Talk:Intelligent design/Archive32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Quotations marks and footnotes

  1. Before commenting on any part of the article, please make sure it is not clearly a direct quote. Quotes are indicated by quotation marks and a footnote. We cannot, no matter how much the language or the meaning of the quote might rile someone, change the quote.


Agreed. The word theory in the use of everyday language is on par and associated with the discussions about god and the world and each one`s personal interpretation of some spiritual texts or meanings. Hardly anyone outside the scientific community and apparently some scientists, as one can clearly see for instance in I-Designers, don`t know the current concensus on what is concisdered a scientific theory either. However i must point out that i don`t feel to good about the use of the word concept either. Usually a scientific concept is associated with application that is often even exceeding the theoretical stage. That`s my take on it however.Slicky 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletions and Sections

I put this up to discuss reverts, deletions etc:

Introduction: "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]" - that is redundant and not qualitative in any way. The sentence already states that all are affiliated with the Discovery instiute and then quotes the self declared and self portrayed ideas and assements?!! That is just stupid, regardless of whoever contributed that and this someones ideals. This has no place not even in the article, because it doesn`t make any qualitative contribution to the article. SCIENCE IS ABOUT PEER REVIEW and not self declared nobel laureates. May i invite you all to read about crack pot theories: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.htmlSlicky 17:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look up redundant in the dictionary, and then splain to me how the quoted section bears any semblence of similarity to redundancy. Additionally, the section is in the same basic format as any standard intro to any article in which one seeks to note who the proponent of an idea is and what the idea is. For example, "Homer Cretin, the leading proponent of the law of reciprocal stupidity, has noted that his theory best explains how conversations on certain subjects tend to display infinite regression driven by the input of the LCD". •Jim62sch• 12:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well yeah that`s just as stupid. When i came to WP than mostly because i expect to get a general worldwide concensus of a topic of outspoken critics and advocates who have hallmarked their way into the history books through remarkable endavour. But that of course excludes the self nobel price nomination remarks of the theoreticaians themselves. Of course if you are keen on getting spoonfed such notions then be it as it may, i doubt that the majority of the people who come to this platform feel the same about that as you do. If you still don`t understand what i mean: I am a person who want`s to make up his own mind about what is and what isn`t the best as this is just too often relative, especially when the topic itself cannot be defined in absolutes and/or (math.) uniqueness. The only way i can make sense out of this is that we have two entirely different perspectives, mine is purely scientific one.Slicky 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
First, you never answered the redundancy question, second, how is anyone being spoonfed, third you missed my point entirely, fourth there's a very real lack of coherency in what you wrote, so you might want to try it again. Finally, this, "...two entirely different perspectives, mine is purely scientific one", is simply absurd and really requires amplification and a reference to supporting examples. •Jim62sch• 11:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issue

It's not what you think, but it is Yet Another Complaint About The Summary. Here's the blurb "Its leading proponents". the bolded word bothers me. How can we objectively determine who the leading proponents are? i kan reed 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By the amount of publications on a specific subject (be it book, interview, paper). Bahe has published many books arguing for irreducible complexity, has had many debates, defended it in the Dover trial, etc etc. Same thing with other general ID concepts. Bahe, Dembski, Johnson have all published the most books arguing for the validity of ID (on different subjects). The have been the most vocal on the subject. In addition, all three were planned to be expert witnesses for the defense during the Dover trial, but Dembski and Johnson dropped out. ID is a pretty small movement being led from primarily one location (DI) and it's faily easy to pinpoint leading proponents. Just go to the Discovery Institute website and check the fellow list for the Center of Science and Culture.--Roland Deschain 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The DI-affiliated proposed experts in KvD were William Dembski ($200/hr.), Michael Behe ($100/hr.), Scott Minnich ($100/hr.), John Angus Campbell ($100/hr.), and Stephen C. Meyer as a rebuttal expert. Only Behe and Minnich actually gave testimony at trial; all the others were withdrawn. Phillip Johnson was never listed as an expert or rebuttal expert in the case. --Wesley R. Elsberry 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As discussed here /Archive26, here /Archive27#Support_among_scientists, and here /Archive29#Are_all_leading_ID_proponents_affiliated_with_Discovery_Institute? previously, the criteria for "leading proponents" are those who have written the most prominent intellgent design books, quoted most often by the press as significant ID players, called as expert witnesses in ID-related litigation, and listed by observers of ID as leaders of the movement. The most significant proponents are widely accepted to be Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Wells, Pearcey, and maybe Berlinski, Gonzalez, Witt and Thaxton. It just so happens all are staff or fellows of the Discovery Insitute. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been talked, researched, talked again, researched again, over and over. Each time we go over the research, somewhat amazingly, it turns out to be like a cell. There's a cell wall (DI affiliation) and the cytoplasm and nucleus within. All of the leading proponents continue to be in the cytoplasm or nucleus. In one very extended talk-page discussion, an offer was made to cite three leading proponents outside the cell, then two, then finally one. Best offers were George W. Bush, and others that plainly are not leading proponents, but outside commentators. I suppose we can now add Ann Coulter to the list of visible commentators, but she had to go into the cell to get her info. It's amazing stuff going on here; and the WP article fairly and accurately represents what's going on. ... Kenosis 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not denying any of that. My only concern is that the word "leading" conveys an opinion. I mean you can say "most published books" but that's POV too, because what's the over/under limit there? 100000? 1000? 10? i kan reed 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You are talking about absolutes, which is kind of useless. There is no predifined value at which point one becomes a leading proponent (x # of interviews, y # of books, z # of movies, etc etc). Rather, it's relative. Bahe, relative to all other people on this world, has published more (books, interviews, debates, movies, court cases) argueing for irreducible complexity. Same thing with Dembski and his research. A similar situation with the other leading proponents of ID. Notice that this defenition is not based on opinion. It can easily be shown that Bahe indeed has the most publications for IC, Dembski has the most publications for his work, and the Discovery Institue has the most publications argueing for ID.--Roland Deschain 22:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd thought it was more a question of leaders and followers. For example, the Muslim creationist chappie I referred to a while back was calling on other Muslims to support ID as presented by the DI, not presenting his own "scientific" ID. ..dave souza, talk 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As I posted below this is circular reasoning. You are defining leading proponents of intelligent design by saying anyone who is a member of the Discovery Institute. There are many proponents of intelligent design who are not associated with the Discovery Institute. Just because 3 examples were asked for and no one bothered to look (Including apparantly Kenosis) or he would have discovered that Dennis Wagner is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, Jed Macosko is also a leading proponent of Intelligent Design and so is Tom Magnuson. But all these examples are only scientists who are leading proponents of Intelligent Design, or philosophers. And there are many more than that. But there are also politicians who are leading proponents of Intelligent Design, like Santorum, who do not belong to the Discovery Institute. Therefore, unless we must insist on circular argument in order to make our point, the statement that all leading proponents of intelligent design are affiliated with the Design Institute is a false one. What do we do? Delete false statements, or leave them be?Bagginator 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Raelism

