying to latch onto the ID bandwaggon. Not notable, but covered by Intelligent design (disambiguation). .. dave souza, talk 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah the joys of watching the Raelians and the Theosophists (see below) fighting over ownership of ID's battered and dishonoured corpse, post-KvD. Funny how they never publicised their putative connection while the concept still had any real life to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Raelians have sold millions of copies of "Inteligent Design" since 1973 - as Atheists who pre-date your Christian attacks. It remains a high seller. The Wiki version is not apparently meant to include Raelians 80,000 strong and growing worldwide who come here for info (only to find how far off this is and find us unable to define what ID is), then we admit we wrote this against Christians and ignore other Enclopedia ID definitions. The definition should explain what ID is without talking religion. Only after it is fully defined and explained, can you put down the Christians and whomever else you feel like insulting. Defining ID properly doesn't make it right, its just defining it. Can we do that in our Encyclopedia online or are we having too much fun attacking Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnaur (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Any substantiation for these sales figures? 80,000 world-wide is a drop in the ocean -- and tiny in comparison to the number of conservative evangelicals, who are DI-style ID's main boosters. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And don't you mean since 2006 when the collection of older titles was rebadged as ID? .... dave souza, talk 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the number of conservative evangelicals are a far larger group than the Raelians give credence to your primary proponents argument but warrants additional information stating that the Raelian movement prescribes to the Intelligent Design notion as well although not one of the primary proponents as you define primary based on the size of the group. However, having said that, the Intelligent Design article has been forked out into a number of various categories. I see no harm in the stating that Raelians believe in Intelligent Design but do not place the Christian God as the designer but an alien race. This argument of course already goes over previously treaded ground which is that all proponents of ID are theists which they are not nor does it benefit the article by seeking to establish that all proponents of ID are theists. It should be removed. Also I believe the beginning paragraph is biased and not reported in a scientific way. There is no movement to fundamentally redefine science. There is a movement however to explore the notion that an intelligence whatever or whoever that may be has directed some of the what we see in the natural world. This is of course is open to massive debate but I don't believe they are saying "it is" but that it might be. Why is the scientific community so afraid of discussion about this topic aside from the same old argument that it's so obviously not true and repackaged creationism blah blah blah. Its indicative of the same kind of folks who tried to continually push that the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe. We still discuss those ideas so that we can demonstrate why they are false. If it doesn't stand up - teach it and teach why it doesn't stand up - don't seek it's expulsion but promote it's discussion to further understanding. By not donig so, I believe the scientific community looks afraid and some may think, even if it is incorrectly, that it is a fear of a truth they don't want to face. I say let's bring up the notion, don't call it a theory, and teach science! (Samperon (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ

Could somebody please semi-protect this FAQ -- it has been receiving quite a lot of (mostly IP-based) vandalism lately. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI on David Snoke

Off topic for an article talkpage, that is meant to be for discussing the article, not the purported POV of edits on another page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Dwsnoke is making a number of dodgy, unsourced & blatantly WP:COI edits to his own article. Some attention might be warranted. HrafnTalkStalk 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Schönborn

Quite some time ago, I translated this article for the German Wikipedia. Now, someone raised an objection concerning the description of Schönborn's position. He refers to [1], and similar statements can be found to two years earlier in [2]. Schönborn says there that he basically supports Intelligent Design being taught in US schools. To me, it seems to be a little bit like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". While I don't think Schönborn changed his mind about theistic evolution (a divine plan exists within evolution, in contrast to someone designed life from outside), the mere fact that he holds this position makes it quite misleading to name him as an example of Theistic Evolution without relativizing it. BTW, what he says is very ambiguous. It is not clear whether he simply uses the word Intelligent Design instead of Theistic Evolution and advocates that to be taught, or whether he really means Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute and as described here in this article. The statements can be read in both ways. --rtc (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientists who believe in Creation

Off-topic, as belief in God does not mean acceptance of ID. Copying contents to user's talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it is misleading to to equivocate the "scientific community" with NAS and a couple other narrow organizations. That is a fallacy. Less than 5% of US scientists are members of NAS, and these scientists *are* members of the scientific community. While only 7% of NAS believes in a personal God, 40% of all scientists (when you tally scientists who are not NAS members) do. This is a statistical fact back up by Gallup polls since the 1900's and a more recent poll in Nature. This article seems to imply that the overwhelming majority of scientists discount creationism (ID is related to creationism several times in this article). With 40-45% (depending on the poll) of all scientists believing in a personal God who answers prayer, the article, im my opinion, falsely equivocates the "scientific community" with NAS and two other organizations whom only represent a small fraction of the actual scientific community. I propose we make mention of the statistical fact that approx. 40% of scientists are creationists. While 93% of NAS members being agnostic could be labeled as "overwhelming majority", it misleads us to conclude that is a representative sample of the scientific community. Stating it is 'unequivocal' is certainly misleading. 40% of the scientific community is by no means 'unequivocal'. I propose we make the correction to improve the article. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.46 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC) I propose that, unless you come up with a (top notch) source for the statement "40% of scientists are creationists", we don't change anything in the article. Any seconds on that one? Baegis (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Even if we do get a source for that, you (the anon) are still equivocating yourself. You're implying that because a scientist believes in a personal god, they can't believe that ID is pseudoscience. There's no such link there. It's quite possible for a scientist to believe the universe was set in motion 13.7 billion years ago by a god who watched and let evolution take its course, and is now around to answer prayers. Or maybe they believe that the god planned evolution. In either case, they wouldn't accept ID. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)\ The article makes the statement "unequivocal consensus" in the scientific community. I believe that to be misleading as it is using a source for "scientific community" that is not a true representative sample. The organizations you listed as proof for "unequivocal consensus" actually do not represent an accurate sampling of the scientific community. How, therefore, can you claim "unequivocal consensus?" What I am disputing is the claim "unequivocal". I fail to see how that is an accurate reflection of the "scientific community", and the article does not justify that term, unless I missed something? I believe we can improve the article by removing the term "unequivocal" and replacing it with majority. I agree with the phrase "majority consensus", I disagree with "unequivocal consensus". The burden of proof is on you because you are making the claim in the article and have not substantiated it. I believe the article can be improved on by making the change to "majority consensus"

Origins?

This was added between 16:16 and 16:18, 19 March 2008, by 69.114.60.153 (talk · contribs)

In the 5th century BCE, Anaxagoras, a Greek philosopher who fled from Clazomenae to Athens during the Persian War,< ref >Diogenes Laertius II.7< /ref > posited that Mind (nous) organized the world and set it into order.< ref >Diels-Krantz fragment 12 and 13< /re>

Seems possible, but sources need to be confirmed. .. dave souza, talk 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources need to be clarified, preferably with specificity and to a online source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As our description of the provenance of this concept becomes longer and more fleshed out, I wonder if at some point we should not spin off most of it to a subsiduary daughter article. For example, although William Paley is a notable figure for this sort of idea around 1800, I gather that he was not the only one of a fairly large crowd and this was fairly heavily discussed. We could also include the Victorian Era discussion of the idea which happened long before Darwin's publication of Origin of the Species. There were some supporters, but many others who dismissed the idea on theological and scientific grounds, long before Darwin. I think it would make for very interesting reading and we could leave a short summary here.--Filll (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the ancient history of the argument would be better handled in Teleological argument (which already has an extensive History section) than in a separate article, with just a brief summary & see-also here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Ideally any names we not here should be ones picked out by ID proponents or experts on ID as antecedents, such as Paley, and not just any authors of what we think are similar ideas. . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New ID website & book

My GoogleNews feeds often pick up articles from the Disco Boys' Whine and Cheese blog. A recent post turned up news of a new CSC website: 'Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design'. This in turn had info on an upcoming new book Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues. Amazon provides the following information:

• Editor: H. Wayne House. Contributors: Michael Behe, Eddie Colanter, Logan Gage, Phillip Johnson, Casey Luskin, J. P. Moreland, Jay Richards
• "H. Wayne House (Th.D., Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; J.D., Regent University School of Law) is Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies and Apologetics, Fatih Seminary in Tacoma, Washington, and Professor of Law, Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, California. He is author or editor of more than twenty books, including The Christian and American Law and Israel: The Land and the People. ... Eddie Colanter is director of bioethics and culture at the Newport Institute for Ethics, Law, and Public Policy." (Luskin & Gage should be familiar to you all)
• "Intelligent Design 101 brings together leading scholars and researchers from the fields of science and intelligent design studies, such as Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson. Their detailed and insightful essays form an introduction to intelligent design, from the basics of the theory, to its history and growing place in science and education."

It was meant to have been published almost a month ago (by Kregel Publications, who I've never heard of), but is still only available for pre-order.

I'm still struggling to work out how this might fit into a coherent PR strategy on the part of the DI. "Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" still seems to be the best explanation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Intelligent design movement

At Talk:Intelligent design movement#RfC Legal arms there is a WP:RFC on whether the statements made in Intelligent design movement#Legal arms are adequately supported by the references for that section. A wider range of views would be welcome. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical review of ID is welcome

I heartily recommend the PDF to which I added a link. There an objective person (means: does not agree with ID) reviews Niall Shanks's book which tries to critique the Intelligent Design theory. It would be too hard to rewrite the whole ID article in Wikipedia and it would lead to no progress in understanding this debate, but I recommend that those who wish to be objective about this case will read and assess the claims made by Del Ratzsch. I think ID deserves fair review, it is still a theory in development and needs to answer some tough questions. But sadly this heavily anti-ID biased Wikipedia article does no good for public debate, because the truth in Wikipedia is decided through a majority vote. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A "theory" in development? You mean a hypothesis, don't you? -- Alexf⁴² 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it even qualify as a hypothesis? I thought a hypothesis was an educated guess based on observation and data. They haven't collected any, they just stare at things and say "that looks complicated, I'll bet it was designed".24.196.95.139 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al.

Page 35, last paragraph of the partial summary judgement award [etc] might be useful here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive as WP:RS

Not an issue and not a problem for this article, per RSN. Baegis (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A user is edit-warring on Darwin's Black Box on the basis of the hoary old claim that 'TalkOrigins Archive is usenet and thus an unreliable source'. He's taken it to the RS noticeboard (at WP:RS/N# TalkOrigins Archive) so people may wish to weigh in there, in case an uninformed judgement gains momentum. HrafnTalkStalk 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) If its a "hoary claim", link the original discussion, please, it would be enormously helpful. And I think there are enough editors at RS/N who are actually informed about policy. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Someone may eventually link the discussion, which might take a few hours or days to find. Of course, you do realize that this is such a common website that this discussion had to have been had previously, right?--Filll (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I realise that it must have taken place about the FAQ. And I realise that its different when those disagreeing are creationists and sensible editors (see, I'm not convinced that being a creationist gives one a sufficient ability to judge the reliability of sources) and that it might have taken place before BLP was introduced. All these make sense to you? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC) It does not matter who is a creationist and who is not. It is a reliable source, and it has been discussed before. You might have to wait for a while until someone spends the hours and hours required to dig up evidence for you however. On the BLP issue, we would have to remove a huge number of sources, including almost everything ever published by the Discovery Institute, or The Penetecostal Church, or Answers in Genesis, or William Dembski or Scientology, if every slightly negative statement about a person in a source was viewed as a violation of WP:BLP.--Filll (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I just read the review. I see no BLP problems.--Filll (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC) "Every slightly negative statement about a person in a source" does not equate to "contentious material, especially contentious negative material, from self-published or unreliable sources." Please don't overstate it. The latter is, indeed, in BLP, and non-negotiable. About the review, the particular statement skates close enough to a judgment of Behe the man for it to be problematic. That, however, is a question that can be sorted out in discussion on that talkpage. BLP, however, always applies. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I ask again, please give me a specific quote from the Robinson review that you believe violates WP:BLP. No more dancing around the issue. Let's see it.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not dancing, and I dont usually respond to statements framed like that. Try again. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Well I apologize if I have offended any of your sensibilities. If you believe I have violated WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA or WP:AGF, please feel free to file charges against me at any of the appropriate venues. I invite you to do so. In fact, I am asking you to do so. Please bring charges of abusive editing against me. And since you are unable or unwilling to substantiate any of your claims about WP:BLP at this point, I cannot really respond. I would ask you to bring any serious BLP complaints to the BLP noticeboard.--Filll (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Over-react much? Also, please don't post the same content to more than one article talkpage. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) You do realize that because of this snide, sarcastic personal attack upon me, and under our new current politically correct WP:AGF rules, you can be administratively sanctioned. Please try not to step out of bounds again. Thank you for trying to maintain a WP:CIVIL atmosphere here, which of course is more important than anything else including content.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Hang on, was that irony? Or sarcasm? Or snideness? I'm sorry, I don't pick up on those very well unless its funny. So I'll assume you're serious. Actually, this is the perfect demonstration of why civility rules should be strictly enforced in contentious areas. Not only did you immediately revert without an attempt at discussion a well-intentioned edit by an editor who, although he has not edited in this area before, knows the subject reasonably well and follows WP policy carefully, but the subsequent behaviour and incivility almost succeeded in sending said editor away. If this happens to me, with a reasonable edit history and an easily-accessible history of action against fringe theories, it does not take a leap of imagination to picture what would happen to most editors. Indeed, it is frequently the case that a uncivil atmosphere inhibits editing, and thus reduces the usefulness of content. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I am afraid I do not understand. Please provide a diff.-Filll (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) A diff of what? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Relata, you're making a series of vague accusations about people's behaviour, action which in itself is rather uncivil and which is not the purpose of this talk page. If you want to argue about people's actions, you appear to be well aware of the appropriate procedures. Remember to provide diffs to back up any points you make. So, enough of these off-topic discussions. The heads-up has been given about discussions about sources in another venue, I don't think we need to go into more detail here. ... dave souza, talk 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, I made a general statement about the importance of civility in response to a very specific statement by Filll. I particularly don't want to get into disagreements of that sort on this or any page. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC) To get back on topic: The Talk.Origins Archive is not a mere collection of Usenet posts, like Google Groups or Gmane. It's an edited publication, some of whose articles also have been published on Usenet. Moreover, its articles extensively cite their own sources and are written by competent people in the field. --FOo (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Yup, some of it unquestionably so. Do we know which parts? Who are the editors? Which ones cite their own sources? Which ones are written by competent people in their field? Please do add to this at RS/N, since this isn't the best location for this discussion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Argument from ethics?

