Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

Off-top and irrelevant.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
science' is at best a distant third mention; (b) the quoted use of "demonstrated" is an inappropriate word choice - the cites "state" or "reject" or many other things might paraphrase the situation but "demonstrated" just isn't in the cites; Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Please remove all uses of the term "pseudo-scientific" from this article. The use of this term is biased, and insulting. Please remove " Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[4][5][6] " This statement is false and misleading. 69.241.126.114 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Not done: See the FAQ. Stickee (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Umm, without specifics that seems just a false flag. I kind of regard the article as irretrievably biased if OK because it's so badly done that the flaws are visible, but just to try and clarify the discussion for the two items mentioned by 69.241.126.114 (a) the cites are inappropriately exaggerated -- the term 'creationism' is what is generally used and 'pseudo- I've had this article on my watchlist for several years, and over that time I've seen a good number, probably over a hundred, of editors or IPs object to the use of the term "pseudoscience" in the article. The "FAQ" which often gets referenced, as it is above, was drafted by a smaller number of editors who are regulars at this article, probably only about 5-6 people. So, it appears that there is consensus to remove the term "pseudoscience" from the article. Unless a number of people opine here and object, I will remove that label from the article per that consensus. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC) That is so not going to happen on that basis. Please actually read WP:CONSENSUS and see how we assess it. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC) So if one hundred people object over several years, while 5-6 editors disagree over several days, then that's consensus? I don't think the policy says that. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC) please show where your view is supported there (it's a real question! you are posing a novel notion of consensus that I am not familiar with and that my initial impression of is... pretty serious doubt. but I am interested). Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Just in case you are not aware, this article is under an arbcom decision. There is a notice at the top of this page, and I will check to make sure you have been provided formal notice... Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) and done, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC) @Cla68, I think there have been several editors over time that have objected to the user of "pseudoscience" in the article, but I don't believe that at any of these times was there a consensus to remove it from the article. There certainly isn't this time because "intelligent design" is the paradigm of pseudoscience as I see it. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Well, I just got templated to warn me that I can get banned if an "uninvolved administrator" perceives my edits to be unhelpful. If I'm this scared, imagine how a newbie editor must feel. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, but you are not a newbie. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC) I don't see how the template warning was justified since there was just a disagreement over what consensus would be in this case. There were no edits to the article or disruptive edits on the talk page. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Cla68 has been around long enough to know full well what consensus means.Charles (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC) I like Cla86's new innovative technique for making up consensus on the fly to suit his pov. I shall use it elsewhere. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Cla68 I am sorry you took the DS notice as scary. It is fact that this article is under arbcom DS, and it is only a courtesy to let people know that edits here are indeed more.. consequential than elsewhere; WP's policies and guidelines for behavior are more rigorously upheld on controversial articles. But I am pretty sure you know all that. But if you don't, the DS alert I put on your page says if you have any questions, feel free to ask, and if you have questions, i hope you do. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC) So the proposal is to gauge consensus by tallying the raw number of votes in some arbitrary number of conversations for the last several years? That goes against everything in WP:CON, and I don't see how proposing it is helpful. Of course the complaints will outweigh the supports in that metric, because editors don't start discussions just to point out how much they like the article the way it is; if we removed "pseudoscience" and left it that way for years, you'd see a fair number of complaints. We're not going to do that just to try it out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Quite right. Any number of contributors who don't understand Wikipedia policies will not be able to form a new consensus over the efforts of a smaller number of veteran editors who do understand policy. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Just observing that (A) this thread lacks any reference to what wikipedia calls a WP:Reliable source so it's hard to Focus on content; (B) simply showing up here entitles one to receive the DS alert which does not imply there is a problem with the alerted person's contribs. Even the best contributor can still be alerted under the new system which by design is FYI onlyNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Since I have never been here before, someone should DS me! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Weighing in: pseudoscience is thoroughly sourced. It should stay. Far, far more than 5 or 6 editors have confirmed this and voiced support here for its inclusion. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Why don't I tally up, with diffs, the number of editors since this article's creation who have objected to the pseudoscience label and compare that, with diffs, to the number of editors who have supported including the label. Then, we'll see which of those sides has consensus, change the article if necessary, and put that in the FAQ? That way, this issue will be put to rest once and for all. If no objections I'll get busy on it since the policy does not say that consensus cannot be determined in this manner. Cla68 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC) WP:CONSENSUS is determined several ways but all of them include taking WP's policies and guidelines into consideration. No consideration is given to people who just say "i don't like it" and in my experience watching this article, that is the rationale of almost all the objectors. More importantly, ID is listed as an example of pseudoscience in the WP:FRINGE guideline; as you know PAG are put in place and maintained by wide consensus of the WP community. You'll need to change that guideline before you can remove the reference to pseudoscience here. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Agree with Jytdog; Cla68 essentially wants to compile a poll from old comments, rather than conducting a new one. Ok, that would be interesting provided we are clear about how the results are analyzed. Wikipedia treats all polls as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors' viewpoints. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you so much for making the offer Cla68. Please do that right away. I think it's fair to say that we should all pause this conversation while he does so. Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I suppose if Cla68 wishes to waste his time he is perfectly entitled to do so. --NeilN talk to me 14:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Don't prejudge him. I think we should take his offer in good faith, and assess his findings in good faith. It's much better to have data to discuss than to continue to see people make unsupported assertions. That is a waste of everyone's time, and I'm glad Cla68 has promised to choose a more productive way forward. Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not prejudging him. I'm commenting on his proposal. Simply counting votes is a waste of time. His tally may be accurate, but pointless. --NeilN talk to me 14:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) what if the project is modified to comply with policy in the way I described? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC) You mean each diff is accompanied by the reasons given? That would be useful but the summaries would have to accurately represent the poster's intent. --NeilN talk to me 15:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC) We can sort that out after he provides the links he's promised to provide. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC) My crystalball says - any objective attempt to do this will quickly convince the compiler what the best sources and wikipedia policy say on this point, and they'll abandon the effort before it is completed or reported to the rest of us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I see the wisdom in what Guettarda said. The policy issues have all been articulated and there is no point in speculating; we can start discussing again if/when Cla68 comes back with the compilation. Thanks Guettarda. Good luck Cla68. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Whatever happens, you better keep this talk page on your watchlists and check it constantly, because consensus can shift within a few minutes' time. Check it when you get up in the morning, every 15 minutes from your work computer, at lunch, and at night on your smartphones when you're out with your friends or significant others. It could very well be that consensus could change within 15 minutes if you don't watch it closely, and then the whole world could believe that ID is true. What if 100 ID proponents arrived here at once with the intent of completely changing the article? Watch, then watch some more. Waiting a day or so until everyone can be notified by email or Facebook message won't cut it once you lose control of the article, which can happen quickly. All the years and hours spent getting an article worded a certain way can be undone in 10 minutes. So, beware! Cla68 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Of course, I'm assuming everyone here, including me, wants an article that doesn't take sides on the ID issue, according to the NPOV policy. Right? We're all on the same page, if I'm correct? It's the drive-by IP vandals that we have to worry about, because established WP editors obviously have a better handle on what is true, as we all know. Cla68 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC) It appears that CLA68 is doing nothing but being tendentious and disruptive. The very things covered by Discretionary Sanctions. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Concur. Verbose complaints and ignoring other's questions about RSs certainly seems to fall under WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Guys, if 100 supporters of removing the "Psuedoscience" label from this article showed up within a few hours time and opined here, what would you do? Support the consensus? I assume so, since all of us here are intent on supporting the reliable sources NPOV for this topic, right? Please feel free to say so. Cla68 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) You've been here a long time. Have you really not read WP:VOTE?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Not only have I read WP:VOTE may times, I've actually witnessed the public overriding what I thought to be the truth on a topic by numbers. That's how WP works. The numbers win. 200 beats 100. I've seen it again and again, especially in the AFD forum. In WP, numbers override truth. That's why, if you don't want it to happen that way, you have to watch your topics every few minutes and shout down any attempt to override the current consensus. Keep watching... Cla68 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Perhaps I missed something. Is there a specific change to the article buried somewhere in that reply? Crazy predictions about flocks of ip editors changing all our content by voting belong on your user page, not here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Well, I'm gone.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC) How about WP:NOTDEMOCRACY? This has reached the point of trolling.Charles (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) No problem, guys. Just make sure you check your watchlist every few minutes to make sure the truth doesn't get away from you. Cheers! Cla68 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

sources in middle of first sentence

For the word "pseudoscience" in the middle of the first sentence (an unusual place, so the sources are really there for that one word) we show two sources. As these were inserted after my analysis of other sources in the lead a few years ago, I read them and checked what they really say:

1. Boudry, M.; Blancke, S.; Braeckman, J. (2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience". The Quarterly Review of Biology 85 (4): 473–82. https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=952482&fileOId=1088809
2. Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design" (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 160–186. http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf

The talkpage however needs more discussion about what real sources really say. So I note the following...

• 1. Boudry.