Can we get a consensus about whether Raelism should be mentioned in the see also section? We regularly get anons adding it. JoshuaZ 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Raelism is a specific form of panspermia. The zoo hypothesis might be more general in regards to this. ID, however, uses the alien spawning argument mostly as a smokescreen. Dembski only mentions the possibility when people challenge him that he is necessarily theistic, and when he does this it seems to be out of the side of his mouth. --ScienceApologist 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the ideas are certainly related, and the Raelians have explicitly supported ID themselves. JoshuaZ 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Editorially, the Raelians are not generally considered to be one of the major proponents of ID. They don't engage in the ID rhetoric and instead latch on to publicity stunts in order to further their agenda. Opportunists like the Raelians, in my opinion, don't deserve to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. To put it another way, if the Raelians started supporting homeopathy, would it be justified to include their advocacy on that page? --ScienceApologist 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
We have an article entitled Smurf Communism. By contrast to something that stupid, just about everything that you could possibly dream of inserting into a wiki is justified--205.188.116.134 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
To make the comparison complete, you don't see Smurf Communism appearing on the Communism page because it's roughly a violation of undue weight. Obviously, however, on the Smurf communism page, mentioning communism itself is not a violation of undue weight. The same principle applies here. There is a one-way street principle to massive encyclopedia projects where even though we can write an article on obscure topics, undue weight lets us exclude the obscure references from the larger, general articles. This is a principle with which some people here at Wikipedia disagree, but it is part of excellent editing and prevents soapboxing and POV-pushing very well. --ScienceApologist 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Change to the Introduction

It states that ID is a concept, but really doesn`t justify to the definition of the term, and I`ll quote here WP "A concept is an abstract idea or a mental symbol, typically associated with a corresponding representation in language or symbology, that denotes all of the objects in a given category or class of entities, interactions, phenomena, or relationships between them. Concepts are abstract in that they omit the differences of the things in their extension, treating them as if they were identical. They are universal in that they apply equally to every thing in their extension. Concepts are also the basic elements of propositions, much the same way a word is the basic semantic element of a sentence."

ID is a religious movement, although not centered around cristianism, as it is caughgt up by various islamic fundamentalists as well, (logically it is way cheaper energetically speaking to hang on a moving train and just push yourself a little bit forward then to get a whole new train running from zero to.... - but that`s just my take). There are no atheists or anti-theists who identify themselves with ID, moreover ID doesn`t suffice the term concept in any way. Wherefore i will change it to religious movement for now, please change it to anything more suitable, except concept. Religion is not a concept either.Slicky 12:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I worded it as spiritual, initially i wanted to write "spiritual/religious" but was hesitant as some ID ppl may disapprove since they are just spiritual but not in any mainstream religion. Also ".....are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own" is in principal the scientific definition of spiritualism.Slicky 12:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ID presents itself as separate from religion. Many of its central arguments have a mathematical or scientific flavour and aim to distinguish themselves from conventional creationism. It's not clear to me that there are no non-religious ID-fans either. For instance, the Raelians (see below) apparently take some ID onboard, and I'd be surprised if there weren't other (more reasonable) non-religious proponents. To this end, your edit is inappropriate (and liable to be slammed from both sides). So I've reverted it for now. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure about the intro's now saying that ID is a spiritual movement. The movement is described in intelligent design movement, whereas this article is supposed to be about the concept/idea/proposition/conjecture the the ID movement is espousing. I'm not sure what was wrong with 'concept'; ID nominally purports to abstract and define features of design (intelligent or otherwise) through other concepts like information and complexity.
I'm thinking that your objection is that these abstractions are all poorly explained, relatively inconsistent, ambiguous, and usually don't stand up to experimental scrutiny. At least, though, ID and its subcomponents have the form of abstractions and concepts, and so in the intro we may justifiably call ID a concept. That the concept lacks explanatory power, testability, and well-definedness is hashed out in the rest of the article.
Some synonyms of 'concept': approach, notion, perception, supposition, view. Of these, I think maybe 'approach to understanding origins and propagation of life' might be quite good. Too long-winded though. I also like 'notion' and 'supposition'. Anyone want to change it back? Tez 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Edit conflict, and already reverted. Tez 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my absence. ID is not science. If you kill someone with a M45 in the name of ID or any other religion this does not make the act scientific! Nor does it make it any more scientific if you dismember the body afterwards and experiment around like various Nazi butchers did, that isn`t science either. Why? Because at those times medical knowledge was far more advanced. The analogy is in exact accordance to what ID does. It butchers around for dogmatic ideas BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE!. Please read the various papers and study the actual scientific fields, so you are not a mere pawn that is incapable to create a opinion first because of the lacking knowledge. I have a problem with calling ID a concept, because it is religion reformulated so as to address those who are interested in science but not enough to actually educate and study a certain scientific discipline. ID is a religious movement or cult, that has not enough members to be considered a church yet. It tries to entangle science and religious the most idiotic and ridiciculous attempt that apparently occurs in each generation anewed. The strict scientific DOGMA and any religious DOGMA is mutually exclusive. Science itself is abstract the practicing of science is individual and dependent upon the subject, but the subject doesn`t alter the scientific dogma, just as a new cult member does not alter the very religion itself. Not that hard to get. Of course the scientific dogma did change over time as science is rational and flexible and what came to be the dominant model is the one of Karl Propper. SO basically that "a scientific statement must be made in a qualitative and quantitative fashion which must be falsifiable. Science is therefore the accumulation of all statements which have been empirically verified".Slicky 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
So to make it crystal clear: ID addresses the scientific interested but generally un(der)educated luring them in religious ideas. Therefore the majority of readers interprets the term concept as the same definition that wikipedia links concept to. Everythign ID borrows are scientific concecepts which have not been invented or conceived by I-Designers. If i kill someone with a technological tool, and not my bare hands, let`s say a rifle it doesn`t make the act of killing any more scientific science i don`t use the body in any fashion that would advance science (moral issues aside), instead why i actually do is skin it color it and fancy myself with it. This is exact analogy to what I-Designers do. In the first step they use science (the rifle) to a certain point (the entry wound) and then create ideas about how death came about and supernatural or at least unexplained forces acting upon it. That is fine unless more advanced scientific knowledge exists, which in fact not only does but goes way, way beyond where I-designers are stuck in, in their infantile vision of their world. So even the entry wound example is quite fitting. Believe me to be even able to read the studies in the molecular biology, molecular genetics fields and so forth it takes already at least a graduate level education. The reason why I-designers are not accepted is not because everything and everyone is a conspiracy, but rather because they do not conribute to science but hang around in what could be considered the middle ages, in comparison to the constant advancements in those rapidly growing fields. ID is exactly as much scientific as the Nazi butchers. Why i mean they did pedantic tests and took notes and whatnot, shouldn`t they be heradled and given credit to as well. No because the too experimented in a fashion that was at least outdated for over 100 years. The first anatomist for instance picked his people which he wanted to study before they were slaughtered in the guillotine. He was given great credit and all, deserved of course since at his time what he made was remarkable. The Nazi butchering came at times where genetics was almost 50 years old. I truly hope that at least some understand why the mere application of science is not automatically science. So for those who still didn`t understood it. If i kill someone with a rifle and don`t really have scientific motivation at heart, nothing scientific will come of it, even though the rifle is a technological tool that can be meticulpously described from fluid combustion to slug spin stabilization and air drag, pertubation (stokes equations). The motivation is one of fear, narcism or mere survival. I-Designers are motivated by finding ignorant people and creating ignorance. It is not even false enough to be pseudoscience - it is a religion, and religion handles on it`s own how much of scientific gadgetry (that includes math) they allow their dear members to posess!Slicky 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You're really preaching to the choir, my friend. Most of the editors here are very well-educated about precisely what science, and the scientific method, entail.
That being said, I have to defend the description of ID as a "concept". You point out that ID is the creationism wolf in the sheep's clothing of science, and I agree that that is the intention of the DI kooks attempting to push this nonsense into science classrooms. But, Intelligent Design is an overall concept which has held a great deal of influence over human affairs since time immemorial. While there are many people who fail to express outspoken belief in favor of it, there are few who go so far as to explicitly deny the possibility. (In more concise terms: even though most agnostics are mistakenly thought to be atheists, agnostics still outnumber atheists, and theists outnumber them both. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.)
Or to state it in a more personal manner: As an agnostic, I have no belief in the supernatural (including deities). But I don't see any reason to rule out possibilities which I am in no position to test. I have at times entertained the concept of an intelligent designer, and have always put it back on its shelf labelled "no evidence for or against". It has nothing to do with "religion" in that sense.
It is indeed unfortunate, as you point out, that the evangelical Christian right has chosen to use an intellectually dishonest tactic such as this (as it has a muddying-the-waters effect), but it does not change the fact that the hypothesis of intelligent design has not, and cannot be, disproven. (The theory is, of course, unfalsifiable, which is the primary reason it is not considered scientific.) The fact that its unfalsifiability is based on the extraordinary detail of god's alleged undetectability could be considered either pathetically self-serving (god's undetectability being a human invention to protect the lie of his existence) or dictated by the established limits of observation (we've looked everywhere we're capable of looking for god, so if he exists, god must be somewhere we're incapable of looking or must be undetectable to our senses). In the former case, ID is a self-serving tool; in the latter case, it is idle speculation best answered with a brisk dose of Occam's Razor.
Essentially, it is common sense that ID, as intended by the DI and its lackeys, is religion repackaged and a blatant form of intellectual dishonesty. But this doesn't mean that others might entertain the concept of an intelligent designer for non-religious reasons. My understanding of this article's scope is that it is supposed to cover all aspects of theories of intelligent design, not just those by the religious. Of course, the theories put forward by the religious tend to heavily outnumber those put forward by others, so it would be natural for the former to have the lion's share of the article. Kasreyn 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, i sure hope that most of you around are aware of what science means, however i strongly believe that most are inapt to actualy make a contribution science their knowledge is very limited in the fields of biology. And biology those days unavoidably also requires quantum (so that one can actually understand where the order and structure arises from) chemistry.