Apparently, there has been an argument for ID along the lines that evolutionism attributes no moral value to events, and so any moral code would necessarily imply an intelligent creator. This argument seems to be advanced in the movie Expelled: no Intelligence Allowed which is to be released on April 18 2008. Perhaps it has been advanced before. -Pgan002 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure similar arguments have been advanced by creationists before. However, we will not know for sure about the film until more people have seen it and analyzed it and we have more reviews. I will also point out that the existence of a moral code and a conscience and ethics etc all are taken as evidence of evolution operating. So it is sort of a nonsense argument and typical of many of their other arguments.--Filll (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a garbled argument. That "evolutionism attributes no moral value to events" (even if that phrase had any meaning) in no way implies that "any moral code would necessarily imply an intelligent creator". Assuming that by "evolutionism" you/they mean science's methodological naturalism (or even atheists' philosophical naturalism), the argument implies an is/ought conflation. Science deals with what does happen, it offers no judgement on what should happen. The latter question is dealt with, on a daily basis and often without any invocation of any creator, by the field of Moral Philosophy. Then again, given the 'quality' of production we've heard of to date from Expelled, it wouldn't surprise me if they made just such a half-baked argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting dentistry attributes no moral value to events either. Angry Christian (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably I did not phrase it in the most compelling way. Of course it is invalid, but still is an argument. It is not meant to show that ID is science but that ID must be the correct explanation of how the world came to be. So it is different than dentistry. If it is used by proponents, I think it is worth mentioning in the article. Unfortunately the film is unlikely to state it rhetorically, just hint at the rhetorical argument. I saw it in this blog, comment #953. But we obviously have to wait to use the movie as a source. I just thought other editors may have seen it in other sources. -Pgan002 (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We really need a reliable secondary source discussing this point to include it in the article, not sure if any of the reviews have touched on the point – seem to remember Dawkins' review mentioning the conflation of is / ought, so that's probably quite a good source. Out of interest, the point's recently been discussed with the King of Ireland. .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here we are.

The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin.... natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism.... Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.[3]

Perhaps rather specific as a review of the film, surely the point's been make elsewhere? .. dave souza, talk 10:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box

The article sidebox said Darwin's Black Box introduced the concept of irreducible complexity - this is not strictly true, as Behe published a couple things before it. "popularised" or "introduced the concept to the public" or something along those lines is more accurate. I've gone with "popularised", which is accurate, but I suppose that the slight paranoia that seeps in when dealing with inveterate quote-miners and spinners (such as the higher-ups in the ID movement) might cause one to dislike that word, so tweak at will. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. In June 1993 Behe first presented his ideas about "irreducible complexity" at the Pajaro Dunes meeting, and with the Timeline of intelligent design#Pandas revised, DI meets ID, Behe's irreducibly complexity argument was published in all but name. While much of the idea may hark back to Thaxton's 1988 conference "Sources of Information Content in DNA," the actual IC argument seems to date to the 1993 meeting. .. dave souza, talk 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience? NPOV problems!

Already addressed in the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article, along with the one on evolution, has some serious NPOV problems. Macroevolution is presented as inescapable fact, while intelligent design is presented as a lunatic crackpot idea, no more viable than cold fusion, despite the fact that the preponderance of scientific evidence clearly favors ID.````Lordofthemarsh—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofthemarsh (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2008 See the box headed Please read before starting at the top of this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Forrest

Previously described as "an expert" without any details of what she's an expert in - I've removed the phrase in case it came across as endorsing her comments. If anyone knows her profession and/or experience, do please add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.92.241 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted - she's a professor of history of science, and has written extensively on the ID movement, and she gave extensive expert testimony in the Kitzmiller trial (over objections from the defendants to her being called) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Discovery Institute" & the "God of Christianity"

There are problems with the lead section of this article:

• The lead has a limiting POV, that portrays proponents of Intelligent Design as engaging in - what amounts to - a deceptive shell game: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts."

• There is the inaccurate generalization that the primary proponent of "Intelligent Design" is the "Discovery Institute"

• There is the inaccurate claim that the promoting of the "God of Christianity" is what "Intelligent Design" is really about.

• I know of a number of individuals who have never even heard of the Discovery Institute and who do not limit their understanding of the Creative Powers of Consciousness (Intelligent Design) to the popular superstitions of a "God of Christianity".

• Helena Blavatsky, writing in her book The Secret Doctrine published in 1888, was the first person to use the phrase "intelligent design" to convey her understanding of evolution. In the Theosophical Society she used the phrase to convey the idea that the evolution of the species was guided by an underlying purposeful intelligence in nature. This intelligence is different from the "God" of theistic religions. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. All of this has been discussed ad-nausuem. That article was correct as it was. Peruse the talk page archives here to see responses to your above points. Raul654 (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the archives and have not found responses to the issues I have raised. Therefore, please justify your revert of my edits. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To browse the archives, there is an archive box towards the top of the page. For example, the issue of whether all leading proponents of Intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute is discussed in /Archive29, /Archive32, as well has here. All except the last issues you have brought up have been specifically addressed at various places in these archives. For the last point, perhaps the article can mention Blavatsky in the Origin section, suitably referenced. However, I don't see how Blavatsky has anything to do with the removal of large amounts of well-sourced information from the lead. silly rabbit (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You've made a lot of allegations but provided not one source to back them up. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and come back when you have not only proper sources, but proper sources that trump Federal Court rulings, the National Academies of Science, etc. Until then, I have to ask you to stop deleting content from the article. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read through the archives, but my concerns continue to be with a number of issues:

• (1) The erroneous impression is created in the lead section that the Discovery Institute is the primary advocate for Intelligent Design, when in fact it has been part of religious and philosophical traditions for thousands of years. Yes, I am talking about Intellignece influencing evolution, not mere anthropomorphic myths about a one time creation of the world by some "Creator".

• (2) I did provide a source for a significant proponent for Intelligent Design: the Theosophical Society through Blavatsky's publication of The Secret Doctrine in 1888. Millions have upheld this concept through the various offshoots of Theosophy up through the present day - far more than those of the Discovery Institute. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

are you equating Theosophy with ID? Or claiming ID is inherent within Theosophy? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the concept of Intelligent Design has always been a basic premise in Theosophy: see Evolution and Intelligent Design in The Secret Doctrine Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Millions may have upheld this concept through the various offshoots of Theosophy, but millions haven't used the term "intelligent design" to describe it. Terms get coopted. Get used to it. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, if we're going to throw in everything that looks a little bit like ID as equivalent to the DI's ID, we may as well redirect this to Crreationism, the containing set. It's necessary to mke reasonable assumptions in order to focus this article, and one of them is to set the focus as the modern movement. I also suspect that Blatsky and the DI were not influenced by each other, but were mutually inspired by William Paley. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a scope issue, not a censorship issue - something like teleological argument

I have never seen any reference to substantiate the hypothesis that Blavatsky was influenced by Paley. And yes, "this is a scope issue" - this article wrongly implies that the Bible thumping fundamentalists of the Discovery Institute "own" the concept of Intelligent Design. They do not, as I have pointed out. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait this is a bit confused. There are of course concepts similar to intelligent design that go back at least 2000 years or more. Even Darwin used the phrase "intelligent design" in one of his letters and possibly other places. However, the modern intelligent design movement, with irreducible complexity and specified complexity harnessed to bolster intelligent design really is driven by the Discovery Institute, no matter what 100 year old or 200 year old or 500 year old or 2500 year old antecedants exist.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fill, my point is that although "Intelligent Design" - as a concept - is broad and goes back into antiquity, this article appears to characterize it as an activist position of the Discovery Institute and other Bible "creationist" fanatics. If that is to be the presentation of this article, then it should be retitled "Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute". We should not poison a well-established philosophical concept by making it appear to be almost exclusive to the Discovery Institute. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Arion, they've done the poisoning at the same time that they co-opted the name. Of course if you've reliable third party sources they can be considered, but looks like you're soapboxing a non-notable claim. .. dave souza, talk 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. The most common usage of a word or term is the one that gets to use it in their article or as the title of their article. Others are relegated to other articles, sometimes in the "See also" list, and sometimes in disambiguation articles.

The term "evolution" covers many concepts; probably hundreds. But most commonly, evolution refers to two related things (1) biological evolution, as observed (2) the theory of evolution, which attempts to explain these observations. So our article evolution describes these, and all the other meanings of the term "evolution" are listed in other articles; take a look at evolution (disambiguation) and evolution (term) for example.

The same is true of "intelligent design". Although it is commonly used in engineering and in software development and has been used for similar teleological beliefs and movements going back millenia, when the average person hears it today, they think of one thing; the modern "intelligent design" associated with the intelligent design movement. People do not think of the engineering usage or the historical usage. So the Discovery Institute efforts get to use the term in their article, since that is the most common usage of the term, at least at this point in time.--Filll (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute should have the spotlight put on them (especially in the article on them) for misusing the term "Intelligent Design" to push a "Creationist" agenda and tricking the general public into associating the term with fundamentalist Christian superstitions, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should fall into the trap of handing over to this activist group the philosophical and theosophical concept of "Intelligent Design" (which many consider refers to a transcendent perspective on evolution). Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to "Right great wrongs". We do not fall into the trap; we just reflect what exists in the real world. If most people in the real world believed that "intelligent design" had something to do with Madame Blatavsky rather than the Discovery Institute, then the article would be written accordingly. However, that is not true, so the article is not written that way.

By the way, the Discovery Institute and the intelligent design movement is not only about fundamentalist Christianity. It has moonies in it. It has Roman Catholics in it. It has Jews in it. It has agnostics and even atheists associated with it. It did have quite a number of Muslims associated with it, but I think it has fewer now since Harun Yahya has declared that intelligent design is a dirty filthy Western evil trap to destroy Islam. But anyway...--Filll (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that the impression created by the emphasis upon the Discovery Institute in the lead makes it appear that they are the "spokesmen" for Intelligent Design. The hoax they have perpetrated upon the public is that their "creationism" in disguise is what is meant by Intelligent Design. It isn't.