• This article use the word "pseudoscience" twice, once in the title and once in the opening sentence. In the body (as opposed to the title) the word is specifically referring to the term "Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC)", which is a term that is clearly being used with consideration and care. (On WP when we see care being taken in difficult terminology, our ears should prick up, because such sources are more specifically relevant to definitional questions.) The only place where the term "intelligent design" is apparently used to refer to this "IDC" is the title, but...
• Looking at the term "intelligent design" in the body it is contrasted with this term as something which IDC folk claim to be able to see specifically "in nature" (the words "intelligent design in nature" appear more than once in the article, and this way of using the term is constant). It seems clear therefore that the WP article is closest in topic to what Boudry calls IDC, whereas what Boudry tends to use the term "ID" for is for something which people claim to see evidence of in nature.
• Generally of course titles of articles are not considered good sources for things like definitions, especially if the body of the article is different!

• 2. Pigliucci.

• Uses the word "pseudoscience" 5 times. On every occasion the term is used in contrast to "science", and the author is explaining that his own book is about exploring the differences between the two, using those words (which is apparently unusual). In this respect the author says that the Kitzmiller case in America was also exploring this question (although most sources do not use that word). So like Boudry et al, this author uses the word "pseudoscience" in the context of the intelligent design creationist movement. Several times he simply writes "pseudoscience (creationism)".
• Concerning the term "intelligent design" however, this author clearly does not see it as well defined. He sometimes uses it as a term for creationism or a movement within creationism, indeed he says it is "simply a religious position, not substantially different from standard creationism". He also sometimes uses it for something people claim to see evidence of "in nature" (those exact words once again, same as in Boudry).

My impressions:

• Pigliucci is one of the closest sources we have to the wording and definition choices we have for this article in WP. But we still have no single source which says "intelligent design" means a specific "strategy" of the creationists, which is what regular editors of this article have claimed the word normally means, and what this article should be about on WP.
• In fact, both these sources raise the old question of whether this article should be merged to Intelligent Design Movement, and Intelligent Design converted into a WP:BROADCONCEPT article:

• Firstly because both articles, when they equate "intelligent design" to "pseudoscience" are making it clear that this is precisely what they mean: the creationist movement, which has at least 3 articles on WP.
• Secondly because these authors clearly see "Intelligent Design" as a less clear term with several meanings even within the context of a discussion of that movement. (And this is a pattern we have seen in basically all sources.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew, come away from that horse, it's not just dead, it's a pile of dried out old bones. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments on talk pages should not be directed at a person, and so construed as personal. Comments should add content to the discussion about an article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The comment may not be seen by some as constructive in terms of building content, but on a topic like this, that might be a matter of opinion: it's not unusual to cite WP:DEADHORSE especially where WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI are concerned. This is a clear example of argumentum ad infinitum, and given the policies in place and the consensus of editors and administrators on the matter.... I don't think a request to drop the stick was out of order. It's just my opinion, but I see this as a red herring argument. Thus (as a third party with no previous involvement), I don't think referring to the user making that argument, irrespective of their history with one another, was out of line whatsoever. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but what are you talking about? Above is a post about two sources which now play a more prominent role in this article than last time I posted anything here, which was maybe a year ago. Which dead horse? Which consensus? Which red herring? Which administrators? I think I have never been contacted by any administrators concerning this article except for ones who are in discussion with me as involved editors. Indeed I am not really the type of editor who normally receives warnings from admins. Furthermore if you have no previous involvement it seems odd that you would suddenly write a post here which seems to claim a detailed knowledge of past discussions I have been involved with on this talkpage? But let it be known there is a long history of disruptive posts on this talkpage, and Nick Thorne's editing record with respect to my posts should be looked at if you want to have your opinion taken seriously. You can't just say that because citing "dead horse" is sometimes acceptable it is always acceptable can you?

I suggest that if anyone thinks the above reading of the two mentioned sources, and comparison to the way we are using them, is wrong, the best thing to do is just explain that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, please calm down. I wasn't even addressing you in that comment (which should be obvious), and was giving an opinion only respective to Isambard's statement and actions regarding Nick Thorne's comment. Specifically, this was regarding the refactoring and removal of his comment on the basis of it being a personal attack, which it was not. I never claimed a knowledge of your history with one another. In fact, I was specifically saying that whether given context or not, such a comment was simply a criticism, and its removal not warranted. No one was warned; Isambard was reverted by an admin for his repeated removal of the user's comment, versus your isolated removal which was reverted by the Nick Thorne himself; which was subsequently undone by Isambard. I restored the comment, and tried to show good form by making a comment here. There's nothing "odd" about it, I claimed no special knowledge, and was not addressing you. Context doesn't matter. This was specifically about how inappropriate it was to refactor another user's comment. As far as consensus, you can clearly see that here on the talk page and in the archives (which I read), where it is discussed ad nauseam; hence the probable reference to a deceased equine by that user. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Quinto Simmaco you have a strange way of saying that you make no claims about the history of the case, and that you do not think context is important. You are still implying that Nick made a criticism, which is the same one that someone made in the past, and that "admins" did or said something about. That is history/context. What was "it" then, when you say "it is discussed"?? Give a diff. It sure ain't in any post of Nick Thorne? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

..I honestly found this quite difficult to follow. What case? I've already clarified my comment, which wasn't even addressed to you, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything Nick said previously to you. You seem to have some axe to grind, but it certainly isn't with me. And neither will I waste my time pulling out diffs for the many times the use of the term pseudoscience was discussed throughout the history of this talk page [by a variety of people] (the "it"). If you're interested, go look. As I said just prior, I came to this talk page only to respond to Isambard, in order to explain my revert, because it was the proper thing to do. And then I responded to you in the interest of being civil. I try my best to use good form, listen to others, and contribute positively. That's also the only reason I responded to you in the first place, despite the fact that I wasn't even really commenting on anything you said. Nothing I said was unclear, or even cause for disagreement. When you asked me to clarify a word (such as "consensus" and "it", both of which were obvious from what I was saying), I did so, once again, to be civil with you. Which I now regret, since you're seeing contention where there is none. I have no idea why you're doing this, but I'm not going to indulge a battlefield mentality. Please leave me out of whatever issues you have with other editors. I have none with you, and if I was even remotely interested before, I certainly don't want to weigh in on your dispute now. Apologies to you and others, by the way, for the confusing indentation. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

QS, neither your first post, nor Nick Thorne's post, mentions past debates about the term "pseudoscience", and nor does my post in any way deny that the sources use the term pseudoscience to refer to one of the things known as "intelligent design". So no of course you were not clear. Maybe you had other communications which are not on this talk page? Nick Thorne's post was in fact a deliberate harassment of me personally, contained nothing on topic (despite what you say), and is part of a pattern of such behaviour, as I have pointed out to him on his talkpage. I still can not understand why you would defend such a post. Your comments about admins are also still unexplained, and I have to point out that bullshit stories about vaguely defined authorities maybe about to step in and do something are far too common on this talk page. Of course you should expect to be questioned for making such remarks loosely and not being able to back them up, because that looks like intimidation. Why would you do it in the first place? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope; both sources show ID to be pseudoscience. YoPienso (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Both sources are clear that ID is pseudoscience, and if they weren't, there are a plethora of others we could use instead. And yes, this has been beaten to death.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There have been massive distortions and disruptions of what I say on this talkpage, so please be careful. I did not say that the two sources deny "intelligent design" (in the sense of a form of creationism) is a pseudoscience. Indeed I have never argued against "intelligent design" creationism is something never referred to as a pseudoscience? Above, I reported that these sources make it clear in context that they are referring to "creationism". (I think it is not controversial even on this talk page to admit that the term has some other meanings, especially it is arguably most often the common term for teleological arguments, so why would that not be important to double check?) And I reminded about an old concern which BTW I have never actually proposed that we act on, which is that it seems impossible to define a boundary between this article and the intelligent design movement article, or one of or all of the several articles about neocreationism. The reality of my talk page activity here is that it has been an interest of mine to see if editors here can define a clear boundary (see WP:MERGE, WP:POVFORK etc). So far, the clearest reply I ever received was saying that this article is about a "strategy", as mentioned above. So it seems entirely relevant to point out that we still have no source for that. (So that particular subject is not "beaten to death".) That's the facts. I recommend that people posting accusations about the past edits of people here make sure they can show diffs to prove it. Even better, just stick to replying on topic and don't write about editors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I'm intentionally not addressing the suggestion that ID is something different than creationism, because, again, that issue has been beaten to death. Sources would be necessary for that claim, and if you believe it's not actionable, then it's not worth discussing anyway.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying. What were you addressing then? In what way was your post a relevant reply to anything I posted? Perhaps can we agree that ID in this article is about creationism (indeed "Intelligent Design Creationism") even though ID can also have other meanings? (For example, in the articles mentioned here, it can refer to something many religious people, including these creationists, claim to see evidence of "in nature".) I would not see it as useless to at least get that clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop bloviating. The hatnote and lede clearly identify the "ID" with which this article deals as a form of creationism. YoPienso (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Folks, can we please keep the discussion relevant to the article? I think Andrew is expressing interesting and worthwhile points. Some might disagree with those points, but if you do, then please respond to those points. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? My response was straight to the point: Andrew begged that "we agree that ID in this article is about creationism," but that agreement is explicit in the hatnote and lede, as I indicated. YoPienso (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Bloviating" is not constructive, and not straight to the point. No. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I got straight to the point that bloviating is not constructive. You don't like it called beating a dead horse, either. Too bad. I also directly addressed Andrew's most recent question about whether ID is creationism. Your carping isn't constructive, so please desist. YoPienso (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso, I would think you know that one particular interest of mine is trying to delineate the different meanings of "intelligent design" used in reliable sources, and compare to the different meanings which Wikipedia explains, and also the articles Wikipedia puts them into. So in this example, the two sources above both use the term in at least two ways. One of them clearly shows a preferred "technical term" (Intelligent Design Creationism), when it wants to be clear (which WP, controversially over many years, does not do). We need to check if we are using quotes from sources when they are using the term in the same way we are in this article, not confusing ourselves or our readers, and also not creating exactness which is not in the sources. Also:

