Talk:Intelligent design movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read before starting
Welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design movement article. This article seeks to present an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Common objections raised often by new arrivals at ID related articles are that they present ID in an unsympathetic light, that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Undue weight, and the contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of this and other ID-related articles, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT

Contents

[edit] Archives

  • /Archive 1 (June 2005 - November 2005) Artcle split, NPOV


[edit] Hm

This article is way too long. Does anybody with more idea of what is and is not important want to chop it down a little... lot? Alister Namarra 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I think we could create articles for those legal cases and controversies that are significant enough to warrant, and pare down mention of those sections to an overview or summary. FeloniousMonk 19:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I've moved much the long-ish content to a subarticle, Intelligent design in politics. FeloniousMonk 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Good call, this improves the article.--Gandalf2000 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Any other suggestions for moves? FeloniousMonk 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say just keep an eye on it (which I know you do) and whatever section gathers enough information to become its own article. Kind of a natural selection process....--Gandalf2000 05:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The intellectual right weighs in against ID

FM suggested on the intelligent design talk page that the right place for items like Pat Robertson's recent outburst is here rather than there. I note that George Will and Charles Krauthammer have recently published columns critical of ID, and leave pointers here for what they are worth. I don't know if they merit inclusion in the article in any way, especially given the current length of the article, but it seems that this is a possibly significant development. Bill Jefferys 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology Class

I'm not active at this page, but I assume that something like this definitely belongs on this page, and is best placed somewhere in the higher education subsection? -Parallel or Together? 10:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important. Alister Namarra 03:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted content (in context)

[edit] 2005 University of California at Berkeley controversy

In October 2005, the University of California at Berkeley was sued for running a website for school teachers called Understanding Evolution. The lawsuit has been brought by Jeanne Caldwell, whose husband, Larry Caldwell, is the founder of an anti-evolution group called Quality Science Education for All. The Caldwells argue that Berkeley was "taking a position on evolution and attempting to persuade minor students to accept that position." Michael R. Smith, the assistant chancellor for legal affairs at Berkeley, said that the university would defend the lawsuit "with vigor and enthusiasm."

The suit is about this University of California at Berkeley page pointing to this National Center for Science Education page which contains statements from these religious organizations:

  • American Jewish Congress
  • American Scientific Affiliation
  • Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
  • Central Conference Of American Rabbis
  • Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
  • General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (2002) *
  • The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
  • Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
  • The Lutheran World Federation
  • Roman Catholic Church (1981)
  • Roman Catholic Church (1996) *
  • Unitarian Universalist Association (1977)
  • Unitarian Universalist Association (1982)
  • United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
  • United Methodist Church
  • United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1982)
  • United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1983)

"In an interview with Higher Ed, an online news source, Larry Caldwell said links to religious organizations on the website indicate that UCB strayed into religion since the listed religious groups stated that evolution and religion were not necessarily incompatible." [1]

" “In this government-funded Web site, the same people who so loudly proclaim that they oppose discussion of religion in biology are advocating ‘teaching strategies’ in science classrooms to convert students to government-endorsed religious beliefs,” said attorney Larry Caldwell, president of Quality Science Education for All and husband of the defendant Jeanne. Larry Caldwell is co-counsel with PJI in the suit." [2]

[edit] comments

I disagree with the alteration. WAS 4.250 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Leonard : Why is this here

What exactly is the point of including this? It seems to have nothing to do with the movement and everything to do with some guy and his PhD school playing politics over his thesis. If someone has a convincing reason to include this let me know or I'll remove in a few days. -- Jbamb 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I've yet once again had to restore this article to categories that are necessary for a complete list of topic within the category. ID is viewed as pseudoscience by the scientific community and the courts, and is creationism by definition, something now recognized by a court and long argued by the ID observers and the scientific community. These facts are well-supported and not in contention.