Just because many people use a term incorrectly, does not mean that Wikipedia or any reference source should redefine that term, other than to note it's use (or misuse) by a certain segment of the population. For example, just because certain extremists misuse the term "martyr" to refer to murderous suicide bombers- that does not mean we devote the majority of the Wikipedia article on martyrs to suit that violent segment of the world's population. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Googling with the search string

"Intelligent design" "Discovery institute" Behe Dembski

returns 46,800 hits. (Note: This searches the web for pages containing the exact phrases "Intelligent design" and "Discovery institute" as well as the names of both Behe and Dembski.) The corresponding web search for just

"intelligent design" Blavatsky

returns only 596 hits. Similarly, with the same exact phrases, Google scholar returns 205 hits versus only 26 hits. If, as you believe, people are incorrectly using the term "Intelligent design", then the usage is nearly total. I suggest that you consider what would be due weight under the circumstances. As Filll points out, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. The meaning of the term, as the article currently employs it, is thoroughly established, regardless of whether that is the "correct" usage in your view. silly rabbit (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blatavsky never used the phrase "intelligent design" in The Secret Doctrine. The document that you cited only used the phrase as part of the modern (2006) introduction. Therefore it would seem that the DI has a prior claim on the phrase. Given that Blatavsky never used the phrase and there is no clear link between her conception and the DI et al's modern concept of ID, I've eliminated the paragraph you inserted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Helena Blavatsky was the first person to use the phrase "intelligent design" in a published book. She uses it in The Secret Doctrine published in 1888. (Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy. Volume 2, page 654). I have restored the paragraph in the "Origins of the concept" section. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...Um, lad, this is how she uses it:

“ But, fortunately, the greatest, the most eminent thinkers and Scientists of the day are now beginning to rise against this "Pedigree," and even Darwin's natural selection theory, though its author had never, probably, contemplated such widely stretched conclusions. The remarkable work of the Russian Scientist N. T. Danilevsky -- "Darwinism, a Critical Investigation of the Theory" -- upsets it completely and without appeal, and so does de Quatrefages in his last work. Our readers are recommended to examine the learned paper by Dr. Bourges -- read by its author, a member of the Paris Anthropological Society at a recent official meeting of the latter -- called "Evolutionary Psychology; the Evolution of Spirit, etc." in which he reconciles entirely the two teachings -- namely, those of the physical and spiritual evolutions. He explains the origin of the variety of organic forms, made to fit their environments with such evident intelligent design, by the existence and the mutual help and interaction of two principles in (manifest) nature, the inner Conscious Principle adapting itself to physical nature and the innate potentialities in the latter. Thus the French Scientist has to return to our old friend -- Archaeus, or the life-Principle -- without naming it, as Dr. Richardson has done in England in his "Nerve-Force," etc. The same idea was recently developed in Germany by Baron Hellenbach, in his remarkable work, "Individuality in the light of Biology and modern Philosophy." ”

That is... Not the same as usding it to refer to a philosophy, and, frankly, you're building castles in the air out of nothing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Intelligent design" does not occur in the link provided above. I suggest that unless someone can personally vouch that the term was, in fact, used in the 19th century, that we dub this one "verification failed". Jossi, have you checked it out? silly rabbit (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase does occur for the first time in a published work just as I have noted and where I have noted it. Furthermore, of the hundreds - and perhaps thousands of Theosophical and neo-Theosophical - books that have been published since 1888, the theme of "intelligent design" is a fundamental principle in the theories that have been explored regarding the various expressions of energy and matter. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give references. Google scholar gives only 52 hits for "intelligent design" + theosophy (out of 9000 hits for theosophy). Furthermore, only 6 hits are to be found prior to 1990. If the notion of intelligent design is so fundamental, why does it seem to be so absent in the literature? silly rabbit (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion, as you yourself say, this is a scope issue since the Theosophical idea of "intelligent design" is distinct and independent from Discovery Instritutes'. So why don't you create an article Intelligent design (Theosophy) to describe the former. That should be fine as long as you have secondary sources to reference it. Abecedare (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion does sound good. However, it would only make sense if this article was only on the general theme of "Intelligent design" and a separate article was created entitled Intelligent design (Discovery Institute).

As a side note, there are thousands of books and articles from Theosophy - many dealing with the "intelligent design" concept. I suspect that there are not as many from (or about) the Discovery Institute (no I do not have a specific number). Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it better to first create a Intelligent design (Theosophy) article and bring it up to a state comparable to this one, before debating the article naming issues ? That way you won't be debating in the abstract and will have an opportunity to concretely demonstrate (through the cited references) that the theosophical concept of ID is as notable as the DI's. Abecedare (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If multiple secondary sources can be found, say prior to 1990, dealing with Intelligent design and theosophy, then I would have no problem including it in the article. But the references need to be solid. They need to stick. silly rabbit (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-"Of Pandas and People" uses of "intelligent design" are descriptive of other things. OPaP marks the first time someone tried to claim that "intelligent design" was a thing in and of itself, specifically a field of scientific inquiry with researchers at work in it. Descriptive uses, inclusive of those in theosophy, exist going back at least to the 1840s, as William Safire noted. Confusing descriptive uses for reified "intelligent design" doesn't take us forward. This is pretty simple stuff. Maybe we need something brief in the intro to note this, for while the issue is easily resolved, the confusion is unfortunately quite common. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unattributed "critics"

Statements attributed to "critics" without any specific attribution that would allow verification:

• Intelligent design#Intelligent designer:
  • "Some critics have said that if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory"."
  • "Critics have asserted that intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred."
• Intelligent design#Intelligence as an observable quality: "Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science."

Beyond the purely WP:V issue, I think from a style viewpoint we should avoid overuse of "critics", particularly when baldly stated without giving any indication of the identity or expertise of the critics -- both from a readability and a credibility viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to properly attribute the views and add sources as needed; I fixed one yesterday. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I cleared up a three-month-old fact-tag yesterday. I am however lousy at remembering which critic has said what over the years -- I have trouble enough at times remembering where I read something last week for inclusion in an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias in framing the question(s)

Unsourced WP:OR WP:SOAPboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First, stating that "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts" is simply not accurate - the key words being "to avoid scrutiny from the courts". The real reason is to build on points of agreement between theists and non-theists who reject abiogenesis. There are people who don't believe in abiogenesis and darwinian macro evolution but also don't believe in God. The term "Intelligent Design" is used rather than "Creationism" in order to include these views. Court scrutiny issues are a by-product. This statement of the question(s) involved are biased against intelligent design: Can intelligent design be defined as science? If so, does the evidence support it and related explanations of the history of life on Earth? If the answer to either question is negative, is the teaching of such explanations appropriate and legal in public education, specifically in science classes? The real first questions would be: Are abiogenesis and macro evolution even possible within the framework of science? Is intelligent design possible within the framework of science? If the answer to either question is negative, is the teaching of such explanations appropriate and legal in public education, specifically in science classes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.138.211 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion 3x3's method of participation

It looks to me that Arion 3x3 is edit warring and ignoring consensus. I think it's gotten disruptive to the point that we need to ask him to stop and if he continues to follow the steps at WP:DE. Comments, thoughts? Odd nature (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him a little latitude because I'm pretty sure he has trouble with English, but some sort of intervention wouldn't be a bad idea. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor English skills doesn't explain the edit warring and ignoring consensus, though, does it? 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your AGF expressions. (trouble with English?) Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a tendency to misread statements, or get mistaken impressions from English sources. It's not all the time, but often enough that it might not be a bad idea to step back a little at times when you fall into disputes, and double check your sources and what others are saying. It can be a bit frustrating. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Could I be wrong? Certainly. Am I wrong? Time will tell. Odd nature (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So you claim that I "have a tendency to misread statements, or get mistaken impressions from English sources." I respectfully disagree, and request a specific example. Incidently, I always check my sources, and on this talk page, I justified every position I took and answered every objection with very specific factual answers - and provided references that others claimed not to exist. (I have lived in the Chicago area most of my life. What language did you think we speak in Chicago?) Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having engaged Arion 3x3 in discussions for months now, I would have to agree he definitely misreads and/or misrepresents plain English statements. It might be willful however, and not just the result of ignorance.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Filll for that accusation that I engage in "willful" misrepresentation. (I thought Wikipedia had a policy regarding personal attacks.) Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...I'm afraid this really isn't helping out my former views, here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1. It might be willful...
2. Thank you Filll for that accusation that I engage in "willful" misrepresentation

Did anyone else's mind just boggle? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a good illustration of the problem. However, after this incident, where Arion said I had said DanaUllman was intentionally misleasding people, when I had specifically said he wasn't doing so intentionally, the boggling was minimal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The only other option that I am aware of is inadvertant misreading or misrepresentation, due to just plain errata. However, over a period of months and many dozens of examples, this probability of this option starts to approach zero. Sorry. I do not intend to attack anyone. And I do not want to cast any aspersions here, but what other conclusions can one draw after hearing similar statements for months on end? It is quite unfortunate. I apologize if this has offended anyone. --Filll (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are... other possibilities, but I'm not sure there's any way to politely bring them up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Considering this is not the first questioning of my editorial integrity by Filll, my pointing out the inappropriateness of his statement "It might be willful however" should not make anyone's mind "boggle".

• Also, I seriously question what logical justification there is for this discussion to be on this discussion page. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion 3x3, the biggest contribution you could make here in the intelligent design area is to write a separate article on Intelligent design in theosophy. Any other tendentious argumentation and assorted blathering is just disruption. Instead, try doing a bit of real work. --Filll (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than spending time discussing another editor (& alluding to "tendentious argumentation and assorted blathering"), I have made specific suggestions to improve the quality and accuracy of this article:

(1) Include in the historical sketch of the "Origins of the concept" the contribution of 19th century Theosophy - which rejected Christian "Creationism".

(2) Improve the lead by clarifying who it is that asserts that ID advocates have avoided "specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." As it reads now, it gives the impression that Wikipedia is stating that ID advocates are engaged in this attempt at deception. Although I agree that many "Creationists" are engaged in this game of deception, when there is a controversial statement such as this, an encyclopedia article has to attribute who is stating it. It can not be left as a simple statement of fact on the part of the article (and by association, Wikipedia). Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) is based on your evident misunderstanding of Blavatsky's use of two words as part of a description; ignore that and there's no reason to include a minor group's non-influential views. (2) has so many people saying it that it would be impractical. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply,

(1) There is no "evident misunderstanding" - since Theosophy's version of "Intelligent Design" was well developed and extensive from the latter part of the 19th into the 21st century. I happen to know this subject well, and even taught university classes in which we explored Theosophy's possible role in influencing religious thought in the 20th century to incorporate evolution into modern belief systems (including the Roman Catholic Chuirch). As for Helena Blavatsky using the term "intelligent design, here is another example from 1885:

"On the other hand the design displayed in the mechanism, the order shown in the preservation - destruction and renewal of things forbid us to regard the world as the offspring of chance, and force us to recognize an intelligent design." ( Collected Writings of H.P. Blavatsky Vol VI page 316)

(2) There is an established principle that controversial claims in Wikipedia need to have attribution in the text, with reference notes backing them. We have the refs. We only need to add the attribution - within that lead sentence - as to who is making the assertion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see two problems:

1. We have a gap of over a century between Blavatsky's passing mention of "intelligent design" and the document you cited, which does not even contain her mention of it, but appears to lay claim to the phrase now that the ID movement has lost legitimacy, post-Kitzmiller.
2. Even were we to fill in this gap, we have no indication that the Theosophical view is sufficiently prominent that WP:DUE would require its mention. This would require quality secondary or tertiary sources (per WP:PSTS) to establish.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee that if I went out on the street and asked 100 people at random about intelligent design, it is highly unlikely that a single person would mention theosophy. The same is probably true if I asked 1000 people or 10,000 people. By the principles of Wikipedia, we are not here to right great wrongs. You are free to actually document this obscure usage of the term, even if it came first as you claim. I do not find your posturing particularly convincing or compelling, I am sorry. This is an exceedingly obscure usage by an exceedingly obscure sect.--Filll (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be more relevant to ask a hundred reporters, philosophers of science and/or philosophers of religion (I have strong objections to basing WP:DUE on the opinions of people who can't find Florida on a map and think that the Sun rotates around the Earth), but otherwise agree your sentiment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee that if I went out on the street and asked 100 people at random about intelligent design, it is highly unlikely that a single person would mention Plato or Thomas Acquinas, yet we allow their contributions to the "Origins of the concept" to be included in the historical sketch. The opinion that Theosophy is "obscure" is just that - a subjective opinion and not a fact. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, I have read 20 scholarly works on intelligent design and not one mentioned theosophy or Blatavsky, but several mentioned Plato and Acquinas. So document the theosophical use of the term and the concept in an article on Intelligent design in theosophy if it is so well supported by references. --Filll (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such an article would have any chance of meeting WP:NOTE to be honest. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask the 'man in the street' and they'd on average answer something like "Is that the new Ford slogan?" Ask a reporter and they'd probably say Dembski/Behe/Johnson/etc. Ask them and they'd say Paley, Paley'd say Aquinas and Aquinas would say Plato. Ask a philosopher of science or a philosopher of religion, and they'd probably take you two or three steps back at a single hit. Nowhere in that chain of influences would Blavatsky turn up. Because of this, we have no reason, per WP:DUE, to include Blavatsky in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Creationism

I've just been attempting a cleanup of the Category:Creationism hierarchy, and I noticed that Category:Neo-Creationism only has Neo-Creationism and a bunch of articles on ID in it. Would it be worth while merging it into Category:Intelligent design? Strictly speaking ID should be a subcat of NeoCreo -- but that would seem to be rather a tail-wagging the dog approach. I thought I'd raise the idea here before putting it up at WP:CFD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Based off the linguistic use of the term "Neo-Creationism" the idea sounds fine. Personally I believe that almost all the disputes that happen on this and similar pages are because of people not accepting what the linguistic use of the word actually is. Anyway, sorry that was off topic (I've been trying to keep up on the posts above). You have my support. I find the first line of the article humorous for whatever reason. Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. Oh please, it's a new term for an old argument. Infonation101 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have so nominated it here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 20. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the encyclopedia that anybody can edit?