• I believe that the long term debates on this talk page, at least the main ones, are caused by two things: one is this problem of multiple meanings, which is a common issue and should demand constant detailed discussion and constant thought, and the second problem is that the talkpage is unusually badly hampered by editors who for whatever reason feel that on this article it is acceptable to disrupt, and even argue openly that rationales should not be discussed on this talkpage.
• Coming back to your remark that the article is "obviously" about creationism, does that not "obviously" mean this article is about the same topic as Intelligent Design Movement, and indeed Neocreationism? If not, why not? Seems worth clarifying! When this subject came up in the past the answer I received was that this article is about a STRATEGY of this creationism. There is no source for that, and there was no resolution on that discussion. I was also looking at these two sources for help on that subject, but found none. So that particular horse is alive.

Eventually (consider WP:DEADLINE), such discussions may lead to a merge proposal for example, or a name-change idea (Intelligent Design Creationism?) or maybe some other solution. Such things can also indirectly lead to less circular discussions such as the ones now and in the past about the opening lines. That is how Wikipedia talk pages should work? I wish a smaller group could be assigned to work on it to be honest.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As I read the two sources you provided, the term "Intelligent Design" has only one meaning, but is used in two different contexts. The first context is theoretical and "Intelligent Design" is a theory of creation as described in this article. The second context is so called evidence in nature. In this context, Intelligent Design as theory informs the user about how the data from nature are to be interpreted. It sounds very circular and unscientific, but that's one of the formal reasons for why Intelligent Design is pseudoscience rather than science. So, as I see it, the authors are not using two different concepts but rather using the same concept in two different context (theory and data). Thus, for now, there is no need to merge or create any new articles. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many, without checking again I think both articles use the word "creationism" for what you call a theory? I find your word usage a little unusual also in that you are saying that the creationism and the pattern people see in nature are the "same concept in two different context (theory and data)". Isn't that a complicated way of saying they are two different, but connected, concepts? (One derives from the other, right?) I am not sure if anyone has ever argued that this basic "data" should get its own article. I think it is a quite primary concept, basically the two words still being used with their normal dictionary meanings, not a technical term. So I tend to think it can/should be handled in relevant articles such as both this one and teleological argument. A concern has often been expressed however that there has historically been great resistance to mentioning even the existence of this common usage of the two words, even in those two mentioned articles. That limits our power to explain and WP:BUILD a web of linked information. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew, what I "know"--that is, my perspective--is that one of your particular interests is making overly fine distinctions of terms and sustaining laborious arguments against things you don't like. For me, your comments stir confusion rather than bring clarity.

You may not realize that WP:DEADHORSE means rehashing stuff nobody wants to engage with.

Rest assured my opinions of your comments do not diminish my respect for you as a person. YoPienso (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I think, Yopienso. :) I do realize what deadhorse means, and I don't think it is appropriate to this case. I think the confusion you mention is coming from the disruptors who reinterpret every post I write, and I think the fine points I am trying to discuss are not minor issues but the cause of the endless arguments on this article over many years, including the long periods where I have not posted anything here. If we can only get more a more focused group discussing without the disruptors, then some of those endless arguments might be greatly ameliorated, and the talk pages of whatever articles we end up with might finally be able to fulfill their intended function. The appropriate animal metaphor here is a 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about, not a dead horse. That gorilla is the sourcing problem in the lead, and that sourcing problem is connected to the fact that the two word term "intelligent design" has several uses. We are sticking some together with duct tape, while erasing nearly all mention of others (most notably the teleological argument, which still has arguably the best claim to being the main meaning of "intelligent design" in reliable sources). The practical result is that WP is currently being innovative. Does it not strike you as unusual, compared to other WP articles, how often that editors here get aggressive about saying that something has been discussed here before and should never be discussed again? (And never with diffs or explanations about where these resolutions can be found.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster - re point of "pseudoscience" not matching to the cite given - bottom line is the term didn't come from cites, and is not what the majority of scientific community or media says. It's just that after many years without it some editors were in Talk about the lead and came up with this vague derogatory label in apparent WP:OR, and put up draft about 16:00 on 13 April 2014, then to article on 0900 on 15 April despite a couple detractors in the Talk and seem in denial since then. A couple false citations on top of that just seems to fit right into that. I think the article is irretrievably biased now so being obviously bad seems almost like two wrongs make an almost-right. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do think (and I have always said so) that pseudoscience is a word that is occasionally used when referring to intelligent design creationism and these sources exemplify that. I do see cause for the following editing question which you may see as relevant to your concern:

• Is the term common enough, and clear enough in its meaning, to be in the first sentence?

It is rather an uncommon description, and I see no evidence for any widely held consensus on how such a category is defined in serious discussion. (Some of the editors here clearly think that by using the term they are accusing the creationists of dishonesty, but then that accusation would be clearer, and easier to source! Why not just do that? But then of course it is mentioned, just not in the first sentence.)

In a nutshell, your concern that the word was chosen for its emotive impact, rather than to inform, are in my opinion reasonable. You only have to look through the talkpage discussions, and some of the actions made by editors here in various places on Wikipedia, to get that impression.

...So anyway the term is sourceable, but not necessarily a good editing choice.

Something I found useful in the sources is the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" which possibly should be the name of this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster - Other title seems other or subset topic -- but for the topic of bad word has two bogus cites, I think conclusion is the just leave them. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My opinion at this moment: I think these sources are of reasonable quality and do show the word pseudoscience being applied to one of the things referred to as "Intelligent Design", and specifically being applied to what one of them describes more exactly as "Intelligent Design Creationism". That does seem to be what this article is about. So I don't see the the use of this word as the article's biggest issue as long as it is clear how this article overlaps with other articles and is distinguished from other articles. I have recognized above that I do see valid concerns about whether we are using the term in the best way, which is more about editorial judgment, not sourcing as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster The usage seems the biggest source of dissent and a minor slur outside the normal association for ID to 'creationism'. Creationism in sense of source being creationists or in sense of being a form of creationism, so from just follow the cites that seems the more correct and consistent line and has a bulk of work not alterable by a minor paper much later, but again: Meh.

As for these cites -- I'm not even seeing PSCI clearly in that cite content, but maybe see something else.

• The Irreducible incoherence is academic in approach and Irreducible Complexity mostly saying creationism in that: "Intelligent Design Creationism", "this species of creationism", refs to "Creationisms Trojan Horse", "Scientific Creationism", etcetera. I see only one line in the intro background that goes the other way "Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) had been one of the most successful pseudosciences of the past two decades, at least when measured in terms of cultural influence."
• Pigliucci is a chapter of pop snark but also leans to creationism "(ID, a form of creationism)" p161, Pandas and People word creationism, "The conclusion is that intelligent design is simply a religious position, not substantially different from standard creationism" p185. though it also seems to conflate the two "what distinguishes science (evolution) from pseudoscience (creationism)"
• I'm left thinking it's also a bit of definitional issues and somewhat advocate pettifoggery. I noted there is a terminology issue in the dichotomy of say Numbers - having to bin something, it gets labeled as either Evolutionist or Creationist, without meaning that it is all of either or allowing for something else. Or maybe it's the 'both' flavor of 'both a theory and a fact', which seems Pigliucci conflating creationism with pseudoscience "what distinguishes science (evolution) from pseudoscience (creationism)"
• again, I think do not change the title -- adding modifier of IDC vs ID makes the appearance of a different topic in normal English usage. The first cite uses "Intelligent Design" in some cases and "Intelligent Design Creationism" in others, not clear why but one would not expect an IC article to necessarily explain that. The second cite uses "intelligent design" a dozen times and IDC abbreviatin 19 times "IDC theory", so also unclear why sometimes one way and some the other. I think it's just an anachronism appearing circa 2010 - long after the main events here -- so would lead to some need to explain the basis of the term. I tend to think it's actually something begun at NCSE as just a practice of always saying "creationism" with ID (just my guess -- I've not seen NCSE explicitly said as such) so when they speak it's IDC, but when they refer to external term or paper its ID. In any case, seems best to just not start a wave of title changes unless the basis is more clear than this.

Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure what your point is overall, but addressing bits and pieces:

• No it has been shown several times in the past that the term "Intelligent Design" is older than the movement and can be found in past centuries, normally in the context of the argument from design, which is of course an argument that is older than the English language. So it is not an anachronism at all, though clearly the term has been popularized by the movement, and is associated with the movement. (But then again the argument from design is known to most people who know of it only in the context of the movement. However, Wikipedia does not take ignorance, as the standard but tries to inform.) Currently Wikipedia is helping the Intelligent Design Movement promote its myth of a miraculous virgin birth.

• I am not sure what you intend concerning the word creationism. The way I see it, there are two meanings. The more correct and international meaning is a belief in an intelligent creator which is somehow responsible for nature. (Broadly used, the term allows for big variations in how the creator does this.) The second meaning is a recent American trend whereby the word implies disagreement with the theory of evolution. The Intelligent Design Movement seems to easily come under both definitions?
• Back on the pseudoscience theme, I did notice that Pigliucci seems to write as if the term pseudoscience creationism is pseudoscience by definition. That opens questions about definitions. Also Pigliucci sometimes seems to say that the term pseudoscience comes from the court cases about science teaching, which it does not as far as I recall. Overall, it is an unusual usage, not typical in the available sources and not really very clear. As I have said a few times, if editors wanted to imply with this word that the movement was accused of dishonesty, then we can just say that. It is sourceable. (But in fact instead Wikipedia is following the movement in at least one of the things it is said to be dishonest about: hiding its roots.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster

• My 'anachronism' concern was that IDC postdates ID, so 'anachronism' is that that label and this article content do not occur at same time especially since it's a reversed sequence. All the material and events of this article appear with ID label. Meanings and concepts changed over time, from ID as promulgated by Pandas and the Discovery Institute in the 1990s, so "IDC" seems more a 'after Kitzmiller' article or subarticle on what the newer term/concept is and how it came out. (Though I suspect it may be a triviality, just a NCSE practice to assure always say C along with ID.)
• Agree there are earlier usages of "intelligent design" from the 19th century, meaning as Darwin used it and in relatively common use 1885-1905, seen in TALK long ago about disambiguation when the article topic said it was ID 'as promulgated by DI' implied other flavors. My try to resolve the fuss that Darwinian usage is not said here was by simply making a separate article -- that was ruled a Fork and killed, and instead the article went with 'as promulgated by DI' made unstated inherent and not having 19th century usages mentioned.
• Double agree on "creationism" - there's the international definition meaning about religious precepts, and the distinct U.S. usage of labelling within a partisan discussion. I'll highlight that partisan labelling is more extemist in nature -- when evolutionist and creationist are used as a dichotomy of sides, then any lack in participation or presenting of neutral wording and facts could be simply a bin name as the other, and it may also wind up as in attacks unrelated to views. For example: Confirm that Darwin wrote "intelligent Design" - that's 'creationist'. Confirm that Barbara Forrest has a PhD - that's 'evolutionist'. Insist on some rule of order for all - that's 'creationist' from evolutionist view *and* 'evolutionist' from the creationist view. Even words 'evolutionist' 'creationist' can get attacked as both sides play wording games and pettifoggery.  ;-)
• Pseudoscience - I highlighted Pigliucci items explicitly state what ID is say a form of creationism, and ultimately did not see a clear support except for saying that. The 'what distinguishes science from pseudoscience' line having two parenthesized terms I took as examples being asserted -- implying that evolution is science rather than saying evolution is all of science or that evolution is the definition of science. That it's seems a conflation I took as possible issue. I think the term is a vague slur without clear application, and he as PhD in Philosophy he knows more and could write more clearly than this -- but this is from just a bit of pop snark advocacy rather than academic explanation, so I expect pettifoggery. Again, a couple bogus cites, better to take out the word Pseudoscience and them along with it.

Markbassett (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

you guys are pure forum territory. WP:NOTFORUM. please discuss article content. thanks. 16:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog the above is clearly not just general discussion but directly about this Wikipedia article and the sources it uses. That is what talk pages are for.

@Markbassett,

• One improvement I do believe we have gotten on this article is that it is no longer specifically only about the DI.
• Concerning the way in which it appears the word pseudoscience may have been selected for emotive value rather than reflecting what is most commonly seen as definitional in good sources, I tend to agree, and I do not see it as good editing, but it does not concern me as much as some other things.
• The terms "creationism" and "intelligent design" do have multiple meanings, and to some extent I think this is accepted by most editors who have engaged with this topic. My concern is whether we are letting our readers know it, or are editors here deliberately giving a filtered view, delinking this article (and some of its key terms) from concepts we should be clearly explaining as linked. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggest removing the acronym ID

Can I suggest the removal of the acronym ID, if not from the entire article then at least from the introduction? It's sparsely used as is, only a couple of times in the first paragraph of three and not so much throughout the rest of the article compared to the term intelligent design, and I don't see how its usage enhances a readers understanding of the topic. If the acronym genuinely sees usage in broader discussions of the topic then I understand this article introducing it, but not using it to introduce the article. 121.218.46.42 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's drop the word "pseudoscientific"

Despite the rationale given at the top of this page, I suggest we drop the word "pseudoscience" from the lede since it is perceived as a pejorative by a wide swath of the public, thus setting a POV tone for the article and causing endless reverts and discussions.

Please read the article in the Skeptical Inquirer cited to in footnote 9 of "Pseudoscience". The opening sentence reads, "Pseudoscience is a pejorative term that is bestowed upon a set of ideas, not used by choice by the holder of those ideas" (emphasis added). The blurb at the top says, "Pseudoscience is what one might call a two-dollar word. Skeptics often throw it around because of its weightiness and the values it transmits. We need to talk about this word, where it came from, and why we should be cautious about using it." Indeed we should be cautious. YoPienso (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But 1) that's how our sources describe the topic, 2) it accurately and uniquely contextualizes and describes the topic, and 3) WP:NOTCENSORED. Our policy, broadly, is that pseudoscientific topics can be described as such as long as the label is adequately sourced - see WP:PSI - so this isn't a conversation to have just here, it would be appropriate to have it at a broader venue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, and I've supported using the word on just those bases. Nonetheless, since the term is often perceived as a pejorative, and seeing the history of reverts and discussions in this article, (hence this venue), I suggest we drop it to achieve stability and stop the endless wrangling. Why poke people in the eye?

Using Velikovsky as an example, Sharon Hill noted in the SI, "The primary blunder made by scientists was their attempt to demonize a person or idea. This backfired and made that person/idea more popular. Every negative review of his books enhanced the controversy and made people curious to read them to see what the fuss was all about. In their haste to prevent some outsider from destabilizing their establishment, they disregarded the importance of being civil and collegial."

Now you may well say that we just repeat what the scientists say. That's true, but no harm is done to them, to the article, or to our readers if we omit that word in the lede. We should retain it in the body. YoPienso (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There certainly is harm is omitting it from the lead. Many readers will skim, which is why we have a summary (the lead) in the first place. One of ID's principal tactics is to represent itself as science and to "just teach X, and let the reader make up their own mind." Under no circumstances can we give in to that, and in so doing, fail to represent the scientific community's opinion accurately. ID is the very definition of pseudoscience. It certainly belongs in a neutral summary of the topic. Sure, I get IAR, but I see no reason it should apply here; the same justification could be used on any other article (and it is, often).   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Jess - calm a bit on the dramatic 'the very definition of pseudoscience' (not literally what's in Webster's, Oxford, and Britannica) and with 'Under no circumstances'. Please simply consider some factoids: the article for years did OK without this in the lede; the preponderance of external cites and larger players do not use this label; that frequent objections by editors is objectively evidence it lacks WP:CONSENSUS as well as just being a practical nuisance. I'll suggest it might be more generally accepted if it reverted to the more neutral wording 'claim' -- or if a label is wanted, then 'creationist' seems more satisfying of cite frequency, party identification, and acceptability among both advocates and opponents. Whichever, meh Markbassett (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Describing ID as pseudoscience is only pejorative in so far as ID claims to be a science. That is the way it is used in the lede and the way it is used in the sources. I believe there has been a strong consensus to keep pseudoscience in the title and I see no indication that this consensus has changed. I am One of Many (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't even mean lede--I mean the first sentence. YoPienso (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is faulty on its face: we don't remove a disagreeable word because it is pejorative, if the word is also accurate and widely used to describe the topic. ID is precisely pseudoscience, as it attempts to bring creationism under the mantle of science. One of the signifiers of pseudoscience is that a conclusion is assumed to be correct, then the evidence is tailored to fit the conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Binkster - In this case the disagreeable wording seems just seeking to enjoy snarkery and to advance editors personal agendas, rather than conveying what is common in RSS or summarizing the article. Just sayin what it looks like from TALK ... meh Markbassett (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The term "pseudoscience" is wholly accurate and exactly descriptive, despite it being unpleasant to some readers. It's widely used and well-sourced. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Binkster - if you are not going to follow RSS preponderance then it's just your want/logic against their want/logic and WP:OR failure of WP:CONSENSUS. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Binkersternet, we do remove a disagreeable word because it is pejorative, per policy:

• WP:IMPARTIAL: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone," and
• WP:SUBJECTIVE: "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)."