Despite the well-meaning but misinformed campaign to remove ID from the pseudoscience category under the pretense that pseudoscience is a subcategory of creationism, the fact remains that readers browsing by category will be short-changed under this organizational schema. Navigating by category, they will not see that ID is considered pseudosciences, it being absent in the category since readers are left to infer that it belongs there as part of the creationism category. Readers would somehow have to infer that pseudoscience is a subcategory of creationism, something that does not necessarily logically follow. Furthermore, WP:CG does not expressly forbid the article existing in both categories. Indeed, it provides several categorization schema in which it could. FeloniousMonk 16:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Deutsch ID advocacy

I'm not sure where to put this but under the "Intelligent design movement in the public arena" heading should the attempts within NASA to promote ID by George Deutsch be included? I am very new to Wiki and I'm reluctant to start editing major entries such as this one on the Intelligent Design Movement. Mr Christopher 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have some cites to articles or good quotes? He seems notable enough, but the extent of his advocacy and it's impact are probably the determining factors for inclusion. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Felonious Monk, from the NY Times as quoted in the George Deutsch Wiki article:

"It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator... This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most"

My initial comments about him "promoting" ID may be imperfect. Perhaps his behaviour is more consistant with one who is defending ID. Although his ID contribution appears limited the fact that he is a Bush appointee to NASA and his attempts to censor/filter NASA scientists on this subject are well documented seems noteworthy to me. It rings of "teaching the controversy as well". But it may belong in a different article. Mr Christopher 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the NYT article: [3] (login req) Since that article Texas A & M has confirmed that Deutsch did not graduate from there, meaning he faked his resume to get the job. Deutsche has since resigned from NASA.[4] (login req) So it's another pro-ID scandal revolving around inflated credentials and claims. Now whether to list it here or not. FeloniousMonk 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory

Link...

Please see Project Steve. 733 scientists named Steve have voiced their support. I think it's safe to say that a supermajority supports evolution.
Note also that the DI's list contains signatures from just 154 biologists. Chemists and physicists really have no expertise on the subject, and are in effect laymen.
Finally, note that the DI is considering creating a website (www.dissentfromdarwin.org) to host the list. Would you dare to guess how many ID websites are actually hosted or maintained by a small number of people? While a google search may yield a large number of hits, when searching for intelligent design, the fact is that very little support for it exists. And it seems that the little support that does exist is continually trying to appear bigger. -- Ec5618 08:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, note the breathtaking dishonesty of the actual question asked versus the creationist interpretation. The statement was: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Most, if not all, scientists agree with the idea of being skeptical about ANY claim. The trouble is the singling out of evolutionary theory. How did they make the leap of being 'skeptical' to 'dissent'? -- Tenshu 14:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID and Creationism

ID is a form of neo-creationism. True or false? I edited Intelligent Design's intro, adding what I cut from Intelligent design movement. I figure if the guys there delete that change, this is means its common knowledge that ID is not neo-creationist. But if they let it stand long enough, we should undo the cut here. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) FeloniousMonk 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
NO DEAL Not fair because "Intelligent Design" page was protected because of objections to Ed Poor's edits- ie it appears to stand by default is actually due to its author Ed Poor.
DELETE Neo-Creationism as a pejorative description It appears that neo-creationism is a pejorative term coined by evolutionists to tar Intelligent Design with the tag "creationism." Apprently it is never used favorably by ID practioners of themselves. e.g. it is not mentioned at ISCID.org. It's only use at uncommondescent.com is in one quote of Miller's. The onlyl occurrence at IDthefuture.com is to the book Traipsing into Evolution on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and its use there by evolutionists against ID. Creation Science seeks to compare empirical evidence with the Bible. Intelligent Design only pressupposes that intelligent causes exist and examines empirical evidence for evidence of intelligence vs a closed system of natural causes.

e.g., in arn.org it occurs in "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" section IV Critical Response "Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neo-Creationism, Massimo Pigliucci." Recommend DELETE "neo-creationism" as a descriptive term for ID and only mention its use as a pejorative term. DLH 12:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a widely used term that is well-supported. That ID is creationist is established. That is it different from other forms of creationism is established. This different form of creationism has been termed neo-creationist. Simple enough. Guettarda 13:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Guettrada