Yes, anyone can edit the encyclopedia but we do not have to give space to people who are not helping the article and attacking its editors. Baegis (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is going on? I just watched an excellent documentary tonight, just got back, and I wanted to insert some information that was presented in this film. But low and behold, the article is locked down. It's like the Berlin Wall. The documentary must be true. Please unlock this article and allow academic freedom. Yhvh777 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Feel free to write up your contributions here. --FOo (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC) No Berlin walls on Wikipedia. Jimbo won't approve. Open the article so that you can reclaim the assertion that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Yhvh777 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Anyone can still edit this article, there's just another layer of security to prevent rampant vandalism. Redrocket (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Also, Expelled is not a WP:Reliable source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC) There is a hard-line party of so-called science minded folk who aggressively patrol this discussion and the article itself. For some reason, they fear the hypothesis that God is in the machine. Therefore they attack, ban, edit or otherwise obliterate any attempt to examine this distinct possibility---a possibility that they cannot hope to eliminate through the scientific method. I can only guess their motives and hope that they mean well when they attempt to suppress scientific thought and dialog. However, the fact they won't even allow this possibility to be considered is very reminiscent to me of the religious fervor which sought to suppress science in past generations. It is a shame that they cannot understand how much they resemble Galileo's opponents or those who fought Darwin or James Hutton. There is a distinct possibility that there is no "god" and no intelligent design in the universe. However, there is a distinct possibility that an intelligence designed the machine that is our universe. To dismiss any possibility out of hand is a mistake in science. Only religious or philosophical beliefs (not scientific evidence) preclude a completely "random" origin for the universe and life. Conversely only religious or philosophical prejudices preclude intelligent design in the universe. Current science cannot disprove Intelligently Design Theory. Until such time as a theory can be conclusively ruled out, a scientific mind and a fair mind must allow for the possibilities. In other words, Ben Stein is right. Wikipedia is just another brick in the Wall of Ignorance and Prejudice. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Your narrow minded prejudice betrays you. No one is dismissing out of hand the possibility that a Creator might exist, least of all the leading scientist giving evidence supporting the science side at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Kenneth R. Miller, a noted Roman Catholic who has long argued for evolution and against "intelligent design". What he argued and the trial concluded is that intelligent design is a religious view and not science. It's actually a heresy, as it opens God up to empirical testing and disproof. . . dave souza, talk 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and anyone CAN edit. All you have to do is get an account, learn to follow policies and show a little patience. .. dave souza, talk 12:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) To which I can only advise that anonymous user: get an account and test out that possibility. See how long you last if you disagree with what masquerades as NPOV. The powers that be in this madhouse can't even stand to have ID called a theory, but Evolution (including the wackiest parts of Origin of Species) is a fact. The Wall Against Freedom of Thought is invisible to the politburo even as they throw themselves into the breach of that wall. 72.219.225.42 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find the "edit" button on the article. Please help. 72.205.37.144 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that only privileged people can discuss the issues surrounding this article's bias and only very privileged people can actually edit the article. How is this fairness? 72.205.37.144 (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not privileged, just registered. All you have to do is register and log on. The article is currently semi-protected - that is why you cannot see the "edit" button when you are viewing it as an anonymous IP user. Snalwibma (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They want you to register so that they can ban you. It's a circular game that never ends. This is why cries of censorship continue to register with others. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the mating call of the truly paranoid. Rather than register to get the benefits of wikipedia and actually be able to make a difference in an article you see as biased, all you do is complain about the rules. It's a controversial article, and the rules are there to protect the integrity of wikipedia. Follow the rules and register (or suggest edits here), or just stop coming to the page if it offends you. Redrocket (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, admins are fully capable of blocking your IP, and probably will if you are deemed to be disruptive. Wikipedia isn't really all that hard to get involved in - the only requirement is that you be collegiate and show an interest in improving the article and in justifying your edits to other editors. You should give it a shot, instead of assuming hostility beforehand. Graft | talk 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually they have already started threatening me because I disagree with the palpable bias in this and other articles. 72.205.37.144 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it. Probably a better way of looking at it is that you're being disruptive, you don't have a single edit to an actual article, and you haven't so much as made a single productive suggestion. Complaining and refusing to help isn't going to endear you to anyone. Redrocket (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be the least of my worries. If I were you I'd stay clear of the little chip they'll ask if they can embed in your brain. And whatever you do, DO NOT TAKE THE RED PILL!!! Angry Christian (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I unprotected the article, since there doesn't seem to have been anything to prompt its remaining locked. If there's a valid reason for it, could we have a brief discussion of it here? Graft | talk 04:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this why there is no "edit" button on this article? How can others improve the article if it is locked-down? 72.205.37.144 (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking strictly from a disinterested, non-expert viewpoint- I looked up this article to find out what 'Intelligent Design' meant. It was very clear after reading a few paragraphs that it is very biased against the concept. Reading more, it became apparent that Wikipedia wants to make it as difficult as possible for people to comment on the article. I have no interest in changing the article. It's funny, but when Wikipedia chooses to, they can definitely stack the deck against anyone who disagrees with them! This article is preaching to the choir. Actually, if there was any degree of fairness at all, there would be TWO articles about Intelligent Design. You've clearly got the 'case against' article- now how about the 'case for?' Gbj11 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)gbj11

Please read WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Teleological argument, etc.

The fragment "modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." in the second sentence of the article suffers from many flaws. (a) It does not specify who does the modifying, (b) it sets them up as scurrilous and deceptive before they are even introduced (possibly an ad hom), and (c) doesn't seem to justify itself very well. The first reference doesn't prove that the omission was to avoid scrutiny - merely that the omission exists (perhaps this reference was meant to cover the first half of the sentence). The second reference is from a prominent critic of the movement who testified against them; surely a statement bolstered only by her perspective deserves attribution as coming from a critic in the text? I would suggest (1) striking the second reference and (2) striking everything following 'designer'. Graft | talk 05:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a concise statement in the lead, backed up by a respected academic whose analysis of ID is critical rather than a credulous apologia for ID. The modification to avoid explicit Biblical references can be traced to Kenyon's 1984 affidavit for what became Edwards v. Aguillard, "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts." The DI's Witt describes this as "There Kenyon described a science open to intelligent causes but one free of religious presuppositions or assertions about the identity of the designer. ... If Kenyon had held out hope for the term “creation science,” that hope ended with Edwards. However, neither Kenyon nor the authors of Mystery needed to change their methodology. What they now needed more than ever was a consistently distinct vocabulary for a methodology that was already distinct in substance from the biblical creationism found in the Louisiana act.... Thaxton continued to cast around for a term to describe a science open to evidence for intelligent causation and free of religious assumptions, a term without the religious baggage associated with “creation” but one less ponderous than “intelligent cause,” and, at the same time, more general, a term that could refer to the design theory in toto. He found it in a phrase he picked up from a NASA scientist—intelligent desgin."[4] Perhaps a better phrasing would be "modified to overcome legal restictions on the teaching of creation science. See Timeline of intelligent design for furher references. .. dave souza, talk 07:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not clear how the avoision is imputed to the desire to avoid legal hangups (rather than, say, to broaden the definition for philosophical reasons, or to promote wider alliances). Graft | talk 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See the timeline for further details and sources, noting that Kenyon coined his definition for the Edwards trial, distancing himself from the YEC position that was under consideration (unsuccessfully), and the change to cdesign proponensists followed immediately after the Edwards decision. See the Kitzmiller judgement for analysis of that point. .. dave souza, talk 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the key issue is not whether it was "modified to avoid" or "modified to overcome" - but simply that it is a controversial statement that the article (and by extension Wikipedia) should not be making. Although I agree with the statement, that is my POV, dave souza's POV, and the POV of many other editors. To make that statement in the article NPOV, all that needs to be done is to attribute who has made this assertion. For example: "Various authors, such as Michael Behe and Barbara Forrest, maintain that it is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on Graft's concern here. Hrafn already replied to you above regarding the teleological argument. In a nutshell, intelligent design critics and proponents agree that intelligent design is a modern form of the ideas of William Paley. The concern is whether or not these ideas were repackaged to avoid legal scrunity. The reference (a judicial ruling) would seem rather strongly to support this. Is there a contesting reference? silly rabbit (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the judicial ruling is excellent. We can refer to that in the sentence, if that works for everyone. All Graft and I are saying is that the characterization of the current religious-political activism should be attributed in the text. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "current religious-political activism", but I have a strange feeling that WP:STICK might be relevant. silly rabbit (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to WP:STICK would apply if I was the only one bringing up this point. As for the "creationist" activism, you can read about it everywhere, including Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... but everyone agrees that ID is based on the teleological argument: proponents, critics, and Judge Jones. This is not a credible point of contention. Hence WP:STICK. Graft's comment is specifically about whether it is appropriate to comment on the reason for the teleological argument to be modified in order to avoid specifying the nature of the designer. silly rabbit (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Read what Graft wrote at the top of this section. No one is talking about the teleological argument, but it is the second part of the sentence that needs to have attribution: "modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." The contention is that just the reference note is not enough. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But your suggested revision failed to distinguish between the first clause and the second. Furthermore, I doubt Behe would have made such a claim, although I could be wrong. silly rabbit (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was clear from Graft's opening comments about that "fragment". For greater clarity, my new suggestion would be to split this into 2 sentences: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God. Various authors, such as Barbara Forrest, maintain that it has been modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My actual comment, to support Arion 3x3 here, is that if you do accept that the sentence must be reformed by attributing it, then the statement loses its weight and must drop out of the intro. I think this would be wrong, since we can agree on the objectivity of all but the very last clause. Losing that neatly resolves the dilemna and maintains the important facts. Graft | talk 04:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would concur that removing the last part of the sentence should solve the problem: " as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems ok to me. silly rabbit (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is in reliable source after reliable source, as well as being pretty obvious.--Filll (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"as well as being pretty obvious" is not appropriate sourcing. If you can find an RS where the claim is NOT an inference, then I would not be opposed to its inclusion. I'm reading through the Kitzmiller ruling to see if it qualifies; also possibly the Wedge document would work as a source. Graft | talk 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Submitted as Proof of Concept

Off topic for an article talkpage, that is meant to be for discussing the article, not the purported censorship of ID. Read WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP. Further off-topic discussion of this topic will likewise be deleted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The totalitarian nature of the edits on this page is proof of the thesis submitted by Ben Stein in Expelled. The question is: why aren't rational people allowed to discuss the possibility that the universe exhibits properties of intelligent design? There is no question that Evolution (when defined as gradual changes and improvements in living organism over time) occurs. That is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that truth in and of itself does not explain with anything resembling certainty the origin of species, much less the make-up of cells, atoms, etc. Since when did ideas become too dangerous to discuss? In science, doesn't it make sense to examine all possibilities. The religious fervor exhibited by the anti-ID proponents is pretty scary. I describe it as "religious fervor" because the question of ID so shakes their belief-set that they actively and aggressively attack those who are willing to consider alternative possibilities even when they have no proof to back-up their belief-set. 72.196.233.224 (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Eh, the "ideas" are extensively discussed. The conclusion of the discussion is that intelligent design is a theological idea and not testable science, and indeed leading ID proponents agree that they don't yet have a theory, as such. The intelligent design-promoting web site ResearchIntelligentDesign.org proudly lists “100+ universities and colleges” that officially include “intelligent design in their lesson plans”. These courses generally examine intelligent design objectively and in an appropriate context, and their instructors do so openly.[5] . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC) What is interesting about this, is that it shows how effective propaganda is.--Filll (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Nah. Just shows that the film's a troll magnet – look at User talk:72.196.233.224. .. dave souza, talk 11:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC) The question was asked: "why aren't rational people allowed to discuss the possibility that the universe exhibits properties of intelligent design?" The answer here is: Because Wikipedia is not a forum! The answers given in other venues may include: the question has in fact already been asked and answered -- but given that ID has no evidence (or even a testable hypothesis) it didn't get far; and (in schools) because school science classes are not an appropriate venue for unsubstantiated, religiously-motivated claims. But (again because Wikipedia is not a forum), this question is off-topic for this talkpage, so I'm archiving it. HrafnTalkStalk 11:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV violated