ID is science at least in the terminology and the use of scientific principles, but alters all of science and does not PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY!!! Please inform yourself first. Rather it proposes not even hypothesis in fields that have excellent models, for decades - so excellent in acordance with nature`s presentation that they became promoted to scientific fact - a process that takes several decades. ID would actually be listened to, science there certainly are also spiritual scientists out there, if the would propose their CONCEPT in fields where lack of a decent theories or experimentation is blatant. But in todays world that really is the case in the unifiction theories e.g. string theory is considered a PROTOSCIENCE even though by the mere concept of the scientific DOGMA it is unfalsifiable, so it would be unscientific. However it does actually contribute a lot to the fields of mathematics for now and also opens the viewpoints of physics. No serious scientists would consider string theory pseudoscience even though it is unscientific - a POV which itself is arguable. You have no sufficient understanding of current science, as otherwise you could not be seriously saying that ID proposes anything new. Those pack of idiots ultimately made use of imagery, software and exerimentations that all involved quantum mechanics in order to even get to a point where one could isolate and acquire data of a bacterial flagellum but ultimately started of the point where they took a abstract book made for students that viewed the flagellum in a mechnical portrait so it is easier to imagine it. It would be way harder to imagine all this in fluid, thermodynamic instabilities, tunneling and lots and lots of formulae. Science has ever science been worked out on different layers, just as Newtionian laws of motion are just as valid as they represent another simplified layer. I am not making this up, Behe and the other pack of sheep proudly told all people in the world in a dozen of documentaries how ID came about, one of which was BBC`s Horizon. They showed the mechanical outline in a students book of the bacterial flagellum and took this more or less as the concept from which they derived a design, which was undeniable but it came out of an 3D studio max model and in fact there was a designer behind it all, who created such a symetric and good to learn abstract of the bacterial flagellum but it was one of blood and flesh and a mediocre wage hired by the books publisher. All of this is pretty impressive unless you are tought better and more fundamental and actually not see a supernatural designer but be thankful that the author of the book tried to simplify the nature of the bacterial flagellum in model so that it is easier for students to grasp, but WITH awareness that this does not give insight to the bacterial flagellum. In the end mendeljev`s periodic table came about in the same manner: he tried to find ways to simplify the graps of chemical elements for his students. Nowadays the properties of the elements are understood via quantum mechanics. No one was crazy enough to propose an alternative supernatural god figure behind the table of elements, prolly because it is so fundamentally entangled throughout any education that it wouldn`t be worth the effort, in consideration to the predictable outcome. In contrary, molecular biology is something only few have a fundamental concept of, whilst at the same time society has constantly made aware of DNA viruses and so forth without being able to glue all those things together. It is the ideal time to come forth and give society a model that not only connects the scientific terms such as DNA, virus,gene, bacterium, a.s.o. in something that is simplistic in every way but also in fact connects it all with their various scientific believes. This is why ID also gets some updraft from various islamic fundamentalists, and many other fundamentalists religions, because their commonality is supernaturalism.Slicky 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of stirring things up further, it seems to me that the choice of the word "concept" is entirely appropriate. This is reinforced after reading the definition of the word thoughtfully pasted into the first post here. It is precisely to avoid the suggestion of scientific credibility that the words "hypothesis" and "theory" have been avoided. There is nothing intrinsically scientific about a concept (check the definition). It is a more general and convenient word for describing a mental construct, "an abstract idea or a mental symbol". Surely, items of faith or religious belief qualify as concepts just as readily as do scientific theories. Psarj 11:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Including key concepts in the introduction