Check Yahoo for "neo-creationism" vs "Intelligent Design". The ratio is 0.03%. That is not "well established." Its is derogatory term used by critics and rejected by Intelligent Design practioners. Decribing ID as "neo-creationism" is thus a deliberatelyl provocative action directly at odds with NPOV. DLH 02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should say then that ID opponents characterize ID as "neo-creationist" and that ID supporters disagree with that characterization. Just as Evolution opponents label Evolution supporters as "Evolutionists" while the latter frequently object to this label. --Uncle Ed 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Just as certain conservatives reject being labled [Right-wing_politics|right-wing]], right-wing is no less apt a description. Whether any particular group rejects being characterized or described is largely irrelevant as to the accuracy of the description. FeloniousMonk 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Using proper search terms and operators, we see your numbers here are faulty: "neo-creationism" + "intelligent design": 781 hits on Google, "neocreationism" + "intelligent design": 3,790 hits on Google. All of which is quite beside the point as long as we can attribute the use of the term and concept to parties significant to the topic, which we can: Pigliucci:[5], Matt Young: [6], Henry Morris: [7], NCSE: [8], and so on..., then the numbers are not the issue here. FeloniousMonk 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with DLH that describing ID as "neo-creationism" is a provocative action directly at odds with NPOV. The term is not accurate and is not in common use. Schlafly 17:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You're both mistaken then. WP:NPOV clearly states that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." Since that intelligent design is viewed by significant players in the controvery as a form of creationism, neocreationism, like Pigliucci[9], Young [10], Morris[11], and the NCSE [12], including mention of it in the article is perfectly inline with the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Concur with FM, and with Guettarda, above - there is nothing anti-NPOV about accuracy. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ID POV is that it is NOT Creationism

FeloniousMonk

"Creationism by Definition" is the perspective of those who oppose ID. The ID community strongly disputes that categorization. e.g., See:

"3 The Charge of Creationism Despite intelligent design’s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a maneuver to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed. . . . In either case, however, creationism presupposes that the world came into being through a creative power separate from the world. Intelligent design, by contrast, places no such requirement on any designing intelligence responsible for cosmological fine-tuning or biological complexity. It simply argues that certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause. But the nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview." [http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design] Sect 3 "The Charge of Creationism" p 3 and following.

"The references to “creation” and “creation science” in the first two passages quoted above by Barbara Forrest (i.e., the FTE planning document and the affidavit by Dean Kenyon) are not referring to a religious doctrine of creation in which God brings the world into being but rather to a generic intelligence capable of bringing about biological complexity. Precisely because these senses of the term creation are so distinct, “intelligent design” rather than “creationism” is now the preferred way to speak about a science of biology in which intelligence plays a key role. Forrest, to be sure, insists on referring to intelligent design as a form of creationism, but this is simply to discredit intelligent design, not to clarify the underlying issues." [http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Rebuttal_Dembski.pdf Dembski Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses], 2.2 ID and Creationism p 8. and following. etc.

Thus your categorization is explicitly POV and breaches Wiki NPOV policy. See: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." You have no right to "assert" this POV position. We need to state both sides in an objective way.DLH 02:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This point has already been discussed many times and settled. Please read Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive6#ID in relation to Bible-based creationism, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 11#What makes ID different than creationism, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 11#Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 12#Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism?, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive 16#ID not Creationism? It's safe to say that this is flogging a dead horse. BTW, any notion that argues that the universe was "designed" is by definition a form of creationism. FeloniousMonk 05:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, they can claim ID isn't creationism all they want, doing so is a documented part of their strategy after all, but they can't so easily explain away the fact that a significant of element ID evolved from creation science. Dembski's rebutal was not compelling and a red herring here; Judge Jones ultimately ruled in Kitzmiller:"ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Clearly the judge found claims similar to Dembski's ran counter to the hard evidence. In trial evidence was introduced that Of Pandas and People, the main ID textbook, was in draft stage in 1987 when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision made teach "creation science" unconstitutional. Evidence and testimony in Kitzmiller show that early drafts of Pandas show that it was a run of the mill creation science book, using the word "creation" and cognates throughout. Drafts made after the Edwards decision show that the authors simply substituted the term "intelligent design" for "creation." [13] Keeping up the ruse that ID is not creationism has got to be difficult for ID proponents considering the facts about it's origins. It's an uphill battle that I do not envy, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should help them either. FeloniousMonk 06:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID vs Neo-Creationism Change

Changes in Bold "The intelligent design movement is a campaign originating in the United States that calls for broad social, academic and political changes derived from the notion of "intelligent design" (ID). Critics claim it is a form of neo-creationism which ID disputes."