I do not dispute that ID is a pseudoscience nor that we should hesitate to so inform our readers that it is; I dispute that we should so define in in the first sentence. In the reasoned opinion/conclusion of many scientists ID is a pseudoscience, and we need to properly include that position.

I am One of Many, you are right that the consensus has been set for a long time; I was hoping we might change it for something more in line with policy. Such a change would end the continued reverts of the first sentence. But maybe the editors who watch this article enjoy the fight. If so, how sad. YoPienso (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We are not endorsing or rejecting a view by describing the topic accurately. Nor are we violating policy by biasing our coverage toward the scientific opinion ("providing due weight"). I don't think those snippets of policy say what you think they do, but even if they did, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are quite clear, and would take precedence. To reiterate, the arguments you're using would equally apply to every pseudoscientific topic; if convincing, we could never describe anything as pseudoscience ever again. Our coverage would significantly suffer as a result.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

More sources for "pseudoscience"

• UCLA anthropologist Joseph Manson writes "Intelligent design is pseudoscience" in the Anthropology Newsroom at UCLA. September 27, 2005.
• University of Kansas anthropologist Leonard Krishtalka says that intelligent design is "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo"[1] and "Intelligent design is religion thinly disguised as science and does not belong in the science classroom."[2]
• Journalist and medical writer Mark Greener writes "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?", published in EMBO Reports in December 2007. Describing how ID comes from creationism, and that ID is not science.
• Donald E. Simanek, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, wrote "Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy".
• Mathematics and statistical mechanics emeritus professor Mark Perakh wrote Unintelligent Design in which he stated "My conclusion is that the intelligent design theory is an example of pseudoscience."[3] University of Minnesota Twin Cities biologist Mark D. Decker reviewed the Perakh book in Cell Biology Education, saying that "Although cloaked in the mantle of science, ID is nothing more than the argument offered by the natural theologians of the 1800s".[4]

Observation - ummm look again, seems those mostly go 'creationism' -- at least #2, 3, and 4 predominantly say 'creationism'; #1 is kind of short but does say pseudoscience twice to creationism once so mostly pseudo, and the #5 book seems to be mixing discussion of ID and Creation Science so call that one as maybe for the moment. These five are not really big sources, like say Kitsmiller or Newsweek or Behe or AAAS or Pigglucci -- but they're still got a preponderance towards "creationism". Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Creationism is the father of Intelligent Design. ID is used to shoehorn creationism into school curricula. They are connected, and the above authors acknowledge the fact. If you are arguing ID is completely separate from creationism then you are not supported by these science authors. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Easy compromise

The easy compromise here is simply to take the word "pseudoscience" out of WP's voice in the lede. Instead of saying, "Intelligent Design is the pseudoscientific..." change it to "Intelligent Design is [definition]. It has been described as a pseudoscience by..." That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience isn't in WP's voice in the lede. ID is by definition pseudoscience as defined in the second sentence of the lede. The lede as is accurately reflects the sources used and meaning of ID.I am One of Many (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to compromise. If ID did not claim to be science we would not be having this discussion. However, ID does claim to be science and so it needs to be treated according to the prevailing scientific view, which is that ID is NOT science, it is pseudoscience. End of discussion. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick - that's misrepresenting the scientific community ... factually cites can substantiate "extensively rejected by the scientific community" and that community commonly says quote "not science" unquote -- but also substantiate they the word "pseudoscience" is basically not used by them. Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And yet we somehow seem to manage to find more than enough references to cite that ID is actually called pseudoscience within the scientific community. I wonder why that is? - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne -- Sure, that's ignoring the scientific community societies formal statements. Again, this misrepresenting the community position. Look, it's just a vague emotive slur without solid technical meaning so it just doesn't see use except as the occasional pejorative in the less serious context. The high prominence in the lede is beyond it's weight in the discussion, the article content, or any topic iteself. ... 'more than enough', not hardly. Markbassett (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Cla68, your suggestion waters down the very broad scientific position against ID, as your construction "It has been described as a pseudoscience by..." would necessarily name a subset of the scientific community, while an overwhelming majority dismiss it. Your construction would make it appear that fewer scientists say that ID is not science. I am against any watering down of this sort. We should state plainly that ID is not science, that it is pseudoscience. I'm reminded of the quote: "Any compromise between science and not science is not science." Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Intelligent Design is [definition] - that's what the article currently says. Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] 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.". The idea that it's supposed to be science (but isn't) is what differentiates it from mere evolution-doubt. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Let it stand

I've laid out my argument as best I can. Several editors agree with me, but several disagree. There's no consensus here for or against the word, so let it stand. YoPienso (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No there is clear consensus on strength of argument that the present description is correct. That is why it stands regardless of creationist trolling.Charles (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles - Suggest a read of WP:CONSENSUS in light of frequently editors edit that word, numerous attempts at the WP consensus-building methods failed, and serious editors like Yop mentioning it as ongoing bone of contention -- and seems it will keep going on at WP:NOCONSENSUS. Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs to stay in the article, front and centre. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs to stay because it's a critical part of what ID is. Intrinsic to ID is the idea that this is a scientific view. So we can either say "claimed to be science, but it's not" or we can used the more succinct "pseudoscience". Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there is consensus, but whatever; it doesn't matter either way. "Consensus to stay in" and "no consensus to remove" are the same practically speaking. It was a good faith proposal, let's move on without turning this back into a protracted perennial discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, one way you can tell if a controversial article has been successfully written in an NPOV manner is that its content gets left alone for the most part. The fact that people are objecting to the wording here so often and so strenuously indicates that this article needs some work on its wording in order to be in compliance with WP's NPOV policy. Until that is so, I guess the editors who prefer it the way it is right now will have to continue to check their watchlists every 30 minutes to make sure no one tries to change it or gets consensus for the change here on the talk page. Happy editing! Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

My experience is just the opposite. Articles written in an NPOV manner often receive continued objections from editors with a POV. This article is a nice example. Sources view ID as a paradigm of pseudoscience. Proponents with an ID POV want this claim weakened because, contrary to the sources, they believe ID is science. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. You nailed it. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Supporters of pseudoscience are often quite vociferous and active in promoting their ideas. That Wikipedian supporters of pseudoscience are also active is no surprise. It says nothing about NPOV other than, as I am One of Many in effect put it, those with a POV often see the NPOV position as biased. If ID proponents did not claim that it was science we would not be having this discussion, but they do and so Wikipedia defers to the prevailing scientific view about the subject. There is no debate within the scientific community about whether or not ID is pseudoscience, that the scientific community overwhelmingly considers it so is well sourced. Therefore according to WP:WEIGHT we are obliged to frame the article in the manner in which it is currently. Indeed, the fact that ID supporters do not like it is almost confirmation in and of itself that this article takes the appropriate position. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick - umm I'll point towards doing WP policy and really better too.

* First, deal from fact: objectively, factually, the scientific societies do not use that word. The community phrasings are only of the 'not science' kind. NAS has: "Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. AAAS Board says: improper to include as a part of science education. Exaggeration of this or advocating personal logic as if they said something else is a misrepresentation of fact and their actual position.

* Second, seek WP policy. A 'lack of debate' absence of usage does not somehow serve as weight. The WP:WEIGHT concern here is 'prominence of placement' of WP:UNDUE "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The goal in consideration is "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." and "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". Policy says to present at the actual level of usage in discussions, which for this word seems evidenced as not in general use or prominent paricipants/events, and I'll add that it is not common or supported by the article itself. It might occur in a subsection if weight is met within an article subsection topic, but an overall lede seems clearly inappropriate.

* Third and last, please remove the thought that making some group unhappy is desireable or proves success. It would be more in keeping with evidence-based WP policy to look at these:

* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Hoping this was of help to some folks. Markbassett (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

First line ..."is the pseudoscientific"...