Off topic for an article talkpage, that is meant to be for discussing the article, not the "gatekeeper" Fill. Read WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP. Further off-topic discussion of this topic will likewise be deleted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the introduction this claim is made: "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[6][7]" I don't believe this is true, at all. For instance the book "The Intelligent Universe" posits that the rules of Physics as exist in our universe were created deliberately by ID for the express purpose of our universe becoming intelligent. The author is not a Christian. Likewise Ray Kurzweil's similar theories again point to intelligence as a desired outcome of the universe, which is at odds with pure random selection of Darwinism. In fact reading through the entire article I believe way too much weight is given to the 'teaching ID as science' controversy. Note the repeated references to the court case in the footnotes. As this is mostly an article about a scientific (or pseudo-scientific) theory this continual reference to a legal process about what can be taught in one school in one state in the USA seems absurd. Would an article on the Theory of Evolution continually site a legal decision from Saudi Arabia saying evolution was wrong? Of course not. The fact that this article is locked, while at the same time being very biased (basically reading like a summary of the Nova documentary on the trial in Kansas) is now being sighted by Darwinian opponents as "proof" of the central theory advanced in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled": that the Darwin theory is so weak it must censor opponents. I therefore urge whoever is owning this page to update it to be more NPV and discuss the theory of ID as theory first and foremost without sighting tangential legal decisions, delving into the personal religious beliefs on (some) scientists, or making untrue claims that the entire movement is based in one institute or organization. What would be more interesting is discussion of the differences between the different views of ID proponents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.83.67 (talk • contribs) Most of this post is wrong and offtopic. If you find some reliable sources that discuss the variety of views under the intelligent design "big tent", then you are invited to write a subsiduary subarticle on this yourself. Start in a sandbox, and good luck.--Filll (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) In what way is the post offtopic? Please stop playing gate-keeper. I find it extremely irritating. Graft | talk 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I know of no evidence that either the unnamed author of The Intelligent Universe, or Ray Kurzweil are "primary proponents" of ID. Unless WP:RSs can be found establishing their notability on this subject, the statement appears to continue to be accurate. HrafnTalkStalk 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Filll is a scientist in possession of reasoned intelligence which not reliant on superstition to back-up claims or monitor his behaviour. This leaves him well qualified to be gatekeeper. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Too Americentric

This just might be the most Americentric article on WP. Bad. Revence27 41.222.0.21 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's an American subject virtually confined to that country. There's a section on the few that have escaped the US. .. dave souza, talk 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the movie was made and released in America, and aimed at American audiences, it's inevitable that the article appear Americentric. Since it's the nature of the subject, it's not really a major issue. Doc Tropics 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What "movie" are you talking about? Secondly, why are some discussions "off-topic" or "soap-boxing" but others are not? 72.205.37.144 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about a movie. However, it is about an advocacy movement that emerged in response to a United States court decision, and that is almost entirely confined to the United States. The reason that creationism advocates went from "creation science" to "intelligent design" in their terminology is specifically because U.S. courts ruled that teaching "creation science" in public schools was illegal. --FOo (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry about that, I was jumping between this article and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and got confused about which page I was on. But the response to IP 41's comment remains the same....ID is an almost exclusively Amercian movement with little international presence or impact, therefore the article is destined to be Americentric. Doc Tropics 08:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don’t think the subject of the article being too Americentric is really that big of an issue since everything that seems to be related to it is American.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, US-centrism is a problem with this article. I'm going to make a small edit near the beginning to try and situate it as a US phenomenon.Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit because it looks redundant. The Discovery Institute is a U.S. organization. It's enough to state that the primary proponents are associated with it. No need to belabor the geographic location. And besides not all "primary" proponents are in the U.S. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is like complaining that the National Institutes of Health is Amerocentric, or that Natural History Museum is Brittocentric.--Filll (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see that your examples are an exact equivalent. Intelligent design is a POV that in theory could be widespread in all countries where there is both religion and science. But in fact it is much more prevelant in the USA than in other countries. All I think the article needs is a brief indication at the beginning that the concept and the debate is mainly in the USA. After all, the encyclopedia bothers to tell us that Los Angeles is a city in the USA, when most people in the world already know that. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ID is a distinctly American movement: Founded by Americans in response to American court rulings, run by an American think tank funded by American fundies, and aimed at American high school classrooms. The part of the ID movement that's taking place outside of America is a minor sideshow at best. ID is as American as apple pie and baseball, and if foreigners want their own creationism movement, they'll have to get their own cranks and crackpots to come up with their own! Odd nature (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm> I disagree. I mean who is to say that Martians aren't at this very moment establishing the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. I demand that this page take the Martian point of view into account as well! </sarcasm> silly rabbit (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It does...as you would be able to see if you weren't under the influence of their mind-control rays... (if that's a redlink, you're under their control!) Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Europe! Just want to mention that there is no creationism/ID going around here. Even the pope accepts the fact of evolution (but maybe not the theory). We heard about your american creationism/anti-science-movement on TV and the internet, but I personally are not aware of any other place in the world, where there is a public discussion about this. So in my opinion, this article is not too american-centred, simply because only (some) americans care about their religion so much that they want to overthrow science. 88.68.209.169 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you do not quite understand the principles on which Wikipedia operates. We have plenty of articles about Europe here which contain little to no American information. We have plenty of articles about Australia here which contain little to no American information. We have plenty of articles about Japan here which contain little to no information. If the topic is notable, it gets covered, no matter where. Period. No one region or no one country owns Wikipedia. Intelligent design is significant in the US, and whether you realize it or not, creationism and intelligent design does have some minor influence in Europe, as we document in this and other articles. So we cover it. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have a little missunderstanding here, let me clarify what I meant. I am fully aware of all the facts you mentioned. When I said that this article is "not too american-centred" I meant solely the content of the article. I understand the question "Is this article american-centred?" as "Shouldn't we talk about the situation in other regions more? Looks like the article only talks about Intelligent Design in the USA and not enough about ID in Europe and other countries." I disagree with that, simply because ID isn't an issue outside of the USA. I assume that the reason for this is a different public opinion on what is acceptable and what is laughable. In the USA it is both respectable to believe in unproven stuff, as well as in disproven stuff. I can only speak for Germany here, but the situation in Europe is much different: If you believe in something that is neither proven nor disproven nobody has a problem with that and your view is regarded as respectable. But when you believe something that is known to be false nobody takes you serious. And because of all that, the article is right in being american-centered, just because americans are the only ones who have that debate. Nobody else cares. 88.68.216.232 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The label argument

Off topic for an article talkpage, that is meant to be for discussing the article, not the purported purpose of labels on Wikipedia. Read WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP. Further off-topic discussion of this topic will likewise be deleted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By labeling the opposition, you can ignore his logic, his argument or any opposing viewpoint. One needn't engage in debate with racists, sexists, elitists, liberals, fundamentalists or conservatives. The rank hypocrisy of the censorship on this page and the accompanying article is obvious. So long as you can label something you can delete it and ignore it. Look out all you "trolls", "soap boxers" and "enemies of NPOV". 72.205.37.144 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Science

the article say that proponents of ID "seek to fundamentally redefine science," perhaps they could be more accurately be described as "seeking to broaden the definition of science to include study of the supernatural." As there could be confusion on what fundamentally redefine science means. the link to the science article in wikipedia has a broader definition then the one used here, and that part of the reason there could be confusion. I believe the sources are cited indicate they what the definition to mean, is the best explanation possible, without limits to what can be proven. Also, since this seems key to the issue perhaps the definition(s) of science given by ID should be included. Also, why do they think it is science. Rds865 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be accurate. You can't "broaden" science to include study of the supernatural, since by definition the supernatural is not possible to study scientifically. Science is built on methodological naturalism. Any definition of "science" that alters that would indeed be fundamentally different. Graft | talk 22:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but this requires a careful reading of what "supernatural" means. It doesn't mean that science can't answer any questions about particular subject matter (say, ghosts, angels, and ESP). It means that science can't investigate questions where the terms of the question is phrased in a way to exclude scientific skepticism and methodological naturalism.

Science is perfectly capable of investigating claims of ESP, for instance, even though ESP is sometimes called "supernatural". For instance we can conduct experiments to test whether people are capable of reading minds or predicting the future with greater than chance accuracy. But if the question is phrased such that skepticism is excluded -- for instance, if it's claimed that telepathy doesn't work if anyone involved in the experiment doubts its existence -- then it is now beyond the reach of science.

Similarly, scientific tests of religious claims such as the efficacy of prayer to cure disease have been conducted. But religious claims such as transsubstantiation -- where it is explicitly claimed that all of the detectable, phenomenal "accidents" of the bread and wine are unchanged, but the undetectable, spiritual "essence" is transformed -- cannot be tested by science. This isn't because the subject matter is supernatural, but because the type of claim is one that says right up front, "This claim is about things that cannot be detected." --FOo (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Science can test phenomena claimed to be supernatural, but can only give natural explanations –

Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component. Yet scientists who are religious also perform science without bringing God in as part of their theories. Scientific theories do not include God because scientific theories must be tested. Testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God; therefore, scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable. All scientists work this way, whether they are religious or nonreligious. This is a practical restriction on what science can do, not a philosophical or moral restriction imposed by some elite.[6]

The issue is not the suppression of ID, but the lack of warrant for its scientific claims. And ultimately, ID has an uphill struggle to demonstrate that it is, indeed, science. The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an “intelligent agent” (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system. Untestable claims are not scientific claims. Regardless of their attractiveness as religious ideas (although many people of faith strongly reject intelligent design) intelligent design has not passed muster as science.[7]

dave souza, talk 12:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not EVERYONE believes the agent is God, there are other possibilities and many others recognize that, but they do all share the same fundamental issue, they cannot be tested in the laboratory using the scientific method. And for that, ID will not even be defined in Wiki, we are told only that IT is all Christian (NOT) and IT is wrong (Maybe) and without knowing what IT is. Why do we need to know what ID is anyway, all we need to know is evolution. In fact, every wiki page should just read "see evolution' it is the answer to all things. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Creation of an Intelligent Design Controversy page (request)

Proposal based upon a tendentious reading of a WP:ESSAY. In any case now moot as section in question never was in fact (and now isn't in name) on the ID controversy generally, but on their efforts to Teach the Controversy (and manufacture a controversy to be taught). HrafnTalkStalk 05:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am making a request that we move the Intelligent_design#Controversy section to a new article called Intelligent Design Controversy, similar to the Global warming controversy page. The Wiki Criticism#Criticism_in_a_Criticism_section discourages such sections, and the Words_to_avoid states: Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact—the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. I have made a move request on the move request page, and would appreciate help in framing the new article. The controvery section simply does not belong on the Intelligent Design page.Supertheman (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC) An 'Intelligent Design Controversy' article would be redundant, as there is nothing about ID that isn't controversial. The 'controversy' section is merely a catch-all for relevant topics that have no obvious parent but are not sufficiently major as to warrant a top-level section. Could a better hierarchy/structure be developed? Quite possibly. Is two articles the answer? Definitely not! This article holds a similar relationship to Evolution as Global warming controversy does to Global warming. In each case the former is well-substantiated science, the latter is unscientific doubt. Per WP:CRITICISM#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history): "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: 'Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.'" The proposal is thus making the perceived problem worse, not better. HrafnTalkStalk 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Incidentally WP:SPLICE has nothing whatsoever to do with what you are proposing here -- it is for repairing histories of pages that have previously been moved by 'cut and paste' rather than the 'move' button. HrafnTalkStalk 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I see no sectioning off of controversy to merely this section. There is no tortured dialogue focused to this one section. Controversial aspects of ID are covered throughout the article. The section already links to an appropriate content fork analogous to climate change - Creation-evolution_controversy. Per Hrafn's comments an ID-specific content fork would be innappropriate and could be considered an attempt at whitewashing.--ZayZayEM (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC) hrafn, SO VERY CLOSE: This article holds a similar relationship to Evolution as Global warming controversy does to Global warming. In each case the former is well-substantiated science, the latter is unscientific doubt. History is replete with "well substantiated sciences" that were later replaced by even more "well substantiated sciences" with "Global warming" there is a bit of a shell game being played. On the one hand- being somewhat of a novice here- my understanding of the theory may be inadequate, you have the assertion that global temperature is rising and that co2 amplifies (accelerates?) this warming trend. On the other hand you have policy prescriptions saying we ought to do XY and Z to prevent a purported catastrophe. The problem is that human generated "green house gases" comprise such a small percentage of overall green house gases, that even if were to stop producing them tomorrow, it would not prevent global warming although it may slow it down some. As a consequence I doubt that policy prescription XY and Z don't need to be done in a hurry, if at all. Further expression of this doubt is to say I don't accept global warming which is short hand for saying I do not accept the explanation of it that leads to policy prescription XY and Z. Often the response is a much stronger variation of Global warming "is well-substantiated science" followed by some vulgarization: ad hominem, combined with some form of name calling: Denialist for example. As we all know the mere fact that I am in cahoots with the oil companies, am simply stupid or a dupe does not alter the question of wheter my arguments are valid. If they are invalid then the errors and misconceptions can be shown without resorting to adhominem. Furhter, reliance on such devices only increases the perception that the emperor wears no clothes, as it were which inturn raises doubts about the character of the science behind it. Of course, as far as wiki goes I see no problem with mentioning questions have been raised and stating what those are without risking the NPOV character of the articles. People separate the wheat from the chaff, if you will, all on their own. Personally, I think Wiki is all that much richer for including such information. It certainly enhances its NPOV character.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 April 2008 WP:NOT a crystal ball. This does not appear to be relevant to improving the article, and unless evidence and clarification is produced forthwith should be deleted. . dave souza, talk 10:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC) So far no one has addressed my initial quoting of the Criticism#Criticism_in_a_Criticism_section policy. If we do not move the section onto a new controversy page —similar to the evolution controversy page— then the controversy needs to be melded into the article itself. Evolution and Global Warming are *very* controversial subjects, so simply stating that ID is controversial doesn't solve the problem of Criticism#Criticism_in_a_Criticism_section. Lets stay on point here, please. These sections are discouraged by the Wiki policy, lets address that issue *first* and discuss science and politics at some other time, it's simply not constructive to the issue at hand. Also, I was informed of the error on the move page, it was late and I put it in the wrong place. I'm human, sue me. ;-) Supertheman (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) All the people who think that an "academic controversy" exists in evolution or global warming are wrong in terms of Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes an academic controversy. Please do not continue in this advocacy. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Supertheman: "Quoting of the Criticism#Criticism_in_a_Criticism_section policy", only to suggest making the problem worse by violating WP:CRITICISM#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history) instead is tendentious in the extreme. I have already proposed how the controversy section can "be melded into the article itself", in #Article structure and the 'controvery' section below. I would further point out that turning what is essential a heterogeneous 'grab bag' section and turning it into a 'grab bag' article violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Intelligent design is not "even more 'well substantiated sciences'" -- it is pseudoscientific garbage -- being completely infertile from a research perspective and offering no practical applications whatsoever. One does not need a crystal ball to know that it has no more chance of replacing the theory of evolution than the 'Green cheese theory' has of replacing current understanding of the formation and composition of the moon. When the ToE is replaced it will be with a further refinement of it (just as the modern evolutionary synthesis refined Darwin's original theory, and just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity refined Newton's Theory of Gravity). If you want to argue the merits of global warming do so elsewhere. It is off-topic for this article and further discussion of it will be removed. HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC) As I have already indicated above in a thread that seems to have been deleted, Supertheman's entire point seems to rest on a so-called policy regarding criticisms sections in articles. However, the essay Wikipedia:Criticism is not policy. It may be sound editorial advice, but it essentially carries little or no weight in content disputes. It is certainly not a club to be wielded as is done here. silly rabbit (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Article structure and the 'controvery' section