  • Changed the summary to change "based" to "originating" as the movement is now international.
  • For NPOV, changed from "neo-creationism" to:

Critics claim it is a form of neo-creationism which ID disputes." i.e., Since this "neo-creationism" was clearly described as provocative, this change is important to show both sides of the issue. Added (ID) as abbreviation to compact discussion. DLH 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your other edits, which need to be discussed first, and I've moved neo-creationism out of the intro and attributed the opposing viewpoints, while noting what the Kitzmiller ruling says on the matter. FeloniousMonk 05:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neocreationism is a term that was coined to describe the DI/ID movement (although it has been applied to others since). "Critics claim it is a form of neo-creationism which ID disputes" is an inaccurate statement. You can argue that Forrest, Scott, Pennock, etc., are wrong, and that either ID is not different enough from old-school creationism to warrant a new name, but you can't argue that ID isn't neocreationism, because pretty much by definition it is. Guettarda 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Critics claim it is a form of neo-creationism which ID disputes" is an accurate statement. I'd also like to see an honest representation of the viewpoints, not just the anti-ID one.
Diggnate 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issue with Johnson quote

The following statement is made about Johnson: "Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design recognized "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."

Yet the only support for it is this: "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed."

Those are clearly not the same thing. Johnson does not want people confusing the ID arguments with the Christian evangelical message. He is calling ID proponents not to confuse their Christian evangelism with the philosophical issue of ID by speaking uncarefully and thus misrepresenting both the Christian gospel and the ID arguments. The fact that the document this quote is pulled from is called "Keeping the Darwinists Honest" shows that transparency is what he thinks he is going for, not obfuscation. Calling this an explicit call for obfuscation tars him with a label that seems unwarranted given that there's a perfectly reasonable way of taking his statement that involves no such thing. Thus this statement is clearly POV.

As is the case with all of the Wikipedia entries on ID, this relies on a recurring fallacy. Someone's motivations for wanting others to believe an argument are not equivalent to the premises of the argument. ID arguments are classic philosophical arguments going back at least to Plato, and they do not rely on religious premises. The arguments, then, are not packagings of the Christian message. Some people might be motivated by religious reasons to promote the arguments, but the arguments do not rely on religious premises, and the conclusions need not involve any particular religious viewpoint. (Witness Antony Flew's recent non-religious endorsement of cosmological ID.)

Parableman 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

" Johnson does not want people confusing the ID arguments with the Christian evangelical message. He is calling ID proponents not to confuse their Christian evangelism with the philosophical issue of ID by speaking uncarefully and thus misrepresenting both the Christian gospel and the ID arguments." Yes, that's what Johnson tries to get across in his message, but when taken in the light of all his other statements stating ID is the means to a religious renewal of our culture, of which there are many examples I can cite, his message becomes clearly more disengenuous spin. Wikipedia is not here to provide the Discovery Insitute another channel for promoting its messgae. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Johnson obviously does want culture to be more in line with Christian principles, as any good Christian would. If it's bad for society to be a certain way, then of course he would want that. If convincing people that there's a designer who has good purposes for the world will help move people along to Christianity, then he will do that. But that's irrelevant to this issue. This issue is about whether the ID arguments are identical with the Christian message, and the answer to that is obviously no. Someone might be convinced to accept racism as bad because they are convinced of Christianity, but that doesn't mean the wrongness of racism is equivalent with Christianity. So why confuse the ID argument with the Christian message? It's the same sort of error. Being convinced that someone moved toward one thing will be more open to another is a very common social strategy, and the tool toward getting someone toward the first thing is not to be confused with the second thing. Johnson rightly doesn't want those things confused. You seem to want them confused, and it's pretty sad to see that POV conveyed in a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. Parableman 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an issue of what the definition of Intelligent design is. It's not the simply a argument from design nor teleology, it's a coordinate protocal developed by a movement meant to advance an agenda. People may wish that it wasn't that way, they may believe that the conflation of ID with Christianity is not what they would like for the phrase "intelligent design", but the fact remains that as a popular concept, intelligent design is as the article here on Wikipedia describes it and as the judge in the Dover Panda Case ruled. It's not just a philosophical statement. --ScienceApologist 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Simply repeating the fallacy doesn't make it any more true. A person's motivation for giving an argument is not the argument. Some people try to convince people that the standard evolutionary account is true because they are atheists and want to convert people to atheism. That doesn't mean the standard evolutionary account is atheism or a political movement to make people atheists. So too the intelligent design arguments are not a political or religious movement. It happens that a religiously motivated political movement supports the arguments, but the arguments have been around long before that group, and the arguments stand or fall completely independently of the motivations of that group. What this entry does is confuse the motivations of the movement with the content of the movement's basic claim, and that is intellectually dishonest.Parableman 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Parableman here. Whoever said "Johnson explicitly calls" is distorting what Johnson said. If Johnson is explicitly calling for something, then just put in the explicit quote. The actual Johnson quote is saying something quite different. There is no need to put words in Johnson's mouth. Roger 04:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design Template