I think it should be neutral, because it only contains two citations. The issue is that some PhD's and other various people in academia do believe that it is scientifically sound. I obviously don't think the pseudoscientific term should be removed, but I would like to see something along the lines of 'it is regarded in some circles as the pseudoscietific view'. If we add the 'majority', people can perceive it as bias discrimination. --JT2958 (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we want the "bias" to be towards the almost universally held scientific view. Per WP:FRINGE/PS: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, "we" and "want the bias" ???? Reject. Obviously anti-NPOV and obviously JT and I and other editors do not approve of just making up stuff. Look, just follow the cites, convey their content, and keep with WP policy as best as group can figure out regardless of which POV you prefer. Be honest brokers of what the facts are, anything else seems just an untrustworthy WP:SOAPBOX and already got enough screaming advocate groups playing wordgames. Markbassett (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that I put "bias" in quotes. It seems you do not understand NPOV. We highlight and focus on the mainstream point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that wikipedia is biased towards reliable sources and towards the scientific community. That is by design. "Neutral" does not mean unopinionated or always equally balanced, and if you're using it that way, you should read WP:NPOV again. Contesting the pseudoscience label means providing sources that show the scientific community doesn't regard it that way, because we have loads of sources that say they do.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is precisely because, as you put it, we follow the cites, convey their content, keep with WP policy and then act as honest brokers of what the facts are that we insist on keeping the word pseudoscience in the article. That ID proponents do not understand this only serves to bolster our case. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

Sounds very poor, I suggest "philosophical". ID is outside the scope of science, its subject is properly metaphysics. Defining ID as pseudoscience is like defining a cat as a pseudo-dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.124.61 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

ID was created as a reframing of 'creation science'. It was supposed to pass muster as science. Behe even discussed the risk posed to ID if it failed to come up with a true scientific research programme. As discussed in the article. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Origins of the term "Intelligent Design"

I don't particularly want to do my first wikipedia page edit to such a fiery subject so will just note a discovery I made here. The quite famous author Joseph Conrad wrote a book called Chance in 1912. In Chapter 2 he mentions "intelligent design". Speaking of the character Fyne "There is very little intelligent design in the majority of marriages", then a page later speaking of a relative of Fyne's, "The late Carleon Anthony, the poet, sang in his time of the domestic and social amenities of our age with a most felicitous versification, his object being, in his own words, 'to glorify the result of six thousand years' evolution towards the refinement of thoughts, manner, feelings'"

So there you are, make of that what you will, add it to the main page, delete this page, whatever. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. SeriousTube (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

See Intelligent_design#Origin_of_the_term. Guettarda (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Especially the footnotes to the second paragraph: my favourite is Darwin's 1861 letter to John Herschel.
The example from Joseph Conrad which you quote is in the more general sense of clever human design, rather than the Divine design argument which ID re-uses. From the date, "six thousand years' evolution" probably refers to human [cultural] evolution with the assumption of earlier ages in which other organisms had evolved. Interesting topic, but not really relevant to this article and we'd need a reliable secondary source discussing interpretation to use it anywhere. Thanks for the input, . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Guettarda - that article section is unfortunately not about origin of the term. Instead of just saying the modern usage stems from Pandas and the subsequent controversy and court case, it instead bumbles about on other topics and coincidence of phrasing that there was circa 1880-1900 a common topic of the same label. Markbassett (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is precisely what the OP asked that the article address. Guettarda (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Not applicable?

"Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

Now why is that NOT applicable to 'intelligent design' ? --41.151.27.202 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

ID has no discernible following in the relevant scientific community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, it is not an "Alternative theoretical formulation" -- for that it would have to be a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) that can at least compete on empirical and logical grounds, i.e. do *as well* as the alternatives. For instance, it would have to predict fossil distribution, genetic relatedness etc to at least the same degree that the modern synthesis does. (The bar for mainstream scientific acceptance is higher; the new theory has to do *strictly better*.) Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamall Wednesday Ida - Incorrect extension there, or maybe inappropriate knee-jerk. The committee said "Alternative theoretical formulation", tied solely on "have a following within the scientific community". Nothing more, nothing less. See also Theoretical definition, or example of Standard model, or Theory Formulation Markbassett (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I read: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.". Or: "X which have Y are Z". As far as this statement is concerned, to assert Z-ness (which was the question), you have to have *both* X-ness and Y-ness. The first answer asserted "not Y", and I added the grain of salt "not X". As to the question of X-ness, in that case being a "theoretical formulation", which I took as synonym to being a theory within the context of science -- in which that word comes with a high barrier of entry -- I do not see how your first two links add to that. Neither denies the need for predictive power. (The third link is very strange. It's probably better to quote emphatically non-fringe material when addressing basic definitions.) I'm not sure what your point was, exactly. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamall Wednesday Ida First, the definitions of groupings were given, so the X-ness is defined there, and alteration would no longer be X-ness. They use "Theory" for the other three groups including "Obvious pseudoscience", so there is no high hurdle intended there. The info at links seemed just relevant background for better vinfo about forming theories. And I also think your impressions do not match the historical logic here -- later theories do not do the same thing that earlier ones do, they would look at new aspects or aspects that earlier theories either did not cover or did not cover well. Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Theories which have a following, such as astrology"... Okay. I grant that the committee's text above uses theory in a very loose sense. I disapprove, but I shall not argue it, and concede the point. I am still not sure what your second point is. I never said that "later theories do the same thing that earlier ones do". I wouldn't have said that, because "do" can mean too many things. I said something more specific: they had to have *strictly better expressive power*; e.g. classical mechanics vs. general relativity: the latter covers all the predictive power of the former, + precession of the perihelion of Mercury and a bunch of things that escape the former. Science is interconnected; you can't often just "look at new aspects or aspects that earlier theories either did not cover or did not cover well" in isolation. Generally, you come up with a new, more general theory that supersedes the previous one *and* covers the new aspects; it is an alternative theory for a while, before being vindicated (or not) by experiment. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamall Wednesday Ida For the purposes of this article, I think we're done -- ID is a theory or stated as a theory, with no significant following in the scientific community.

As to the mention that later theories must do the same or better, I think ther that preponderance of descriptions are that historically and logically later works start from different or new data or as working at where the prior theory did not quite fit well. Examples:

* Poor Fit: When the finer decimal points did not add up, Newtonian mechanics stayed but added the thought there was another planet to the Solar system beyond Neptune and added Special Relativity which later became produced general relativity -- and note Newtonian mechanics are still in use.

* New Data: Darwin had then-novel observations from around the world with HMS Beagle, and the modern synthesis did not re-examine Beagle data or issues with Darwinism (Eclipse of Darwinism) but added and resolved apparent contradictions of observations the intervening 40-60 years at lab genetics, field biology, paleontology, and geology.

You might find (for both ID and modern synthesis) cites critical about the language of the formulation or different language, but the wiki committee were tryiing to describe how things are grouped on the outside. (Meh) They were not trying to speak on how theories must be formulated, but on how to determine what group something formulated as a theory fits into. Markbassett (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hostile feel to the article

I somehow keep feeling this hostility towards the people who support ID throughout this article. It just feels like one big rant. Here is an example (I took it from "status outside US - Europe"):

--- "In June 2007, the Council of Europe's Committee on Culture, Science and Education issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes."[158] In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism." ---

And this is how the article introduces the subject. You can add such quotes but not at the beginning imo. I might sound a bit like a whiner but I like to keep wikipedia somehow neutral and unbiased. And by the way; I'm not religious or in any way affiliated with Inelligent Design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.198.146 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's precisely because Wikipedia is neutral and unbiased that it treats ID according to its acceptance by the majority of reliable sources, who are, as you put it, "hostile" to the idea. Rwenonah (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is not "hostile" – instead it is accurate in its portrayal of ID as anti-science. There's no need to pander to ID supporters, to make the article more sympathetic to their views. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There's just lots of trivial stuff in this article. The article is filled with references to critics and their negative opinions on the subject. nvm that judge thing. poor reading on my behalf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.43.32 (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Allright I've done a couple of edits which are being repeatedly reverted. I've changed escaping into explaining (that's basically what it came down to). Now my edits have been undone with an unbased accusation of writing from POV. Now I know that this article has seen issues with creationists so you are more prone to assume that people propagate their opinions when they edit articles to make them more neutral. In emotional response to the heated debate on this topic this article has been written. So let us just be honest: this page has some bias in it which is not more than logical. Wikipedia users can make mistakes as well. Now if I am somehow mistaken please tell me why my edit is biased or otherwise not acceptable.

And by the way to prevent you guys from making any claims about my personal validity; I'm an atheist. Not that it actually matters but it might help this discussion anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.43.32 (talk • contribs) 23 June 2015

No one's made any "claims" about you. You changed a statement by a source without referring to that source, in an effort to make the article seem less "hostile" to ID. Reliable sources are hostile to ID. The article reflects that. If the source said "explaining", we could use that, but it doesn't. The article reflects the views of reliable sources - any hostility is a result of their views, not the views of Wikipedians. Your edit, however, was definitely based on your personal views, namely that the article needs to less "hostile", making it POV. Rwenonah (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding claims, 87.211.43.32, you were the one who said "No offense and I'm an atheist just like you guys by the way" before you deleted it. Page history is a wonderful thing. I'm not an atheist, FYI. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, page history is interesting. Perhaps the IP might like to explain this edit? - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone has made any claims about me I'm just trying to prevent it. I often experience that people find someone's personal background relevant to the validity of his arguments so I thought I'd just get it out of the way -no offense. As far as I'm concerned the article doesn't literally quote Dawkins so if I change it I'm not changing any source other than wikipedia user 123. Maybe my personal view is that the article needs to be less hostile but that doesn't make "(...)leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction." more neutral. And wikipedia wants to be neutral, am I right? Think we can all agree on that. So I think that my version definitely is more neutral (let's just be honest). If we can't agree on this then I will have to rest my case as I'm in a less powerful position than other wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.43.32 (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Allright I'm done. I can't edit this page clearly because all of you have a certain point of view or hatred against either unregistered users or ID. You have not come with a single constructive argument to tell me why my edit is not justifiable. First my edit gets removed because I have a point of view and now my edit gets removed because there is no "consensus" for the edit. Two totally irrelevant and false arguments. What if there would be consensus to write that all jews are evil and greedy and try to poison our drinking water? Would you write it down like that? No one has reverted my edits on any reasonable objective base.