Withdrawn proposal -- see below HrafnTalkStalk 05:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Supertheman's (admittedly wrong-headed) article-split idea has gotten me thinking. A separate 'Controversy' section is rather redundant on a topic as controversial as ID. It is also rather large for a 'catch-all' section at about 1/3 of the total article length. Currently it contains the following subsections: Kitzmiller trial Defining science Peer review Intelligence as an observable quality Arguments from ignorance Polls How about the following as an alternative: Kitzmiller is easily important enough to warrant its own top-level section. The following could go in a 'Philosophy of science' section (as they all relate to the nature and epistemology of science): Defining science Peer review Intelligence as an observable quality Arguments from ignorance That leaves 'Polls' which could go into the existing 'Movement' section (as indicating the level of mass support for ID) Thoughts? Bouquets? Brickbats? HrafnTalkStalk 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Slight addendum -- the 8-paragraph 'rump' 'Controversies' section would probably be divided up mainly between Kitzmiller, Philosophy of science & Movement under this plan. HrafnTalkStalk 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC) if they wont' let us put a controvery section on either evolution, or global warming, leave the I.D. article alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratanuva66 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you, but your conclusion showed no logical relationship to your premise. HrafnTalkStalk 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversal of earlier opinion

On closer examination, I am withdrawing my earlier proposal. Minus the 'polls' section, the 'controversy' section actually makes sense, it's just that its title fails to distinguish it from ID's ubiquitously controversial nature. It is in fact on the IDM's 'manufacture' of a 'controversy' so that they can turn around and argue for a 'Teach the Controversy' policy -- taking it through from the design-board to collapse at KvD. A better title would be 'Creating and teaching the controversy'.

Working through using the "three issues" in rump-section as a guide, I think the subsections should be reordered into the following order:

1. Defining science (1st)
2. Peer review (2nd)
3. Intelligence as an observable quality (2nd)
4. Arguments from ignorance (2nd)
5. Kitzmiller trial (3rd, also the judicial 'end' of 'Teach the Controversy') Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
HRAFN. I like your idea for the reorg, but kitzmiller offered a legal, specifically a church state separation verdict: That is it decided that since the motives of the ID proponents was religious and therefore ID could not become part of a Public school Curricula. This is an odd problem since many early scientists had religious motivations, but are granted some kind of immunity from Kitzmiller's razor (Michael Faraday for example). Your first 3 criteria are much more consistent with the idea of science being defined by it's own criteria. The idea that the content of science should be decided by constitutional mandate seems just as dangerous as it's content being determined by religious fiat) Science is its own keeper. it need not adopt a brother, whether theological or constitutional. Also the third item may be better described as the observability of design—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Spiker 22: These are not 'my' criteria, they were pre-existing in the article. The "constitutional mandate" is not for "the content of science" but against establishment of religion. Read about the Lemon test. Science has already unequivocally rejected ID. It was not the "religious motivations" of ID proponents that is problematic (one of the plaintiff's expert witnesses, Kenneth R. Miller makes no bones about his religious motives) but their intertwining religious beliefs with purportedly scientific claims. HrafnTalkStalk 09:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC) HRAFN: Leaving aside the whole "establishment clause" argument. The ID controversy is precisely about the content of science. The ID issue could be easily resolved by applying the first 3 criteria. Instead there are numerous kneejerk reactions mostly based on the boundaries drawn during the enlightenment. Such boundaries may indeed hold depending on the result of investigation, but it is precisely the resort to ideas like establihment of religion instead of pure scientific enquiry, that keeps people smelling what IDers are cooking. You may recall; however, that ken Miller, who testified for the plantiff's, opposes ID. BTW I don't think Faraday made any bones about his religious motives either.Faraday's motivation or belief has little if anything to do with the validity of his science. Further, religion is not inherent in the idea that intelligence played a role in the formation of the life. No doubt Christians offer Christ as the designer; while believers from other religions or groups posit there own. No doubt,Raliens, the followers of L Ron Hubbard and Pastafarians will differ on who or what the designer(s) were or are. Finally, even if IDers have a legitimate point, there is still no reason for it to be taught in public schools. I doubt IDM has done the kind of leg work that men like Faraday did before their idas were widely accepted.Spiker 22 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spiker_22 Speaking of opinions, I've just noticed that the NCSE report on the Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al. partial summary judgment notes Judge Otero citing McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover when ruling that "No reasonable and informed observer could conclude that refusing to recognize intelligent design as science ... has the primary effect of inhibiting religion". So much for all those claims that Kitzmiller only applied in one district. . . dave souza, talk 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC) If you "[l]eav[e] aside the whole 'establishment clause' argument" then there's nothing for a court to rule on. The 'content of science' issue is subsidiary/instrumental in deciding that issue. ID fails as science on a large number of levels (as was documented in KvD). To pick out the one of them that the court was required to rule on and label it as "kneejerk" is to grossly misrepresent what actually happened. In any case, this thread has gone off-topic (from its original topic of discussing a minor restructuring of the article) into "general discussion of Intelligent design" -- which is not this talkpage's purpose, so should be considered closed. HrafnTalkStalk 04:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Actually the point being made was why the first 3 criteria #Defining science (1st), #Peer review (2nd) #Intelligence as an observable quality (3rd) were more than sufficient to deal with Intelligent design and why Kitzmiller's razor tends to distort the fundamental issue: The independence of scientific enquiry. When did Court rulings replace peer review? If ID is what the scientific community seems to think it is, then science is absolutely able to dispense with it without deference to a court. It almost seems as if you feel that science can not adjudicate the matter itself. Further I did not and have not ever desribed the kitzmiller decision as kneejerk. Although your straw man (To pick out the one of them that the court was required to rule on and label it as "kneejerk" is to grossly misrepresent what actually happened.) seems to make my point about kneejerk reactions: I made no selections from the Kitzmiller ruling nor have I described any of it as kneejerk. No doubt, you wish the court was able to do what you can as an editor and simply shut down discussions you disagree with. Would you be so quick to defer to court decisions, if they ruled the other way? Utter and unmitigated baloney! "When did Court rulings replace peer review?" IT DIDN'T! It merely accepted testimony on what peer reviewed research was available. Evolution: a mountain. ID: zero, nil, nadda. "If ID is what the scientific community seems to think it is, then science is absolutely able to dispense with it without deference to a court." It has -- see List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. It's just that the IDers refuse to accept science's unequivocal condemnation and so the courts have to come in to give legal weight to their findings. That having the courts' seal of approval on the scientific consensus in some way delegitimises this consensus is a long-running and absolutely fraudulent Creationist canard. HrafnTalkStalk 07:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC) HRAFN: First let me conceed that I misread your reference to Ken Miller. Now looking over the List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design you provided, we see Statemnts like: American Association of University Professors "deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution" and The Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences responded to faculty member and intelligent design proponent Michael Behe's claims about the scientific validity and usefulness of intelligent design, publishing an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." Both are fine as far as they go, then we come across the statement: American Astronomical Society 2005 letter sent to President George W. Bush by society President, Dr. Robert P. Kirshner: "'Intelligent design' isn’t even part of science – it is a religious idea that doesn’t have a place in the science curriculum." 2005 statement on the Teaching of Evolution: ""Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers. Since "Intelligent Design" is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools. Similarly, we have Ken Miller's statement during the trial "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." It is interesting to note among this list we have statements from American Society of Agronomy, American Psychological Association etc. No doubt the APA was whistling past the Graveyard here, but are you really asking us to accept the judgment of Agronomists and psychologists and Astronomers concerning evolutionary or biochemical science? Ok perhaps it is sufficient that they know science when they see it and after all, isn't Ken Miller's statement from the trial sufficent to bar ID: ""Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." Let's see, according to Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box Irreducible complexity is defined as "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box p9)" Sounds like an empirical question to me, better yet a testable hypotheses, something that can be tested with traditional methods of science. Ironically, in an age where cloning and bioengineering exist. That is, an age where mankind, itself, is more and more forcing his designs on nature; an age when scientists discuss how to make other planets habital for humans, an age in which many scientists are willing to concede that there may be or could have been life on other planets which may be or at any rate may have been more advanced than mankind; scientists can so quickly deny that design was ever involved in the development of life on this planet, is indeed a kneejerk reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC) ~ Spiker_22. 129.33.1.37 (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC) "That having the courts' seal of approval on the scientific consensus in some way delegitimises this consensus is a long-running and absolutely fraudulent Creationist canard" Not sure I would say the courts seal of approval some how "delegitimises" the scientific consensus. It almost seems that having the courst seal of approval is for some the mark of legitimacy for the "scientific consensus". How is scientific consensus validated by "The establisment clause" without which as you have even said "there's nothing for a court to rule on". Indeed, if there were no establishment clause, would science simply give up? But, for the sake of argument, let's put aside what I have written here as an argument from ignorance. And simply note that the key issue, according to the "scientific consensus" you cite is that: ""Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.(My emphasis) And once again I'll cite Michael Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity" Irreducible complexity is defined as "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box p9)" Tell me how this is not a testable hypothesis? Does Behe not give examples of this that can be "tested experimentally"? Spiker 22 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Spiker_22 Spiker 22: Does the above incoherent ramble have a point? Is this point in some way related to improving the article? In response to your final question, Irreducible Complexity is not a hypothesis, let alone a testable one -- it is an argument, specifically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Individual 'examples' of irreducible complexity can be disproven (and have been) by presenting credible evolutionary pathways. Behe reflexively replies to such disproofs by demanding ever more detailed information on the pathways, inevitably eventually reaching a stage where the science simply can't forensically reconstruct the demanded level of detail. This thread has long since wandered completely away from its original topic, so I'm declaring it closed. HrafnTalkStalk 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramsey Centre Conference

Have people see this? Looks like it might result in some interesting stuff. There's a discussion of the event (and its possible implications) here. Guettarda (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What? You mean philosophers aren't scientists? : ) Doc Tropics 06:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Theology and ID

The Ramsay Centre conference outlines of papers suggest some very interesting resources for theological views on ID. The most pro-ID one I've noticed is by Josué García who has a go at Dawkins, making a strawman claim that Dawkings postulates a multiverse, therefore it's ok to postulate God. Except in my reading Dawkins just notes multiverses as one theory, not necessarily probable.