The intro should mention Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity as those two are the cornerstones of the ID scientific movement. The validity of these concepts is not in question here. The great amount of attention that is given to these two concepts by the ID community is reason enough for their place in the introduction. Their mention should flow nicely after the last sentance of the first paragraph which states that ID is considered a better alternative than evolution.--Roland Deschain 00:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you; "The validity of these concepts is not in question here". Actually, it is, although that assumes that we're using the same definition of validity. If you meant that IDists pin ID to those two concepts, you're correct; but if you mean the scientific or mathematical validity, I'm afraid that that is very much in question.
In any case, I noticed the edit you made, and I think it broke the flow of the sentence. Plus, for example, the Quantum mechanics article doesn't mention any of the undelying concepts (Schrödinger's equation, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, etc.) in its intro. Nota bene: My use of that article as an example is simply illustrative and in no way implies that ID is on a par with, or even in the same neighbourhood as, QM. •Jim62sch• 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't compare a scientific topic, such as quantum physics, with ID. They are totally different ballparks. If my addition screwed up the sentance, I'm pretty sure there are other editors that are more elegant in their writing. And, the reason given why it was reverted: it's true that it is mentioned later, as it should. But it is still a large part in the ID movement that, in my opinion, needs to be in the intro. The Creation science topic is a nice example, where Flood geology is mentioned in the intro even though it is extensivly covered in the actual article. But it's currently 2 against 1, so I won't persue it further if there isn't more support for this idea.--Roland Deschain 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch's point was not that intelligent design is comparable to quantum mechanics, as I believe he made perfectly clear. His point was that articles generally do not go into detail on undelying concepts in the intro, instead preferring to use the body of the article to to that. Creation science seems to be an exception, and even then, the term flood geology is much more self-explanatory than terms such as irriducible complexity. -- Ec5618 13:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not ask for "details of underlying concepts" in the inrto, that would be pointless and excessive. Rather, I ask about the barebone mention of "underlying concepts". The concepts will be wikilinked and anybody interested can read up on them. It's not even giving undue weight considering that every ID book publised in the last 5 years has a detailed mention of these two concepts. My arguements still stand. These two concepts are highly visible when considering ID (it will be easy finding references) and should be in the intro. So far I really haven't gotten a good reason why they should not go into the intro. Hopefully people aren't seeing this as an ID advocate trying to get the most publicity out of this article. My contributions speak for themselves and I think including these two terms in the intro will make this article much more relevent for people that only read the info.--Roland Deschain 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with mentioning the names of those 2 key concepts in the intro. The need not be explained there, but it would benefit the reader to have the links in the first paragraph. We can spare the room for this. --Uncle Ed 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

They're not necessary to the intro; they add nothing that is crucial to know about. Literally months of previous discussion and compromise went into crafting the intro, and this issue was one discussed and for good reasons it was settled that the concepts would be defined, not described in the intro. Should we also mention the supporting concepts for evolution in the intro as well? It's a slippery slope once we start adding supporting concepts... FeloniousMonk 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I usually agree with you, but this time you are totally off.
  • Please do not use archives to justify your reversions. Any discussion can be brought up a anytime and discussed again, as opinions do change.
  • "Should we also mention the supporting concepts for evolution in the intro as well?". But natural selection, the central concept of evolution, is mentioned in the intro. Just like IC and SC should be mentioned in this article. Do keep in mind that IC and SC are deeply flawed (the Dover trial showed that). However, they are still used by ID proponents extensivly in all their writing and the intro should reflect that. Any reader should be immediatly made aware of these concepts and once he/she reads through the actual article, it will be more than apparent that these two concepts are deeply flawed.
  • "It's a slippery slope once we start adding supporting concepts...". No, these two additions can be defended, as they are mentioned in almost every ID publication over the last couple of years. Other concepts, I do not know which you mean by the way, will have to be defended the same way.
  • "Literally months of previous discussion and compromise went into crafting the intro,". So what, does it mean it's set in stone now and nobody can bring up a change.--Roland Deschain 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Previous discussions and compromises are always relevent. FeloniousMonk 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On a totally different note, are you sure that SC and IC are cornerstones of ID? I thought that the cornerstones of ID is the idea that naturalism isn't appropriate in biology. Without it, IC and SC, if true (which I don't think they are) leads only to "reject the null" (Darwinian evolution). They don't say anything new. It's only with the redefinition of science to include the supernatural that ID has a leg to stand on (even if it's a termite-eaten wooden leg that can barely support the weight of the coat of varnish over it). Guettarda 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a cornerstone, pick up any ID book from the last 10 years and you will find a discussion of IC and SC. Furthermore, IC was actually brought up in the Dover trial. They use those two concepts to argue that there is evidence that there is a supernatural side to science (which is the big overarching theme of ID). I do not understand people's reluctance to include such a small change that is so clearly supported by ID literature.--Roland Deschain 15:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggested rephrasing. After the intro sentence say something like "Proponents point in particular to the notions of specified complexity and irreducible complexity which they say cannot arise by natural selection alone. JoshuaZ 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Most of us here have already read most if it not all ID books. Reading them, it's obvious that they use IC and SC as a drunk uses a street lamp, for support, not illumination. That's all beside the point. The intro is where we say in a sentence or two what ID is, not what supports it. FeloniousMonk 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the issue is here. Isn't the article clear already? This seems like an argument on principle, not betterment of the article.
As for Ed Poor's re-addition of these links to the intro. Don't you ever stop? What was the point of that? "source: Guettarda in talk" What are you doing? This is not productive behaviour. If you have a point to make, contain it to the Talk page in future. -- Ec5618 15:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
More WP:POINT grist for the WP:RFAR mill, that's all. And how about the edit after your rv? Ever notice that he always goes straight to the ID article with trivial edits like this [1] whenever he gets rv'd there or elsewhere, in a fit of WP:POINT pique? It's all par for the course. Or is it par for the coarse? FeloniousMonk 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My point, obviously poorly made, was that we need a source before we are going to call anything the cornerstone of ID. And saying "read their books" is actually OR unless Behe or Dembski said that explicitly (in which case it is "Behe considers X to be the cornerstone of ID..."). What we need is an appropriate secondary source, a scholar who studies ID as a movement or philosophy - someone like Pennock or Forrest. In my opinion, anyway. Guettarda 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are the critics of ID and even they metion IC and SC in their books when shunning ID (Forrest not so much, as she focuses on the political movement). The fact that IC was mentioned in the short conclustion by the judge in the Dover trial highlights the fact that it is indeed a big (and terribly wrong) concept of ID. But I see that this artice for the time being is in total stasis where change doesn't happen at all. I'll come back once the community is less dependant on the archives as their constitution that dictates this article and aren't afraid that every single change will give undue support for ID. Of to actually improve the evolution article where people aren't as afraid of change ;)--Roland Deschain 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

something ArghBob said

Looking through that long conversation, I was generally shocked by most of the claims Bob made. But I do think there was one point he made which is worth considering. The biggest response to his major issue with the article was that his concept of "intelligent design" was flawed. Now, ordinarily, I would agree with this. However, the stated definition in the first paragraph is thus:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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."[1] "

This is the definition he was using. This definition is qualified with the second sentence:

"Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]"

Everybody jumped on Bob's back because he wasn't using that as the definition, but, as written, the article seems to be saying that the leading proponents of the concept of intelligent design define it in that specific, smaller way. Understand that I agree with everybody that "Intelligent Design" should be identified as a pseudoscientific concept being perpetuated by the Discovery Institute. However, as the article is written, "intelligent design" would be much more open ended than anybody seems to think it is. As a potential solution, I would propose:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that there is scientific evidence proving 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."[1] "

I don't think this is the correct solution, but I hope it will get people to come up with the correct one. ThatGuamGuy 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)sean