I had expected more professionalism of wikipedia. This is ridiculous and amateuristic. Groups of users who do anything to stop anyone from editing their pages even if it serves no purpose at all. Insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.198.146 (talk • contribs) 24 June 2015

It has been repeatedly pointed out that we follow what reliable sources say, not our own opinions. Please do not make attacks on the integrity of other editors and do not use this talk page as a forum.Charles (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@IP87.211.43.32, I'll explain why I would have reverted your edits. It is not clear that you understand what an infinite regress is. It is a logical problem with an argument. To escape an infinite regress, one must show either that it can be stopped or it is not problematic. The only way that ID can escape it is by appealing to religious creationism. The infinite regress is not explained by religious creationism, it is escaped by admitting that ID is religious creationism. So, you changed the meaning of the sentence such that it was nonsensical. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity, specified complexity and fine-tuned universe are valid arguments, irrespective of ID

All three are well founded philosophical and mathematical arguments for extreme rarity of complex, consciouss, intelligent life forms. I am an atheist, but in my opinion it's clear that the arguments are philosophically sound and deserve a fair treatment. There's no need to belittle them. They are entirely plausible arguments for the Fermi paradox.

There seems to be a somewhat biased approach in the article and the subarticles, that anything and everything argued by the ID proponents is baseless and ridiculous. First, ID is not scientific and second as argued in the article, and e.g. by Dawkins, it is a circular argument that just begs the question who designed the designer, and therefore, and for many other reasons, deserves to be thrown out. But irreducible complexity, specified complexity and fine-tuned universe are interesting arguments. They should not be dismissed just because the ID proponents are using them.

I'd say that arguing against their self-evident validity with weak arguments, as in the article (or on the subpages), gives credence to ID proponents if anything. The universe is full of basic ingredients for life. And maybe the universe is teeming with bacteria and other microbial life. There are probably over a thousand billion planets in the Milky Way, but no signs of highly advanced intelligent life forms have been detected outside of Earth. And Pennsylvania State University recently did an interesting study of 100 000 'nearby' Galaxies and found no signs of Galactic civilizations, http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2015-news/Wright4-2015 - you'd expect highly intelligent life to develop into one, you'd expect man to be a galactic civilization in 10 million years if we don't kill ourselves before we manage to spread out from the solar system. But no sign from such civilizations from 100,000 galaxies that are billions of years old.

It is plausible, and personally I think the mathematics support this, that in the evolution of life on Earth several extremely improbable developments occurred. That in a sense you cannot explain the developments by natural selection, although you can explain their survival and propagation and further development. In the sense that you can't expect these same developments to happen throughout the universe on Earth-like planets. That what happened on Earth was something extremely rare, a chance occurrance of one in billions, and maybe more than once, and arguments from irreducible and specified complexity are reasons to think so. That it is entirely possible, that we are the most advanced life form in the Milky Way, and in the Universe of 10^24 or so planets, and in countless presumed universes, 99,999999...% of which are less fine-tuned for even the improbable to be possible... maybe a rarity even in fined tuned universes.

You can accept these arguments and see our existence and evolution in the light of (a variation of) the anthropic principle and yet be a convinced atheist, seeing no sign of any intelligent design, nevermind the intelligent designer of the judeo-christian collection of old books.

The three arguments are valid. Using them to support ID isn't.

37.136.120.90 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the first part of your last paragraph, but agree with the second. Because of the second part, the rest of your post can be dismissed as entirely moot. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is a general dismissal with no arguments given. The article and sub-articles seem to be written with the conviction that whatever they claim is nonsense and we will find and handpick sources that say so. Well, ID is nonsense, but all of their arguments aren't. Some are sound arguments misused. And the three mentioned are sound arguments. To dismiss them with deliberately selective bad math and bad philosophy is misguided. You can admit the validity and treat them fairly yet dismiss ID as baseless. There is no logical connection, nevermind to the Bible, you don't have to "refute" any of the three arguments to show ID to be a pseudoscience. It's bad and misguided argumentation. The arguments are self-evidently valid and to try and argue otherwise "to refute everything about ID" is weak logic. The two are not connected. If a new-age mystic misuses quantum mechanics to prove the existence of some world spirit he believes in, you don't need to attack QM to dismiss it as pseudoscience.

And here, you don't have to "refute" sound philosophical and mathematical arguments, which you can't, it's enough to show that the conclusion (i.e. ID) does NOT follow. 37.136.120.90 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM: this page isn't for general discussion. If you've got any specific proposals for article improvement, please comply with WP:TALK and present them in detail with the published WP:SOURCES you propose to support the changes. If not, you're just posting "original research" which has no place on Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 10:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I made a general proposal for article improvement / criticism of its content and approach and what I saw as a bias and poor philosophy and math. My comments were in context of the article, and not general discussion about ID. Complexity and probability of life/consciousness/intelligence are a larger issue in the context of the article and subarticles, so it's not sensible to go over it detail by detail. Original research pertains to unsourced article content, not to talk page discussions if I'm not mistaken.

I am asking a general level question, why complexity and probability are treated in the article like they were an integral part of the ID argument? The complexity and probability arguments are valid arguments in their own right. Misused in the context of ID. There is no connection. If you want to underline an anti-ID perspective, then seek (more) sources that say it's a false argument in context of ID.

The arguments dismissing probability are bad philosophy and bad math. The logical conclusion from dismissing irreducible and specified complexity is that the universe should be full of complex life. But as per Fermi's paradox, it doesn't seem to be. And these probabilities have NOTHING to do with designer. It is a false connection. I'm saying that you are using bad argumentation and so doing in fact playing by the false premises of the intelligent design proponents. Because, how'd a universe full of intelligent life (as per complexity and probability arguments dismissed) be less of a sign of "design" than a universe, where among approx. 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 planets perhaps just on one planet life as complex as humans developed? Take away a few zeros and you have the number of Earth-like planets. Give each billions of years of chances for life to be born and evolve and you start to approach the probabilities the ID proponents see as sign of a designer.

If man is a quirk of highly improbable chance occurrances in an otherwise nearly empty universe (or countless universes), that's not an argument for ID. But if the universe was teeming with life, with thousands of intelligent civilizations in Milky Way alone, which is the logical conclusion from dismissing the probability arguments, how would that be an argument against a pantheist ID? I am underlining the philosophical point that the probabilities and the argument for ID have no connection. And as the connection is false, so are those arguments false and missing the point, that take a defensive stance and start "arguing" with God of the gaps type rhetoric that the probabilities are (read: will be) explained by natural selection. A direct connection between natural selection and human level complexity is a false one. Natural selection selects successful complexity, but does not in itself explain the probability or improbability of that complexity.

To underline my criticism of the article and the subarticles. The three arguments about complexity and probability (and/or variations of them) are valid arguments in their own right. The same questions are central to Fermi's paradox and more general atheist existential philosophies of man's place in the cosmos. Tying them to arguments for/against design is false dichotomy and poor philosophy and poor math. By both ID proponents and their critics. Critics should just dismiss the false connection, but not the valid arguments.

As you can envisage, sources for these arguments can be found and quoted, as for most arguments, and in the end it's about choosing and weighting quoted sources. But I'm not pushing this further (although the posts have been long, as it's a complex subject), if this change in the general approach to the subject (which I'm confident is philosophically the right one) gets no support. 37.136.21.189 (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

All of this could be a great addition to the article. I don't know, because I'm not willing to read that wall of text. What I do know is that to make any changes to the article, you need reliable, published sources. Rwenonah (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment What you are proposing as dave souza points out is essentially original research. However, if you did look into to credible sources on the so called problem or irreducible complexity arguments, you would find that they are based on faulty assumptions and pathetic mathematics. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't propose any concrete additions re: the original article(s). I tried to have a discussion on how the article treats complexity and probability and how these are not directly linked to ID. In vain it seems. Of the three sub-articles fine-tuned universe seems to me to be the least poorly written. So let's take this one subject. The major names like Sir Martin Rees are mentioned on the subpage. Cosmologist of first rank, an atheist, and one of the most cited and prominent supporters of the fine-tuned universe argument. (Called a "compliant quisling" by Richard Dawkins.) There exists a literature of considerable size by prominent non-ID, atheist scientists and philosophers of science on FTU and related themes. Looking at the talk pages it seems to have been a quite a struggle to get it into the article. When editors have preferred e.g. to quote Stenger extensively, who is nowhere near as prominent in the field as Rees. But here in this article it's mostly him Stenger and claims that are not supported by the literature. It's claimed that: "Scientists have generally responded that these arguments [i.e. for fine-tuned universe] are poorly supported by existing evidence." Not true. There has been an on-going and lively debate on this at least ever since Carter made his remarks on the Anthropic principle 50 years ago. And it's not a general view that anthropic principle would be a "tautology", it's closely tied to the concept of multiverse and has lately been used by many string theorists. All in all numerous non-ID, atheist scientists and philosophers of science have debated, pondered and written on these questions from different angles and in different contexts. I refer you to the WP pages of Fine-tuned universe and the Anthropic principle, which are not completely hopeless. But here the fined-tuned universe argument is completely mispresented, with selective, poorly weighted sources. There seems to prevail an approach to dismiss anything and everything associated with ID. That's faulty thinking. These are themes that are valid in their own right, irrespective of ID (which is pseudoscience and weak philosophy, motivated by ulterior motives). I would balance the undue weight of the negative arguments on fine-tuned universe by adding Rees's arguments (as they are on the subpage) and a neutral description of the anthropic principle. And perhaps the succinct Hawking quote (supportative of FTU), who is someone well known and well respected in cosmology. 188.67.222.149 (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the three topics have their own existence as discussion points not well presented here. The slurring of lines seems just part of irretrievably biased articles in this area and showing them so obviously bent means folks do get the general idea and might see that the article's not to be relied upon. Maybe the best that can be done at this time. Meh . Markbassett (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnson interview 2006