Anyway, Möllenbeck's paper responds to the Schönborn paper by saying "John Henry Newman... declared that all attempts to prove design in nature – instead of encouraging belief – would ultimately lead to atheism. He rejected William Paley's Natural Theology (1802) in 1854, five years before Darwin published The Origin of Species."

Which by a bit of googling brought me to The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Edward T. Oakes, 2001. This opens with an apparently favourable review of Johnson's book, but then concludes in the last three paragraphs that Johnson's echo of Paley was already answered by "Cardinal Newman, who leveled devastating artillery against the argument from design, especially in The Idea of a University [in which] he rightly calls any attempt to read the nature of God directly from the universe “physical theology,” which, he says, he has ever viewed with the greatest suspicion: 'True as it may be in itself, still under the circumstances [it] is a false gospel. Half of the truth is a falsehood. . . . . I believe in design because I believe in God, not in a God because I see design.' ” Of course the IDists assert that they don't touch on the nature of God, but then they're the ones denying God the opportunity to create through evolution. Thoughts on adding this info to the article? . .. dave souza, talk 10:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It probably works best as a short paragraph covering Newmans' argument after the one on Paley, ending with a sentence on Oakes' application of it to Johnson. But long term, the article probably really needs to give theological arguments for/against ID its own section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph is not explaining what ID is HELP

This is a poorly written article lacking a concise lead section that summarizes the topic. It attacks ID before explaining it and it is NOT accurate. The first sentence is fine, but explain it more without 'POV' that EVERYONE is a Christian theist promoting God (not true). 80,000 Atheist ID ET Raelians disagree with you in the fastest growing UFO religion in the world. This does not accurately represent what ID is regardless of science and quotation. Explain it before attacking it as a secular motive (move those attacks lower). The opening paragraph is POV. Fix it and good luck since even posting these kinds of suggestions gets deleted on the discussion. Again, pointing to strong POV lacks any Encyclopedic professional standard - PLEASE explain before attacking. Can we do that much? I am beginning to think that people do not know what ID is. Do you? "The reason why you dont believe it is because you do not understand what it is." Dr Rogers UNLV in speaking on why people do not believe in evolution. Explain ID so that I understand it as an Atheist who strongly agrees with micro evolution, possible macro evolution and definite ET origins of life with possible advanced involvement as some believe but cannot prove although massive DNA jumps could be explained by that unprovable theory (as science News has been covering lately... Google it).

Contrast what we have with a REAL ENCYCLOPEDIA - this is scholarly and not POV:

intelligent design

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2008

intelligent design theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution , and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose. Thus, despite claims by members of the intelligent-design movement that it is a scientific research program, the work of its adherents has been criticized as unscientific and speculative for inferring a pre-existing intelligence to explain the development of biological structures instead of attempting to develop adequate falsifiable mechanistic explanations. In addition, the theory has been attacked on the grounds that many aspects of nature fail to show any evidence of intelligent design, such as "junk" DNA (see nucleic acid ) and the vestigial webbed feet of the frigate bird (which never lands on water). http://www.encyclopedia.com/beta/doc/1E1-inteldesgn.html Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole wacky space alien religion topic has already been covered further up, most notably by Hrafn and Dave Souza. And with regards to the entry from the Columbia Encyclopedia, aka encyclopedia.com, it is nowhere near as detailed as this article. Frankly, it is a little weak and gives more of a light overview of the topic, if that. It could do with a good bit of additional information. Baegis (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I wont argue that ET is wacky, the point is, the REAL ENCYLOPEDIA covers this professionally without POV that falsely states that ALL ID believers are Christians. ENG-101 taught us that ALL and EVERYONE is probably a misstatement. The only thing we do better is attack Christians and give them full credit for a theory that dates way back before the recent religious controversy. The opening paragraph states "It is a...argument for the existence of God", that simply isn't true, for some YES, but for EVERYONE - absolutely not. I tried to add 'for some' to get it 1/2 right, but that got deleted. Its not what ID is, ID is an idea that explains the real possibility that coded DNA wasn't an accident, one possibility is that advanced genetic engineers (like we now do today on 4 billion yr Earth in a 14 billion year Universe with a high probability that ET life is more advanced than us) was involved in major Phylogeny on the tree of life. Call it crazy, junk science, all good, but only after a College try of defining it for those who want to understand what the claim is. I move we apply the Encyclopedia definition since the controversy is controlled by hardcore evolutionist POV that cannot seem to find a NPOV on ID. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to do some research. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What Jim is saying is that many before you have tried to explain this very problem to the totalitarians who rule this article. I can assure you that you that their minds are closed as tightly as their circular arguments and that you will not budge them from their position. They are atheistic evangelists and they pursue with relentless abandon those who brook dissent from their agenda. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Praise the nothing almighty! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 11:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This objection is ludicrous and incoherent. You might like the definition in Conservapedia better. Or maybe you might like going to the Discovery Institute website. I think they have more what you are looking for.

The thing is, different wikis and different encyclopediae function on different principles. Wikipedia functions using something called WP:NPOV. What NPOV states is that if there is more than one view, the mainstream view in that field takes precedence, and the views are presented in proportion to their prominence. So, intelligent design purports to be science and a method of explaining biology. Among professional biologists, way more than 99 percent of all professional biologists think intelligent design is nonsense. And so, we write this article accordingly. You see?

If you do not like NPOV, you are welcome to choose one of hundreds of other wikis.--Filll (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill - this is not a debate about NPOV, it is about wiki serving to provide information. T majority of wikipedians want wiki to provide an honest definition FIRST since people come here to learn about things - defining it is a priority. I would not remove anything in this article at all, it is just poorly organized since the first paragraph does not serve nor in any attempt to define what is ID. I know Christians promote IT, IT is wrong, science is against IT, but I don't know what IT is. For that I have to go deep into the article to see what people think IT is. This is sloppy and poorly done and it is far below the scholarly work in other articles. It appears to be the work a few who quickly undo any improvement and are unwilling to allow definition before interjecting their POV. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting this comment without reply speaks volumes to the integrity of this multi-user blog:

The problem is, Lord Filll the Almighty, that this article does not approach NPOV. This article is FPOV and thus it will remain so long as you have your thumb in the pie. The OP does not speak of vague general problems, he speaks of the same problems that hundreds of others have already complained about while you and a handful of your cohorts have ignored time and time again. You and your accessories have defended your POV and your editorial position by any means necessary. Have you ever once considered the possibility that like all humans, you might be occasionally in error?

But I don't want to provoke an emotional response from you.

Rather, we should all put this in context so as to not take ourselves too seriously. Wikipedia is a website with lengthy articles about strange sexual practices, female undergarments and obscure STAR WARS characters. WP isn't an encyclopedia and your not an editor. This is a multi-user weblog and your just an admin who has staked out some turf (including this article) as your own.

You have that power.

People would respect you more if you claimed that power rather than using the pretense of NPOV to defend your POV with circular arguments.

You can hide behind your privileges but that doesn't change reality. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As an atheist and an editor, I agree that the official version online for ID needs some serious work. This is far from NPOV as you can get. Work on it, this gives wiki a bad name. Try to be an Encyclopedia, if you can't maybe you should join the bloggers, this site is for information at a scholarly level, what you have in the first several paragraphs are some recent events and not enough information to describe what ID is. You told me ID is junk science but you have not told me what 'ID' is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.234.118.9 (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the encyclopaedia quote is exceptionally bad and unscholarly. Whoever wrote it understands neither ID nor the critiques of ID. Guettarda (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. The first sentence is particularly bad in that it is (1) ungrammatical (it should read "intelligent design theory is that..." or similar) and (2) makes a use of the word "theory" that is very sloppy in this context. Other flaws include equating creationism with "the biblical account of creation" (thus excluding Progressive creationism and the like) and stating that "unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old", when many ID-proponents are in fact also YECs. It's a crappy piece of writing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic debate about the value of free labour
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oddly enough the market disagrees with your assertion. Someone paid for (and was paid for) the Columbia entry. No one paid for WP's collective opinion/poppycock posing as encyclopedic article. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC) To claim the omniscience of 'The Market' for the decision (most probably based on limited information) of some single, anonymous Columbia editor, is ludicrous in the extreme. Just another of the nonsensical "please can't we pretend that virtually the entire scientific community hasn't rejected ID as valueless poppycock" arguments. HrafnTalkStalk 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) I will tell you how to determine what the market wants. Look at the number of page views per day this article receives, and Conservapedia's number of page views per day on their corresponding article. Or any of the other pro-intelligent design and pro-creationism wikis such asCreationWiki, Research ID Wiki and Iron Chariots (there are lots more if you are interested). That is a fair comparison. Both free, both readily available to anyone on the internet. What do you think the results would be? --Filll (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Pay attention please. I don't want to repeat myself and I'm sure I'll be deleted for stating the truth. A free lesson for Filll. Market = paid for. Traffic = free. Market is not the same thing as traffic. Sorry for the interruption. Now please resume providing unpaid services, because Wikipedia articles such as felching, Daala and Camel Toe need further updating. Wow, this is quite an ... erm ... encyclopedia you've built here. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is intelligent design an assertion or a view?

Recently KillerChihuahua reverted my edit of the lead sentence. I'm not aware of any specific discussion of the word "assertion" in the first sentence, but I really do think that the term "view" is more appropriate here. I'd like to subject this to a straight-up straw poll of the regular editors here. Please state whether you prefer "view" or "assertion", and (optionally) give a reason for your preference. silly rabbit (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• View. Intelligent design is not merely the assertion, but the associated viewpoint. An assertion is, in this context, an articulated concept or, at best, a particular articulation of a concept. Thus, referring to ID as this particular assertion falsely equates the concept with this particular quote of Michael Behe's. The concept of intelligent design, whether articulated in specifically this way or not, is the subject of the article. silly rabbit (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Before you demand a change like this you should consider the fact that this has been discussed for several years, by literally hundreds upon hundreds of editors, and there has been at least several hundred kilobytes of discussion on this, and maybe a few megabytes. So to come in out of the blue and state that everyone else who came before you is wrong and you are the only one who has it right is not likely to be too easy to sell. You are arguing against a huge amount of consensus. And did you know that we operate by consensus on Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We also operate by being WP:BOLD. I am quite happy to seek consensus, and I really did feel that the change was quite minor. The word "view" is obviously more suitable than the word "assertion". If you would care to cast a vote in the straw poll, perhaps consensus will change. If you would like to lecture me about the importance of obtaining consensus, perhaps you would prefer to do so on my own talk page? silly rabbit (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I think you should be experienced enough to know something about FA articles. And I was not aware that the archives of this talk page are inaccessible to you. Perhaps you might want to lodge a complaint?--Filll (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already guidance on this at the top of this page and it says "Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', assertion...". If we are talking scientifically then is is an assertion. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to address the issue of the appropriateness of terminology such as "theory" and "hypothesis". I don't think that directly addresses my objection to the word "assertion". Other possibilities attempted in the past are "claim" and "proposition" (see below). silly rabbit (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, I'd like to reopen the issue of whether assertion truly is the correct word. The term "assertion" was added, with rather little discussion by Kenosis here. (I note that even though the article was featured at that time, and the lead had been discussed extensively "in the archives", Filll managed not to bite off Kenosis's head.) Prior to that in the consensus lead, the word was "claim". Even earlier, another word which had a lot of support at one point was "proposition", although I'm not sure when that was changed. There was some discussion of this in Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive46, but this largely focused on the unsuitability of the word "claim" by the Wikipedia:Words to avoid guideline, and seemed to be part of a larger debate on use of the word claim in other parts of the article. I don't think either word is entirely appropriate, although I do feel that "claim" is preferable to "assertion". I think we should explore some alternative term: "view" is my own preference, although perhaps there is some other, still more suitable word. silly rabbit (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to try to change consensus. I see nothing wrong with assertion, and view is just too vague I think.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I like claim, but people with a very rigid view of that Words to avoid essay-thing keep trying to remove it in favour of other, less accurate words. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and acres of talkpage go with the scientific meaning of theory and with that the word "assertion" is correct. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• What is wrong with assertion? Is that not an apt description?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think assertion is not the best word to convey the meaning intended in that first sentence. The word "theory" or "view" would be preferable. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ID is most assuredly not a "theory" - as the claim is that ID is "scientific" then the scientific use of "theory" must be used, and ID is manifestly lacking in any attribute of an actual scientific theory. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it is not a scientific theory, but ID proponents argue it as if it is a scientific theory and they make assertions when they do. This is going to end up on WP:LAME if we are not careful. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a belief, and if you want to interpret that as having the invisible word "religious" in front of it, I wouldn't argue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Directed at SheffieldSteel) Evolutionary theory is also a "belief", is it not? The theory negates religion, and scientists believe in evolution to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.199.218 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Evolution is a term for the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms, and the theory describes various mechanisms of that process. .. dave souza, talk 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c. Reply originally directed at Nescio) The use of the word is grammatically misleading here. The sentence under consideration is:

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

Intelligent design is not an assertion. An assertion is a particular act of asserting: it refers to a particular statement by a particular individual. In this sentence, the direct quote further reinforces this confusion, making it appear as though Intelligent design refers to this particular statement by the Discovery Institute. But intelligent is not "an assertion" in this sense: it is a "position" (a "philosophical position" or what have you), a "view", a "concept". silly rabbit (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect if you investigate you will find "assertion" is a polyseme.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect if you look it up on Wiktionary you will find "The act of asserting, or that which is asserted; positive declaration or averment; affirmation; statement asserted; position advanced." which is precisely what we need at this position in the sentence. It is a position which is advanced by the DI. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why not come right out and say that it is "...the position that..."? This seems more precise to me. silly rabbit (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Assertion is more clear.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For the philosophical position and view that is "intelligent design", I suggest using the word "theory" instead of "assertion" (which is not a correct use grammatically in that sentence). The use of the word "theory" is not limited to just science. A quick check of a number of dictionaries confirms that. [8] Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The word has a specific meaning in science, and ID is pretend science so their use of it deliberately introuduces confusion which is completely inappropriate here. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Assertion works ok for me, as has been properly sourced it's a claim and a philosophical argument based on religious beliefs, certainly not a "view". . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I am 100% indifferent on this change. As long as it's not theory, per Dave. Baegis (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm more comfortable with "assertion" -- the ID movement contains plenty of YECS whose agreement with ID is as an acceptable neocreationist facade on their deeper (Flood Geology etc) views rather than as a worldview that they value for its own sake. For this reason, I would consider "view or "belief" to be an inaccurate characterisation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Assertion. Lots of people believe in God or mystery. That doesn't make them IDists. ID goes beyond the view and to the assertion. People can have the opinion that there are aspects of the universe that cannot have originated through natural means and still be solidly in the evolution camp. The what sets ID apart is the assertion that their belief is (a) true, and (b) "scientifically" testable (although you have to redefine science to allow supernatural causation...and even then, ID still ends up an argument from personal incredulity). Guettarda (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Assertion has been used quite fine for some time. I have not been convinced that any proposed substitution is better. ID is a forceful viewpoint, I feel assertion appropriately illustrates the aggressive/confrontational nature of ID movement.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Subdividing See also

Is there any consensus at all to split up the See also section into easier subheadings? Here is my proposal, which was reverted by KillerChihuahua (again). I think ideally there are nearly enough subheadings here to catch all of the links. Any thoughts? criticisms? hate-mail? silly rabbit (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken some of the pressure off by eliminating the links that were already (and far more prominently) in the ID template at the top. We probably do need some level of categorisation though. Here's some suggestions for categories:

• Arguments in favour
• Related creationist topics
• Criticisms
• Parodies
• Politics and controversy

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to put almost all of the links under subheadings here. I felt it necessary to add a "Science" section to catch the links Junk science, Pseudoscience, and Origin of life (which is a redirect to Abiogenesis). Undoubtedly other categorizations may be possible. The first four links are still without a heading, though. silly rabbit (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Flock of Dodos
• List of works on intelligent design
• Project Steve
• Santorum Amendment

Arguments in favour

• Clockmaker hypothesis
• Cosmological argument
• Natural theology
• Omphalos (theology)
• Teleological argument

Criticism

• Argument from poor design
• False analogy

Parodies

• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Intelligent falling
• Invisible Pink Unicorn

Related topics in creationism

• Creation myth
• Creation science
• Neo-Creationism

Science

• Junk science
• Origin of life
• Pseudoscience

Discussion on presenting 'what ID is'

Absolutely, subheadings will be an essential part of re-organizing. Major sections should be

• What is it (exhaustive definition - keep all opinion and slander out)
• Proponents (opinions + any science))
• Opponents (opinions + any science)
• Cross refs (lots here so very important)

Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But the article DOES begin by explaining exactly what ID is:

"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science"... etc.

It's hard to go into much more detail than that, because the ID-proponents themselves don't seem to have a coherent definition: ID is intended to be a "big tent" that can accommodate as many different sorts of creationist as they can manage to fit in. --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is only hard, if you dont try. And that defintion fails to try at all. Here is a much better opening paragraph that defines what ID is without POV:

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Inteligent Design (ID) is therefore "Specified complexity" originating from the information theory when claiming that the genetic messages transmitted by DNA in the cells of all organisms are complex and specified by intelligence, and therefore must have originated with an intelligent agent.[45] The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified".[71] He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That is great, except it is wrong and reads like a promotional document for the Discovery Institute. There are two main ideas in intelligent design: "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity". Both have been examined by the relevant experts and found severely wanting; failures in other words. You have left out all required NPOV material and the other main idea in ID, and in fact the more major of the two ideas.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the most incomprehensible "definition" of ID I have ever read. And dembksi is a theologian, hasn't done maths in years. Midnight Gardener (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Defined ID without POV? No. Defined ID without accuracy? Yes. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk about it - yes evolution is a fact, but so is the fact that more species could be spread across the Universe through genetic engineering and colonization, than would ever naturally occur through the required long periods of evolutionary progress. It is statistically more probable that if advanced life evolved anywhere in the Universe in the first 14 billions years, that it is more likely that other advanced life came from their efforts of seeding and engineering life, than natural and improbable advanced evolution elsewhere (due to that long time period required and the less than .01% probability that intelligent life can occur at all). You want scientific method to prove it, well we have it... every time we gene splice and engineer new life, new chromosomal changes through intelligent design humans do today in the lab, it is a reality, we prove it every time we do it, and that is something that science lacks is the observable natural evolution of a new phylogenetic classification (or chromosomal evolution) in the lab. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's statistically highly probable that someone has been producing % probabilities out of some orifice. These statements are obviously entirely speculative, while the natural evolution of new species has been observed. .. dave souza, talk 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Meant to say that we are required by policy to make necessary assumptions, particularly regarding evolution, and by WP:TALK to confine discussion on this page to specific improvements to the article. Any continuation of this discursion will have to be deleted. .. dave souza, talk 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The statistics are real, but they keep getting deleted by the evolution police who refuse to define what ID is and delete/undo it every time someone tries to define it. Very hard to discuss improving the article when even the discussion gets deleted. I am going to document and CHANGE the first paragraph with the required refs. I am on the ID Wiki Group and its time to fix this article - NO POV - just definition in the opening article - then the current POV can follow as common POV but we will define ID first - state what ID is followed by all the great info of how we all HATE Christians (I promise to keep that hatred and denouncement in tact - not a sentence of the current POV will be lost and YES that will be an improvment). Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk about it - yes evolution is a fact, but so is the fact that more species could be spread across the Universe through genetic engineering and colonization, than would ever naturally occur through the required long periods of evolutionary progress

• I don't understand what this has to do with our article.

It is statistically more probable that if advanced life evolved anywhere in the Universe in the first 14 billions years, that it is more likely that other advanced life came from their efforts of seeding and engineering life, than natural and improbable advanced evolution elsewhere (due to that long time period required and the less than .01% probability that intelligent life can occur at all)

• Again - what does that have to do with this article? Can you please provide a source that links this to ID in some way?

You want scientific method to prove it, well we have it... every time we gene splice and engineer new life, new chromosomal changes through intelligent design humans do today in the lab, it is a reality, we prove it every time we do it, and that is something that science lacks is the observable natural evolution of a new phylogenetic classification (or chromosomal evolution[2]) in the lab[3]

• Again, what does this have to do with the article? What does this have to do with the sentences that precede it? What are you talking about?
• What is the significance of your links to the website associated with Ridley's textbook or the ancient book chapter from Nitecki?

The statistics are real, but they keep getting deleted by the evolution police who refuse to define what ID is and delete/undo it every time someone tries to define it.

• What statistics? The 0.01% estimate which, it's clear from your source, is just a wild guess? Why would it possibly belong in this article? What does it have to do with ID?
• What "evolution police" are you talking about? I am utterly confused.

Very hard to discuss improving the article when even the discussion gets deleted

• It would help if you were discussing the article. You aren't.

I am going to document and CHANGE the first paragraph with the required refs.

• That's a good start. I take it you've spent the last two days familiarising yourself with what ID is? Your previous post suggests that you weren't familiar with either the writings of either the proponents or the critics. If you've done something to remedy that in the last two days, I'm impressed. That's a lot of ground to cover in two days.

I am on the ID Wiki Group and its time to fix this article

• It might be useful to first identify what you think is wrong with the article. It's usually helpful to identify the problem first, then try to fix it.

NO POV

• Everything has a point of view.

- just definition in the opening article -

• I don't understand what you are talking about? Is there more than one article?

then the current POV can follow as common POV

• The current article presents the matter from the neutral point of view - it presents all notable perspectives (at least those that I am aware of), in a balanced way. And what do you mean "as common POV"? And follow what? Are you still talking about more than one article here?

but we will define ID first

• The article does that.

- state what ID is followed by all the great info of how we all HATE Christians

• No, that would not be appropriate. Whatever your problems with Christians and Christianity, I would ask that you keep them off Wikipedia. Please check your prejudice before you start editing here.

The first thing you need to understand is that this a project to write an encyclopaedia. Hate speech - whether directed at your fellow editors, are you appear to be doing here, or directed at some outside group - is totally unacceptable. I don't care how much you hate those of us who are Christian - keep it off the project. Guettarda (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

I have seen ID described as pseudoscience because it does not make falsifiable claims. THis is not true. Show evolution to be true and you show ID to be false. Secondly, even if this were true, would the fact that it can't be proven wrong not then be an argument in favor of it, or are only false things allowed as theories? Lordofthemarsh (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is the idea that animals change. Evolution has been shown to be true. Chernobyl blew up in 1986. A few years ago a robot was sent down there. It found a black sludge. The black sludge was bacteria. This particular type of bacteria was able to absorb Gamma Rays in a method very similar to how plants absorb energy from the sun with photosynthesis. That is a hard evidence observable fact. Nobody made that up, change happens in animals and we call that phenomina Evolution. There is no hard evidence that supports ID, just like there is no hard evidence that supports the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

-RAmen Bridger.anderson (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not really the place for this. We do not do debates. However, just this once, I will point out that there are many reasons that ID is not science, not just falsification. If you want to understand more about this, look at demarcation problem for example, where you will see that falsification is actually pretty much obsolete in the philosophy of science. Also you are peddling the same false dichotomy that many intelligent design supporters and creationists try to push; there are more than just the two options "evolution" and "intelligent design" here. Even the Discovery Institute has a paper or two on this that I ran across; check it out. You also do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a temporary explanation for a bunch of data, which are known as scientific facts. ALL theories are false. That is, the theory of gravity is false; and will be replaced by something better. The theory of quantum mechanics is probably incomplete and will be replaced by something better. Plate tectonics is incomplete and will be replaced by something better. And so on and so forth, for all scientific theories; including the theory of evolution.

Except intelligent design. Because it is not a scientific theory. All it says is "We are too stupid to know anything so we just will say that magic dun it".--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, a theory is not a temporary explaination. And no not all theories are false. The theory of evolution is a fact. And yes, this debate is not appropriate on the talk page. 24.46.50.159 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To Filll: This is the perfect place for this, as the description I mentioned is in this article. No, I am not peddling a dichotomy. I do not know of ay other options, but if I were told about them, I would give them the same status: demonstrate any theory incompatible with ID to be true, and you show ID to be false. Show also that it is likely the world came about without a designer, and ID is likely false. If ALL theories are false all the time, then what is the point of science? Not only can we never come up with a full explanation for everything, we can never come up with a full explanation for anything?

I understand perfectly what a scientific theory is; it is you who do not, as you refer to the law of gravity as a theory. If the theory of evolution is false, why stick to it dogmatically? As far as your claim that 'All [ID] says is "We are too stupid to know anything so we just will say that magic dun it"', that is blatantly false. I must ask you. Is there a demonstrable reason why there cannot be a Designer? If not, then you must consider at least the possibility that there is indeed a Designer.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is not the place for debate. And you are wrong in all particulars. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1. No scientific theory is ever proved "true", so "[s]how[ing] evolution to be true" is not a potential way of falsifying ID.
2. The claim that somewhere, somehow, some feature exists that is irreducibly complex is the equivalent of Russell's teapot -- not disprovable, but not credible.
3. All this is WP:OR. Find a few WP:RSs to say that ID is not pseudoscience and we'll give them WP:DUE weight to the vast number who say that it is.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. Many, or at least several, cdesign proponentists cede at least some credibility that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for some, perhaps not most, of the biological diversity seen today.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Their curate's egg is only bad in parts. . .. dave souza, talk 14:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)