Seems rather unnecessary to me and now the front page looks cluttered. ID is a subcategory in Creationism - does it really need its own template too? --Jmast7 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems

This is a long article, and it is not clear that a separate article is needed when there is already an article on Intelligent design.

The article starts by stating various alleged beliefs and purposes of those in the "intelligent design movement". These are unsourced and inaccurate. For example, it cites "the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high schools", but I thought that Discovery Institute is actually against that. There is a footnote to the Discovery Institute for some beliefs, but that page does not back up what was said.

And that is just some of the problems with the first paragraph.

I realize that this page is maintained by evolutionists who want to attack creationists in any way they can, but this is ridiculous. Philip Johnson and others are on the record with their views. The article can quote them for their beliefs. Better yet, it can just refer to Wiki articles on them. It is not helpful to have their beliefs misstated by folks who are opposed to the movement.

I am not in the movement either, and I don't object to criticizing the movement, but it should describe beliefs and goals as the adherents of the movement have stated them. Roger 07:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When I look at [14], I get the impression that the Discovery Institute supports teaching Intelligent Design in schools. I have no idea, in fact, where you got the idea that they might not desire that. And since most, if not all, of the main proponents of Intelligent Design are religious, we should mention that. Thus, your issue with the first paragraph is based on nothing, as far as I can tell.
And your suggestion that "this page is maintained by evolutionists who want to attack creationists" is also quite odd, as this page is frequented by people of any creed. (Also note that 'evolutionists' is not a word, and it effectively shows your bias.)
"It is not helpful to have their beliefs misstated by folks who are opposed to the movement." I would agree. Are you saying this is happening? Where? How? How do you propose we fix it? -- Ec5618 08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You get the wrong impression. The article you cite says, "As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to mandate or require the teaching the theory of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education." So I think that it is incorrect to say that DI is lobbying for the teaching of ID.
The Wiki article itself later says, "the Discovery Institute repositioned itself for tactical reasons against the teaching of intelligent design favoring a Teach the Controversy strategy." Note that this statement also has POV problems, because it suggests that DI is not sincere in its positions. It would be like saying, "Hillary Clinton supports the Iraq War for tactical political reasons, fearing that the war will be popular with voters". It might be true, but she would deny it. An encyclopedia should stick to the facts. I want to know mainly what the ID advocates say, and some of the critics says. I do not want to know some anonymous Wiki writer's unsupported opinion of why the advocates say what they say.
The word "evolutionist" is listed in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries. Roger 16:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
DI only started opposing pushing the teaching of ID after it got its butt handed to it in the Kitzmiller case. However, lesser lights, such as the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio are still pushing for mandatory teaching of ID, albeit in a more subtle way. In fact in July 2006, supported by Intelligent Design Network of Ohio, a member of the Ohio Board of Education, floated a proposal that would open the way for teaching ID in schools by providing teachers with a template they could follow in order to incorporate "different points of view, to different lines of evidence, to different interpretations of the evidence". Of course, the only competitors to evolution are Creationism, and its offspring, intelligent design.
In re, "The Wiki article itself later says, "the Discovery Institute repositioned itself for tactical reasons against the teaching of intelligent design favoring a Teach the Controversy strategy." Note that this statement also has POV problems, because it suggests that DI is not sincere in its positions." That's correct -- the DI is as sincere as was Joe Isuzu. Shifting times, shifting realities call for shifting tactics, even if, like the Biblical Creation story, it leads to contradictions. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for your first "point", yes this separate article is necessary due to size guidelines on articles, and because the movement is a full-blown sub-issue. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Here at Wikipedia the 'consensus' (as we might call it) is to refer to "supporters of evolution" (not "evolutionists"). Supporters of Creationism on the other hand may be called "Creationists". --Uncle Ed 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Gee, Ed, I'm glad you didn't take a page from Coulter and say godless, liberal Darwinists. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"Evolutionist" is used as an epithet by opponents of evolution. Hence the problem. AFAIK, "creationist" is not considered an epithet. Am I mistaken? Guettarda 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"it suggests that DI is not sincere in its positions" They aren't sincere at all; that's the point. They've been demonstrably talking out both sides of their mouths since they started their campaign. And that they are isn't just the opinion of their critics, but is supported by their own statements. Anyone who's read the wedge document objectively knows this. That we haven't just come out and say as much in the article is because we do not want to spoon-feed the readers. But we could, very easily as there's no shortage of sources to support such content. FeloniousMonk 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Your personal opinion about the sincerity of the DI folks is not interesting to anyone. If you have some objective evidence that satisfies Wiki rules, you can put it over on the DI page. Or just refer people to the Wedge document if you think that is so convincing. But this ID Movement article is mainly just a lot of unsourced anti-ID opinions. It is neither objective nor useful. Roger 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And that of course would be your opinion. BTW, Rog, see those little bracketed superscript numbers in the intro? They're called references or footnotes. They're not just random integers buzzzing darkly about the page. •Jim62sch• 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It may indeed be my opinion, but not just my opinion: [15][16] FeloniousMonk 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, FeloniousMonk is not the only one who pretends to have some sort of mind-reading capabilities. There are others who misstate the goals of the Discovery Institute or who claim that it is insincere. Roger 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is a more preferable explanation. (from Evolutionist#Development_of_usage)Unsigned comment left by Ed Poor
Whoever wrote this (please sign, by the way) appears to me to be correct. "Evolutionist" is something of a "code word" for "atheist" and "secular humanist", often spoken with the implicit assumption that the secular-humanist agenda is to kill off religion and everything that "God-fearing people" find most meaningful in the world. ... Kenosis 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I was just using the word "evolutionist" in its ordinary dictionary meaning. Roger 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, (AGF and all that, wot) although a nagging feeling, buzzing darkly in my head, leads me to think you might be being DI-like. •Jim62sch• 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I posted the bullet item above. As indicated, it's from Wikipedia's Evolutionist article (er, I mean Evolutionism which is where the redirect goes). I don't know what FM meant by "RS" but my observation of talk pages is that contributors here regard "evolutionists" as a forbidden epithet. I'd like to see a source for the idea that scientists who support the Theory of Evolution don't want to be called "Evolutionists". Not that I doubt it, of course. --Uncle Ed 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I should think they prefer to be called "scientists" or "biologists". RS is "Reliable Source", but that's not an issue since FM self-reverted. •Jim62sch• 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This pretty much sums it up for me: [17] FeloniousMonk 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that "scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist". A simple google search shows lots of people using those terms in a positive way. OTOH, most of the top hits for "creationist" are using the term as a negative epithet. The word "evolutionist" is in the leading dictionaries, and has been in common usage for over 100 years. I agree with Uncle Ed that the contributors here have an ideological preference, but that just shows their biases. Roger 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree, many more people are willing to use the term "creationist" as a self-identifier. For example, AiG and ICR both identify themselves as "creationist." In contrast, the NCSE and talkorigins.org do not identify as "evolutionist." Personally, I'm not comfortable either word being used outside a context where one is talking people who self-identify in that category. But the difficulties raised by "evolutionist" are much larger than those from "creationist." JoshuaZ 18:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of what you believe, many of us do. Guettarda 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
And you don't? "Debunking the Judicial Supremacists and the Leftist Evolutionists - The blog with Roger's View" FeloniousMonk 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I post my personal opinions on my blog. If you read it, you will find that I am not a proponent of ID or creationism. Here on Wikipedia, I am only advocating that ID be described accurately. Roger 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Very cute blather, Rog. And then there's this classic, "Translation: S.J. Gould was leftist-atheist-evolutionist, so it would be okay to teach his goofy and unscientific ideas."
Nonetheless, ID is described accurately -- as accurately as the ever-shifting presentation of inferred design by the Dembskiites, Beheans and Johnson's Witnesses will allow. •Jim62sch• 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget the transatlantic difference: as I recall, British evolutionary biologists are pretty comfortable with terms like evolutionist, but ID is a US phenomenon and most modern usage of the term in that country is clearly derogatory. Buncha turrists. ..dave souza, talk 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judging Intentions?