Yeah but don`t you get that we are much much further than that already. All these people are seemingly stuck in the 19th century. it is no secret anymore that molecules create higher structure - then there is a yet unresolved link namely the simulation to get from a bunch of molecules to a liveform - something that is forseeable in about 40-50years. The point is we have quantum mechanics to describe not only the whole periodic system and all of the elements and so forth but also of course the element interactiion with some qualitative compromise (that is with approximative cacluations). BUT HELLO! It is free out there for anybody to read and smarten up, no need to suddenly see intelligence in everything as a result of mere ignorance. To all: Educate yourself and make up your own vision of how the world works, and you will see it is exactly as the current models predict, since they are the simplest and most elegant ones, therefore accepted. The only chance for intelligent design is the one link that i described but they even botched that up, instead all I-Designers blatantly and unshamingly shout out their ignorance and lack of education into the world in sureness that the world will response, given the amount of uneducated and ignorant people in the world. But that doesn`t make ID scientific, it just fortiies the social studies that something is seriously wrong with the overall educational system in the US, and that if the current trend continues the US will have serious disadvantage to face as far as the economy goes.Slicky 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


The current intro is the result of many months (nay years) of discussion (and similar). On top of that, to my knowledge this is the first time this issue has ever come up.
Still, if there is an easy way to fix this, I would certainly support it. -- Ec5618 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it might be the first time it came up because this was the first time people who are editing the page defined 'intelligent design' as
"specifically to refer to the DI-backed "theory", which purports to be scientific."
which is not actually how the intro defines it.
I actually think that makes sense as a distinction, but it's not explained correctly as that in the intro.
24.193.227.46 03:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)sean
Or it might make sense to make the distinction between the abstract concept of "intelligent design" -- which semantically seems more open than it actually is (I realize they chose their words well when picking that one) -- and the specific connotations of the phrase within America (somebody above seemed to indicate that it hasn't spread much outside the U.S.).
24.193.227.46 03:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)sean
Whatever the reason this first came up a few days ago, it is not that this is the first time this intro has been read in its current form. The intro has stood, in this form, for months. Over that time, dozens of people must have read it, and none of them took it to Talk.
In any case, it puzzles me that you seem to have the same problem with the intro that ArrrghBob had, just moments after he left. "which is not actually how the intro defines it", indeed. It seem that, though no-one misread it before, the intro is suddenly quite misleading. -- Ec5618 08:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the beautiful thing about wikipedia, which should and will work the same way that peoples minds work and the way that the social mind works. Ideas evolve. When someone new views the same data that everyone else has viewed, he is viewing it through a whole new set of assumptions and filters. He will see something that others missed, and his idea will spark ideas in others. By it's very nature, a wikipedia article will never come to a final state.--ArrrghBob 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely yes. Though there is acknowledged to be such a thing as a "stable" article, the work is never really done; if this were not the case, longstanding editors here would not engage in the current discussion. Can you imagine already consensused articles saying, like a repeat of a radio talk show, "sorry, we're no longer taking calls on this discussion, recorded earlier. Para Espanol, marque dos. If your question is "why isn't intelligent design a scientific theory?, press #3, etc. ... if you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try again; if you need help, hang up and dial operator. ..."  ;-) ... Kenosis 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"Whatever the reason this first came up a few days ago, it is not that this is the first time this intro has been read in its current form. The intro has stood, in this form, for months. Over that time, dozens of people must have read it, and none of them took it to Talk."
That's true, but you're ignoring my point. The introduction, as written, is a perfectly valid definition for "intelligent design". It may in fact be the correct one. But it was not accurately reflected in the comment section when you guys were arguing with Bob. If it is the consensus opinion that "intelligent design" is meant
"specifically to refer to the DI-backed "theory", which purports to be scientific."
the introduction should be changed to reflect that. [Since bringing this up yesterday, I noticed that there is a seperate entry for "the intelligent design movement", which would be made redundant by this change. I'd also just like to add an apology to whosever quote that was; I just scrolled back up and grabbed the first one I could find, I don't mean to single anybody out, because there were quite a few posts with that same gyst.]
On the other hand, it may be the consensus view that the introduction, as written, is more accurate. I only brought this up because you all seemed to have a specific view of what the introduction was saying and, by my reading, it wasn't saying that.
"In any case, it puzzles me that you seem to have the same problem with the intro that ArrrghBob had, just moments after he left."
Should I have waited for the conversation to be archived and the people who participated in it to forget the position they were defending before asking for clarification? Seems odd. I know what you're getting at, and I understand that, with all the trolls and folks starting multiple accounts and whatnot, you have reason to be suspicious.
If you have some way in mind that I could potentitally prove to you that I'm not Bob, and doing so would actually get you to pay attention to a reasonable edit suggestion (even a broken clock is right twice a day, so it's not unreasonable that Bob might've been right one time in all the time he was arguing with you), and not inconvenience me, propose it. Until then, I'll let my record speak for itself. You can check my contributions and see that I've pitched in some here and there for a good five months without ever having an argument on a talk page. Or you can realize, through common sense deduction, that my complaint is grammatical and singular, quite distinct from Bob's which were idelogoical and multiple. As I said, I understand your suspicions, but sometimes a cigar is a cigar. (I can't quite call the timing coincidental, since it appears the conversation was intended to be archived shortly after this; thus it was, in fact, a neccessity that I would've posted this soon after that ended, lest I wouldn't have read the conversation to begin with.)
"which is not actually how the intro defines it", indeed. It seem that, though no-one misread it before, the intro is suddenly quite misleading."
Hold on, hoss. I didn't say it is misleading. I simply said that, as written, the introduction does not conform to the definition that many people in the talk side believe is the accurate definition. It is a perfectly valid definition in its own right.
Also, I don't think that you can possibly say that nobody misread it before. Most people would read that sentence and find a perfectly acceptable definition of "intelligent design". They'd see no reason to come in here and ask for clarification. The first time I read it, it seemed fine. It was only after reading that conversation with Bob, where the majority consensus seemed to be that "intelligent design" has a more specific definition than the general one, that it stood out to me.
Perhaps, rather than responding with defensiveness and accusations, you could explain how, grammatically, I'm "misreading" the introduction. I'll put it here again, so you don't have to check it:
"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]"
To give an analogy, if the second sentence in 'Evolution' were "Most people think that evolution means that humans evolved directly from monkeys," that wouldn't be a definition, it would be an explanation of a common misunderstanding of current evolutionary theory (that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, most likely ape-like... Well, okay, we all have a common ancestor, but it's a more recent divergence than men and fish.). In this case, the definition is stated in the first sentence, and the second sentence is a qualifier of what *some* people believe Intelligent Design is. (At least, that's how it reads to me.)
This was your read on the definition, above, and seems to represent the majority's:
"You seem to be making the case that the term 'intelligent design' must apply to all concepts of "seeing a design in nature, and sensing in that design a designer". Simply, that's silly. Yes, there are concepts that could be described as dealing with intelligent design, but the article isn't about them. This article isn't about ergonomics (intelligently designing a better chair). This article is about Intelligent Design, as promoted by the Discovery Institute."
ThatGuamGuy 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)sean

The intro quotes the Discovery Institute's longstanding definition. This was agreed to be what would be put forward in the opening paragraph after long debate among advocates, opponents, and apparently neutral parties involved in the WP article. Any other definition would be meaningless here, because were ID not part of a broad socio-political agenda put forward by the Discovery Institute and parts of the "religious right" (especially in the United States), the article would be nothing more than a philosophical/theological curiosity with about two or three interested editors and virtually no interest by anyone else. It was the push to impose it upon the school systems in the US as a form of science that got all the interest, because once this maneuver was made, virtually everyone had a warrant to parse the proponents' assertions for accuracy. This article properly summarizes what the stir has been all about. ... Kenosis 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proving a theory?