Fruitless debate regarding any possible scientific merit to ID. Please see Q2 of the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
D’Agostino, Michelangelo (2005). "In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley". The Berkeley Science Review. Archived from the original on 1 September 2006. (pdf) quotes Johnson; " I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC) that is one persons opinion. i think behe, meyers etc have hammered out a lot of details. all evo has to go on is 'the survival of the fitest' which is cicular logic and even popper said it was pseudoscience John.r.r (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC) You're misinformed about Popper, and I look forward to you putting forward sources for this supposed "theory". In the meantime, a bonus from Paul Nelson. . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "The Measure of Design: A Conversation About the Past, Present & Future of Darwinism & Design". Touchstone Magazine: A Journal of Mere Christianity. June 2004. Archived from the original on 29 May 2006. Paul Nelson: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity"—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design." . . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Both look like good quotes to me, from reputable experts who are giving their take on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC) those 2 quotes are from hard core creationists. if you think creationists are reliable then there are plenty that think ID is science and that genesis can be proven. do you really want to go down that road??? those examples of shameless cherry picking and quote mining. John.r.r (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC) John.r.r (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC) John.r.r, why would we care if someone is a creationist, an atheist, or something else? Remember, we're not supposed to take sides on these topics. Are you having trouble with not taking a side on this issue? Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC) my point is that many are not TRULY seeking reliable sources, simply sources that agree with their view. they take partial quotes from creationists and use those to promote your agenda. if a source is reliable then everything they say should be able to be used in the article. but what i see here is NOT searching for reliable source but sources that agree with what the editer wants to promote. it is so, so evident that in a way it is good. because most people will see how biased the article is and will actually NOT accept it as accurate and go to another source to get accurate info. of course it makes wiki look bad. John.r.r (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Are you here to contribute to Wikipedia, or to right great wrongs? This comment from your talk page "Well, I think it make me feel great if I could change an injustice." regarding this article would indicate the latter. Please advise. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) And for God's sake, please stop putting your signature on a separate line. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 20:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC) just getting used to the editing. i thought you were supposed to give newbies some slack. I dont want to 'right great wrongs' I just would like accurate info to be available to people using wiki. Just bothers me when a young person could be misled by inaccuracies as I was. But like I said maybe the bias is a good thing teaching young people not to trust wiki. Even your founder said not to trust it. you remember that??? John.r.r (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Bias in favor of the scientific consensus is the proper bias for a mainstream encyclopedia. On Conservapedia the bias is very much against the scientific consensus and in favor of an hypothesis which is a best not well worked out and more probably just unworkable. As said before, check with the biology departments of top 100 US universities what they teach in respect to evolution, creationism and intelligent design. What does not fly with those 100 departments does not fly here either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Tgeorgescu No, no, bias for any side is bad. That's not NPOV. A bias for ANYTHING other than honest reporting would mean Wikipedia content systematically could not be trusted, which ultimately does no one any good. Not that the article isn't irretrievably biased mess now, but let's not pretend that's a Good Thing. Wiki would hopefully present all significant views, honestly, in due weight, with supporting cites to show where they come from, and not favor anyone or be a partisan advocate. The marketplace has professionals for that as well as MSNBC or Fox or The Daily Mail ... Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) John.r.r re your reliable source remarks "many are not TRULY seeking reliable sources, simply sources that agree with their view" yes, at a low level it's psych 101 folks hear/receive supportive items better; it sometimes goes further into abuses of 'cherry hunting', 'fake cites', 'goose chases', and 'pushing works' ... "if a source is reliable then everything they say should be able to be used" no, a source being RS is decided in the context of what the cite is about, and is it verifiable (as in can get it from library) -- it's not a judgement that the person knows all and is trusted. For example, someone in Democratic party could be a RS on DNC party position, but is not a proper RS for the Republican position. Unheatedly, if there are different POVs, each has a perspective the others simply do not know. Ideally we can get a fairly disinterested third party and variety of sources in academic books, or media sources more interested in sensationalizing the positions than in either side winning. Meh, and if it helps any this is mild compared to the ranting for say game consoles or other topics with stronger feelings or less adult editors. cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) dave souza - ??? What article purpose are you bringing the Johnson 2006 material for ? If this is to be put in, please say where/how. If this is a cite for something else please say what that is. If this is to say that within ID it's not always defined the way we have it, then say/ask what next. Cheers; Markbassett (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC) These sources are primary sources for "while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[9]" which we were discussing above, they're cited in the article to a secondary source: Giberson, Karl W. (April 21, 2014). "My Debate With an 'Intelligent Design' Theorist". That's covered in the lead, it would be worthwhile integrating the detail into the Scientific criticism section. . dave souza, talk 06:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) It is the task of anyone wanting to change the article to make a proposal with sources that satisfy WP:RS. The comments a little above with "No, no, bias for any side is bad" indicate a misunderstanding of WP:FRINGE and WP:ABIAS. The latter is a tongue-in-cheek essay pointing out the consequences of the policy and guideline pages. Anyone thinking WP:ABIAS is "bias" is wasting their time at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Johnuniq I suggest you read the WP:NPOV more closely, particularly around the proportionate and accurate portrayal of views. If there is a significant view here, and we have noted proponents on both sides and significant polls saying it is, it is supposed to be portrayed without editorializing as whatever it is, a factual reporting of who does what or what is in print -- at the extremes it articles should follow fringe guidelines, though this may not be a fringe view by population. Anyway, NPOV is something the article struggles with, particularly the lead. The article just does not seem able to avoid cherry picking what to say and sticking in vague slurs or counters to the advocates of one side and portraying that one side never has anything that's valid has been stated in TALK as a goal. "we cannot let them have any credibility" "I hate those IDiots", "slamming he lid, flushing twice..." etcetera. 75.93.60.210 (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC) 75.93.60.210 I agree with your suggestions for changing the first sentence. John.r.r (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) IP's argument mistakes WP:NPOV for giving equal weight (false balance). There is nothing fringe with the design argument philosophically or theologically. It only is WP:FRINGE/PS when presented as science. Wikipedia is very much biased in favor of heliocentrism and presents geocentrism as hopelessly flawed. Why? Because virtually all scientists worth their salt agree with heliocentrism. The same applies to evolution, it is presented as fact because the National Academy of Sciences stated in its own voice that it is one of the most securely established scientific facts. If we would teach the controversy in respect to ID, then articles about the planets of our Solar System should have qualifiers that the rejection of geocentrism is not beyond reasonable doubt. Or then we should give equal weight to flat Earth or to the viewpoint that silicon is a gas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Also, astrology has a large followership, but that does not make it science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC) IP 75.93.60.210 was me, but I was only speaking to NPOV and due weight. Show what is, in due weight, and skip the editorializing inserts or censoring. Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Tgeorgescu A couple things The thread is Souza's re 2006 interviews which are ones NOT claiming to be a theory, so we're not talking claims to science at this time, we're talking the interview material. WP:WEIGHT presentation of topics in proportion to their prominence for the 2006 material at about the third-level subsection level seems about right, but not in Scientific Criticism. WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY continue as confusions and as issues - and as fundamental principles are just Good Things to Keep In Mind and TALK on for this article. Pragmatically, if an article is not accurately portraying the positions in print in due weight and instead inserting editorializing, cherry-picking cites, or giving TALK rationales (WP:OR) instead of cites ... Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC) dave souza - I think about third-level importance is right, if included at all, but Scientific Criticism is not the right section as (a) Johnson qualifications for fitting under 'criticism' or as 'scientific' seem questionable and (b) the section is talking critiques based on theory claims and Johnson saying not-a-theory wasn't being made as part of that discussion plus is a mismatch to the scientific criticism against theory claims. You'd be left feeling 'it's not a theory so this criticism isn't valid' by the inappropriate juxtaposition of the interview out of it's proper context. I'd think a more appropriate placement for Johnson is within the Movement section that he's part of, at his name or the paragraph below it about adherents conflicting statements about ID. Though the prominence of this seems perhaps more suited to lower level in Movement like under the Religion and Leading Proponents or just not including as two other options. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC) How many times do we have to explain that Intelligent Design is not science, not scientific, and not a scientific theory? Can we please close this thread? ldvhl (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Agreed. The discussion now is just restating and rewording what has gone before. Please, close the thread and let's all move on. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 16:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Alrighty. --Ashenai (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)