I suggest the following statement is unsupportable and should be removed from this article:

"The bulk of the material produced by the intelligent design movement, however, is not intended to be scientific but rather to promote its social and political aims."

Most of the said material is produced by or derived from The Discovery Institute, and the authors indeed do write with the intention that everything be based on science and/or logic. This Wikipedia article has already repeatedly dismissed ID as "pseudoscience" and "creationism," but here the article takes it one (unwarranted) step further by saying that ID proponents DO NOT EVEN INTEND for their writings to be accepted as science. Call me ignorant if you want, but I thought the argument was all about the fact that ID proponents seek for ID to be taken seriously as a branch of science.
As for social and political aims, these were already pointed out adequately in other sections, and it is unreasonable to suppose that, because there are social and political aims (as many people have, including ID opponents), there can be little or no sincere attempt at (intention of) scientific inquiry.
Finally, if the Wikipedia authors want to keep the above statement as is, I wonder how they would feel about adding this implied corollary statement: "Some of the material produced by the intelligent design movement is not motivated by social and political aims but is intended to be purely scientific."

Yes, of course the statement is unsupportable, unless you believe in evolutionist mind-reading. But it is just one minor problem. The article has POV problems from beginning to end. Just look at the first couple of paragraphs which mis-characterizes who the ID folks are, what they do, and what their goals are. Readers will recognize the article as an anti-ID polemic written by people with no respect for the NPOV policy. Roger 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Help me out here. What's an evolutionist?. ... Kenosis 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I just heard Dawkins identify himself as an evolutionist. Look it up. It's in the dictionary. Roger 08:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Dawkins is in the dictionary? •Jim62sch• 19:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Help ME out. What's a creationist? I thought a creationist was a person who believes in a Creator who created the Universe. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with that, but instead argues only that living things were designed.

The definition of creationist, according to dictionary.com, is even more specific than what I just said. Here it is: "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." Most I.D. proponents either do not believe this, or at the least do not argue publicly for taking Genesis 1 literally. It's two giant leaps to go from designer to saying the designer is also the Creator to saying the Creator is the God of the Christian Bible. ID does not make even take a baby step in either direction. I know that many evolutionists are atheists. Therefore, would it not be fair by this same standard to characterize Neo-Darwinian Evolution as merely a form of atheism?