The article says:

Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."

Shouldn't this be disprove? AFAIK you can only disprove (or confirm) a theory, not prove one, so this would be true for all theories, and not related to falsifiability. Coffee2theorems 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A technical point worth noting, and thanks for noting it, C2t. A question here is, how far down the road of technical analysis of scientific method do the editors want to get in this article? I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps the many longstanding editors here have thoughts about this?... Kenosis 22:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a direct quote so it doesn't much matter. Please write to Behe -- I'm being serious, write to the grand master and let him know his statement is scientifically bogus. •Jim62sch• 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The quotation from Behe isn't scientifically bogus; it's a factual statement that applies to any theory, not just ID. Personally, I don't think the quotation adds any value to the paragraph and it should be removed. It doesn't support the prior sentence, and it says nothing meaningful on its own. -Amatulic 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you missed the nuance. •Jim62sch• 23:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If I did, then that's further reason to delete the quotation. An encyclopedia article shouldn't contain nuances, vague hints of irony, double meanings, deliberate ambiguity, etc. If the nuance was lost on me, it will be lost on others, so why bother including it? -Amatulic 16:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a direct quote of Behe, a leading ID proponent. If he gets it wrong or is being nuanced, you'd have to take it up with Behe. FeloniousMonk 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you missed my point. An encyclopedia article should be clear to the reader. If a statement is nuanced, that nuance should be explained, otherwise it's useless. I daresay most folks wouldn't recognize the flaw in Behe's statement the way it's presented. That quotation by Behe is a non-sequitur in its current place, following a sentence it doesn't support. Even taken on its own, it adds no value to the article. And it would be hard to explain the nuance without coming across as anti-Behe POV. If nobody can offer a compelling reason to keep it, I'll remove it. -Amatulic 04:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Enough time has passed since I said I'd remove the quotation, but I have decided not to delete it. Instead, I added a few words in front of it to put it into more sensible context. -Amatulic 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh

It's too early to change the article in response yet, but those with an interest in ID might like to follow this link to an article in yesterday's Guardian on the Holy See's possibly changing relationship with evolution. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. It's an awful piece. There is absolutely no new information anywhere in it - all that it states is that the Pope's next big gettogether will deal with the topic. And the suggestion that the Pope leans towards intelligent design is backed up by a statement where he condemns 'unguided' evolution. As in, he condemns the position that the universe exists without God. The pope, it seems, is not an atheist. I for one am reeling. --Davril2020 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah-ha. Fair point. It was a bit thin on actual statements from the Pope. Anyway, bit of a false alarm then. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Discovery Institute has long-sought to bring Catholics in under ID's "big tent" but their overtures have always fallen flat. It would be interesting to see the RCC come to ID on their own accord and in so doing whether it would embrace, reject, or remain indifferent to the institute's ID campaign in the US. It may end up being a case of being careful what you wish for... So far though, nothing indicates an endorsement of ID from the pope, only more that is consistent with the RCC's long-standing acceptance of evolutionary theory through theistic evolution. FeloniousMonk 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess they'll have to dig up Galileo's bones and have him recant again. •Jim62sch• 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Another resurrection, eh? FeloniousMonk 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this has to do with the exact meaning of the phrases "acceptance of evolution" or "acceptance of evolutionary theory". As I pointed out last year, only 16% of Americans (for example) "accept evolution" if that means "new species came into being with out God directing the process". But this number more than triples if "accept evolution" means "evolution was the way God created all the new species".

The reason we are all in such a big dispute (RFC + RFarb) on this, all centers on whether Wikipedia should or should not make this distinction clearly. --Uncle Ed 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between intelligent design and theistic evolution and the differences between them is sufficiently covered in both articles. When a concept claims to be a valid scientific theory the percentage of Americans who hold that viewpoint is not the central issue as to whether the proposed theory is accepted as such by the scientific community, as is the case with ID. Meaning "The reason we are all in such a big dispute (RFC + RFarb) on this, all centers on whether Wikipedia should or should not make this distinction clearly" is simply inaccurate and more spin to justify your personal interpretation of WP:NPOV to downplay ID's complete failure to gain scientific acceptance by instead obfuscating the issue with appeals to its acceptance by the lay community; two very different things. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually there's really no difference from a practical point of view between divine intervention in evolution or not. There's no way to science to distinguish between the actions of God when s/he acts through evolution and the actions of evolution without God. ID's weakness, theologically, is that it constrains God to being just a tinkerer. As for the RFAr issue - what you are suggesting would be a clear violation of both NPOV and NOR, since it would mean redefinig (actually, watering down) ID by fiat into something new. I really don't think that's what you really what you want of Wikipedia, is it? Guettarda 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed, the RfC and RfAr are due to much larger problems than just a disagreement over emphasis on a single article. They stem from systematic repeated problems on a variety of articles. JoshuaZ 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The RfC and RfAr are separate issues, and casting them in the light of the ID articles alone is disingenuous.
As for what the US population believes, who cares. If they believed, as did many medieval people, that maggots were caused by spontaneous generation would it really matter? Other than indicating a very real disconnect from science and reality it would have no bearing on the fact that maggots are fly larvae. •Jim62sch• 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This thread's a bit stale, but last week's issue of Science had a small note on this topic. Apparently ID never even came up during a lecture on evolution delivered to the Pope by an Austrian academic, but the Pope did ask some "very good questions at the end". The note went on to add that Cardinal Schönborn, the chief supporter of ID in the Vatican, appeared to be distancing himself from it. Anyway, just wanted to close a thread I started. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Ok, I see to have screwed up the citation tags...what the heck just happened? Guettarda 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rv'd back as far as Pico's version and the refs are still duplicated. I'm guessing it's a bug in either the backend or frontend servers. Let's continue to use Pico's version as the baseline since the refs seemed to be fine then (I think...) FeloniousMonk 19:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's happening on other articles too and so it's probably a more general fault. --Ian Pitchford 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it happened on an article I edited today as well. •Jim62sch• 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Was it resolved? FeloniousMonk 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Junk science"

My problem with the "junk science" reference in the intro is that Orr quote is not really a reliable source for the contention. He makes no claim to have surveyed the scientific community; it's just a polemical comment. Contrast that with the well-documented support for the "pseudo-science" label. Putting well-supported and poorly supported assertions into the same sentence gives an impression that the article is "throwing in the kitchen sink" in its opposition to ID, which is obviously not what it should be doing.--CJGB (Chris) 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is also a Pennock reference there. Also, it does simply say what the scientific community has been saying. I would however be inclined to remove the junk science mention since I'm not convinced it meets WP:N since the term is rarely used to characterize ID. JoshuaZ 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It does look inappropriate. --Ian Pitchford 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Orr, one of the most notable of ID critics and a prominent professor and geneticist, has been published extensively in scientific journals such as Journal of Evolutionary Biology, and Genetics, and has been published widely as an expert on the topic science and ID in the New Yorker, The Boston Review, etc. One of the primary critics of ID, the NCSE, specifically supports Orr's point that biologists view ID as junkscience: [2] Other notable critics of ID view it as junkscience, like Pedro Irigonegaray [3], and the term has found it's way into the press Junk science, World Magazine. It's a notable viewpoint, and needs to covered in the article. FeloniousMonk 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to cover both issues, viz. Is ID junk science? and Does the overwhelming majority of scientists regard it junk science? Regardless of Orr's prominence, the statement cited appears to be an informal comment, and thus doesn't meet the standards for a Reliable Source. In any case, he speaks only about biologists, not about scientists in general. The NCSE page simply repeats the Orr quote, while Irigonegaray argues the ID is junk science, but makes no claim (AFIAK) about the views of the majority of scientists.
Again, I know as well as you that hardly any scientists give ID the time of day. Prestigious organizations have labelled it pseudoscience. But the junk-science charge - the claim that it's conscious ruse to get creationism into the schools - strikes me as more dubious. I think it likely that some ID proponents are entirely sincere. Since we're talking about the opinions of the scientific community, I think unlikely that most scientists have given the matter enough attention to form an opinion about the agenda (hidden or otherwise) of the ID-ers. In any case, it's an assertion that needs to documented.
I can't access the Penner book or World Mag. article, so won't comment on them.--CJGB (Chris) 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"...the claim that it's conscious ruse to get creationism into the schools - strikes me as more dubious." You haven't read the Dover trial ruling then... Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page_89_of_139Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#H. Conclusion FeloniousMonk 21:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
One can read a text without learning it by heart, surely. fmt. -- Ec5618 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. The Orr reference comes from the New Yorker. That qualifies as a reliable source. Orr's opinion is notable, so even a blog entry would count as a reliable source, once there was some way to establish that it really was him writing the blog.
  2. As for Pennock - he's perhaps the leading scholar of the ID movement, and his book is widely available in non-academic venues (libraries, Barnes & Nobles, etc.) Guettarda 22:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Orr's opinion is notable, and the New Yorker is a good source. But I'm not comfortable with stating it as fact rather than opinion.--CJGB (Chris) 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
" I think it likely that some ID proponents are entirely sincere." I'd venture that I'd be one-hundred percent correct in saying that the same applies to UFOlogists, astrologers, faith-healers, mediums, conspiracy-theorists and dianeticists. •Jim62sch• 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Unquestionably, but none of those are examples of junk science. Based on the WP definition, junk science is, e.g., Big Tobacco-funded research claiming the cigarettes are good for you, not Hollow Earth stuff. I suppose that most of items on your list are examples of pseudoscience, while nutso conspiracy theories are a fringe form of historical revisionism--CJGB (Chris) 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC).
Well then, by your definition, ID fits right in - fake research funded by Big Money, for the purpose of misleading the public. And I have yet to see anything from ID proponents which isn't calculated to mislead...except maybe Behe, he seems to have some shred of decency. Guettarda 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Junk science is quite well accepted to refer to science conducted with ulterior, hidden motives such as political, economic, etc. The wedge document and the evidence in the Kitzmiller trial amply shows such motives. And the source quoted by the WP article is more than sufficiently notable given the socio-political aims of the ID movement. ... Kenosis 00:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be gaining evidence on this article that it is being controlled by a group of people who have an agenda. I am in the process of counting up and collating the number of recommendations like this one, that are attempts to make the article more neutral (not more in favor of ID), that are simply dismissed rather than explored and really considered for their merit. I am also learning the rules and processes here at wikipedia and considering some formal action.--ArrrghBob 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The idea was discussed and found lacking. You may note that at least one editor (myself) considered the idea to have merity. Kenosis and FM gave sufficient reason why it was correct to include. Just because something doesn't go your way doesn't mean it wasn't considered. JoshuaZ 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and they delete or revert any information which casts ID in a good light. Their usual excuse for this is that including such info "advances a POV". They seem unaware of the ArbCom statement that:
  • It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view.
What Wikipedia needs, of course, is a proper balance. Not one which deludes people into thinking that a minority is larger than it is; that would be wrong! But:
  • inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
What do you think of these principles, Bob? Should we support them, or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs).
"Casts ID in a good light" - as something that's a purported scientific alternative to biological evolution, the only thing that can genuinely cast ID in a good light is actual science based on it. Which means publications in the scientific literature. And we know where this road leads. --Plumbago 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
To Ed Poor, I think that the articles should strive to be as neutral as humanly possible. I think that the articles should not withhold any pertinent, verifiable information about the subject even if it sheds a good light on the people who are under the bad graces of the editors of the article. I don't think the current state of the popular ID movement should be considered science, but I do think that the article should not confuse that movement with the simple idea of there being a designer, which unfortunately this article does in it's current state.
To JoshuaZ, the replys by Kenosis and FM do not answer the argument put forward by CJGB. The main point of which is that the use of the term junkscience is a polemic and an opinion stated by a few individuals no matter how prestigious or well documented. By including it in the general lump of the "overwhelming majority" it makes the article appear to be less neutral than simply stating that so and so said, "junkscience". Just as in my argument of a few days ago, this sentence in using this sweeping generalization is inherently non-neutral.--ArrrghBob 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Junk Science (and Intelligent Design) looks promising, but the Amazon reviews focus on other aspects of the book so early days yet......dave souza, talk 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Dan Agin's book will convince the overwhelmingly majority of scientists that ID is junk science as opposed to pseudoscience or bad science. But I don't see we have evidence that they currently hold that view. To translate Orr's comment that "biologists" see ID as j.s. into "an overwhelming majority of the scientific community" do so is hyperbole. The Pennock book is not avaible online: can anyone provide a relevant quote? As for the Mark Bergin article, I strongly suspect that it is pro-ID and is using the phrase "Junk Science" ironically, implying that anti-IDists are "junking" (discarding) science by excluding ID from the classroom. The majority of the article is behind a subscriber wall, but I'll bet my guess is correct.
Another problem is that the "junk science" reference is likely to be too cryptic for many Wikipedia users. I expect most users won't immediately distinguish "junk science" from "pseudoscience" or related concepts. If we don't simply cut the phrase "or junk science" (it's hardly crucial to the article), we might want to spin it off to a new sentence that summarises the charge that ID is a scheme cooked up by the Discovery Institute (or however that should be put). This would also get us out of the "overwhelming majority" claim. A short, neutrally phrased sentence that avoids overreaching claims, please.--CJGB (Chris) 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Enough. Your arguments are specious and repetitive. Entertaining them further is just a waste of time. So, since it doesn't seem like the majority (overwhelming, even) of editors are buying your arguments and since you are asserting that the phrase "junk science" is unfair, perhaps you might take the time to show a substantive, concrete, non-DI source that supports your argument. In fact calling it junk science is kind: it really should be "a non-scientific agglomeration of fairy-tales, biblical myths,misrepresentations of fact and pseudo-math pretending to be science". •Jim62sch• 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim, I'm sorry I cannot engage you in a reasonable discussion of the article's sourcing issues. I don't give a rat's ass whether the article claims ID is junk science or not, so long as the claim is properly supported by the citations. This is a technical editorial issue, not an argument about ID.--CJGB (Chris) 12:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of further specious repetition, IMO, the article could say that ID has been attacked - or even widely attacked - as junk science, because that contention is supported by the citations, but it should not say that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community regard it as junk science, because that contention is not supported by the citations.--CJGB (Chris) 13:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Chris, you're missing the point -- it's not than anyone is unwilling to engage in "reasonable discussion", it is that we have been over this 1,000 times. Your objections are nothing new, and they will not gain any traction as everyone is tired of explaining why the cites are sufficient. There are only so many times the long-term editors of this article can explain this. I'm sure you can see where the frustration comes in.
In looking at the sentence again, I'm wondering if you missed the or, "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[4] as pseudoscience[5][6] or as junk science.[7][8] The only change I can see that would make the statement even clearer is the (somewhat grammatically incorrect) inclusion of either, as in "...views intelligent design as either unscientific,[4] as pseudoscience[5][6] or as junk science.[7][8]". Essentially, the "or" makes all the difference in the world and allows the sentence to stand as is.•Jim62sch• 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim, don't you want to make this article as neutral as possible? I find it telling that you only seem to get upset when someone begins to make a substantive request for a change that will make the article more neutral. There are any number of ways this sentence could be rephrased, which would make it more clearly neutral, and more closely reflect the citations. What is the problem? I'm finding it harder and harder to ignore the idea that you and some of the others here are trying to keep some point of view content in this article. Why can't this sentence be restated in any other way at all?--ArrrghBob 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that you missed Kenosis' comment (see below), which just happens to agree with mine. Try to read it, and you'll see why no change is necessary. That Chris has made a "substantive request for a change that will make the article more neutral" is your opinion (and I'm guessing his as well), but as it's failing to gain traction, I'd have to say yours is the minority viewpoint. Also, Bob, given that you've no clue of the history of this article, I'd have to say that your allegations regarding either myself or some mysterious group intent on keeping a "POV" in this article ring hollow. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Aside from that this whole argument about "accuracy" is arguably inconsequential to any substantive points the article makes, the issue is now rendered moot by the current phrasing of the sentence, which provides citations for each of the characterizations separately. ... Kenosis 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Atheistic ID