First, sign your posts. Second, see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Third see Teach the controversy and Wedge document. Fourth, see various comments by Behe, Dembski, Johnson etc regarding the link between ID and religion, specifically Christianity. Perhaps then you'll realise that the statement in the article is quite accurate, thank you.
Second, this is utter bullshit, "I know that many evolutionists are atheists". Define many. Show a source not from a creationist/religious/ID source. Also, believe it or not there is a middle ground between theism and atheism, it's called agnosticism. I think you'll find far more sientists fall into that category than are atheists (primarily because it has the merit of being the only "logical" choice of the three). •Jim62sch• 15:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"
Johnson, "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves."
None of those sources say that the ID material is not intended to be scientific. Roger 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, Roger, whatever. Let's play a game -- since you think the ID material is meant to be scientific, you show us how it is. Make sure you go through this site with and tell us what the percentage of true science is to PR and misdirection. •Jim62sch• 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No, not my game. I will concede that much of what is on that web site is not scientific, in my personal opinion. I haven't looked at enough to give a percentage. But I am not a mindreader, and I don't know whether it is intended to be scientific or not.
As an analogy, I personally regard astrology as unscientific, but there could be some astrology books that are intended to be scientific, for all I know. Roger 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what's an evolutionist? The guy used the term "evolutionist mind-reading"; I think we deserve a clarification of what he means by the term "evolutionist", or more specifically, "evolutionist mind-reading". ... Kenosis 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at Jim62sch's comments above for examples. He claims to know what I think, and he defends a statement about what the DI folks think. Roger 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, you've got telepathy all sown-up dude, your bailiwick, not mine. As for intent, yes one can judge it -- the court system does it all the time.
BTW, just what does "evolutionist mind-reading" mean? •Jim62sch• 22:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the statement should either be removed or modified. Certainly the statement is unsupported. Simply puttine a "citation needed" next to it does not do the job. The statement should be removed because until/unless someone can provide a citation from a source within the discovery institute that supports the utterly pov statement. Guettarda said "needs a citation, certainly, but it's factual". Why? because you say so? We can't put things on the wikipedia page that are unsupported by real facts, not just perceived facts.
One more thing I just noticed right under this text box. Wikipedia requires that all encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I don't think an uncited, unverfied statement like this belongs on this page. Diggnate 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Kenosis, I think "evolutionist" (when they're civil enough to spell it with an o instead of an i, that is) means "enemy", and any perceived or imagined attributes of the "enemy" (such as atheism or anti-Christianity) are therefore categorically considered attributes of "evolutionists". After all, it's not like there's even a real conflict between design and evolution (see theistic evolution for the obvious, obvious, obvious solution that no one in America understands). The entire thing in its faux-Gordian-knot "complexity" is a political ploy manufactured from whole cloth. Therefore the terms can be defined to mean whatever the principals want them to mean.
Though I do find it amusing to contemplate what would happen if the same tactic were applied to another highly-accepted scientific theory. We could instead be seeing scientists scoffed at and dismissed as "Round Earthers" (or perhaps "Roundists"?) and much sober discussion amongst immaculately-coiffed talking heads about the "growing controversy" over the Round-Earth concept - which we will regularly be reminded is ONLY A THEORY!!!  ;) Kasreyn 05:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Roger, that sentence should be removed. Until evidence can be given to support such a wild assertion it should be removed.Bagginator 03:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design on the Web

I see a whole new section has been added titled "Intelligent design on the Web". It is largely another diatribe against the Wedge Document. There is a whole WP article on that subject, as well as other descriptions. There is even a section on the Wedge earlier in this article. This seems to be a major preoccupation of the anti-ID WP editors.

Thanks for putting in the reference to the web page with the email address to complain about the biased nature of the entries on intelligent design. I agree that the article is biased from beginning to end, and I sent in my complaint. Roger 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Roger that address is not to handle content problems. Your email will be ignored. Content problems stay on talk pages. Now, what precisely is your complaint about this article? JoshuaZ 02:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material on ID in the UK

As per the discussion at intelligent design I've added the material on creationism in the UK here. I think it's good material but I'm not sure if it's well-placed at the moment. I think that if we can find more evidence of pro ID teaching in other countries it might be worth its own section, and its interesting to note here how categorical the government was in asserting that ID was neo-creationism and unscientific. --Davril2020 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start. I just started following this development and it's also interesting to note they use the same arguments and materials as the Discovery Institute. Have you had a chance to read much of the Truth In Science web site? You'd think they were the UK version of the DI. Same sneaky, wedge type tactics. The name itself is pretty funny when you read what they're selling. Most of their board members are clergy or in non-scientific fields. Mr Christopher 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This group is very dependent on the DI and it appears that their material is more or less taken directly from them. In their weblinks they describe the DI as "the institutional home of the Intelligent Design movement." --Davril2020 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EIntelligent_design_movement_65ec.html"