First of all, I will ask you to note my entry under "Teleological argument" discussion entitled Non-theistic teleological argument. That says a lot of what I would like to get at here.

Almost all of the anti-ID comments seem to either show how possible evolution is, or state the obvious that science does not cover the supernatural. Both of these are not fair to the ID movement.

Intelligent Design does not come against natural selection or random mutations in the sense of saying that such things do not occur or are not mainly responsible for the diversity of the species. Intelligent design does say that some observable evidence can be better explained if we think that it came into being to serve a certain purpose, rather than merely being the result of prior causes. Many anti-evolution arguments have nothing to do really with intelligent design, and many pro-evolution arguments fit in perfectly fine with the idea that anatomy (structure) and physiology (function) are related.

When one says that undirected natural causes do not seem to explain certain phenomena, it is a false dichotomy to say that only directed supernatural causes remain. We are overlooking the idea of directed natural causes. Two sources I will cite are the articles "The Trilobite:Enigma of Complexity, A Case for Intelligent Design" and "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". The first article is by Drs. Arthur V. Chadwick and Robert F. DeHaan, and ends by talking about two approaches to intelligent design, the first of which places ID "squarely in the natural order", and which renders moot all counterarguments to ID which are based on ID implying the supernatural. Once we view ID as something under the umbrella of natural science (instead of supernatural), the whole debate changes radically. Their article is found in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Dec. 2000, 233-241, and can also be found through a quick Google search. The second article is found in Scientific American, July 2002, by John Rennie. It can also be found through a quick Google search. Near the end of the article, Rennie writes, "It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. ... simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally." Although Rennie says "undirected processes", there is plenty of room for such things to be natural directed processes, or for some phenomena in biology to be designed to accomplish some naturalistic end purpose such as survival or reproduction.

It is an intelligent design hypothesis to state that the same mutation which is triggered by a pesticide in a mosquito, also causes the mosquito to become more resistant to that pesticide. This is so because the mutation could be easily thought of as designed to help the mosquito withstand the pesticide, and it is not simply a random mutation which could happen at any time in a billion-year history; it is a mutation which happens at a particular point in the genetic code, and at a particular time which is precisely after the pesticide is introduced, and which has not only happened one time in one mosquito but to several lines of mosquitoes exposed to the pesticide. To see a link where the environment causes a biological change which specifically helps the organism or species to survive in that environment is to see that there is a reason for the change to take place, as opposed to indifferent, meaningless changes which the environment only has an effect on after the fact.

These lines of thinking are outside of the mainstream ID proponents usual kinds of arguments, but they have all said that ID is like a "big tent" where theists and atheists can all come together. I am talking about examples of non-theistic ID which keep ID in the natural order instead of supernatural speculations and implications. You will hear more of this in the future, and Wikipedia should give a fair treatment to naturalistic ID inside of the article. It's not all about deities and aliens; there could be teleological reasons for biological changes within the natural order, just as we accept teleological reasons for human psychology and still call it a naturalistic, non-religious science. (i.e. - We believe that humans do things to accomplish an end result, and not merely based on a philosophy of determinism where we are driven by our genes to make any and every decision.) To think that things happen in nature for a reason - and I mean reasons such as to aid in survival - is a legitimate part of scientific inquiry not limited to theology and philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.19.245.163 (talk • contribs).

  1. I don't see how you connect the Rennie quote with ID. In fact, it's a rejection of ID. "Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally." - this statement fits comfortably within the norm of evolutionary biology.
  2. What specific changes to the article are you proposing? And what specific sources support these proposed changes? Thanks. Guettarda 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed's addition

I removed Ed's new section. While it may be worth considering adding such a section, his source was a LTE from an Iowa newspaper by a person who apparently has no expertise of ID. I hope I am missing something, because it looks to me like Ed is just inserting random nonsense into the article. Guettarda 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A letter to the editor of the The Ames Tribune by Virginia Allen is hardly a promising start for not being nonsense. FeloniousMonk 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed's second edition

I removed the template Ed added to the talk page for the reason cited in the edit summary, and because we already make that point at the begining of the page. •Jim62sch• 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The other one, the talkheader template, was also already covered by the Read Me section above. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Overview

Evidence for intelligent causation

The Overview currently states; "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution." ID commonly accepts microevolution and is thus not "an alternative to it". The primary focus for ID is to examine if evidence exists for intelligent causation, not to be an alternative to evolution. To correct the inaccurate inferences, propose stating:

  • Intelligent design examines evidence for intelligent causation in nature. e.g., identifying evidence for design in biotic systems in contast to exclusively natural explanations for macroevolution.DLH 02:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. The classic examples (blood clotting, bacterial flagellum) are unrelated to speciation, so they would be microevolutionary. The point of ID is that it seeks supernatural explanations for things that "cannot" be explained naturally. To the best of my knowledge ID is agnostic with regards to whether evolution (at whatever scale) occurs. While ID is a subset of creationism, it isn't identical with YEC. Guettarda 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
ID acknowledges empirical evidence for microevolution such as viral changes and 40,000 generations of stressed fruit flies. That is not "agnostic." ID does posit that examples such as blood clotting and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex. This contrast further holds for abiogenesis considering the requirements for the simplest self reproducing cell. These are not ameanable to formation by small gradual changes based on mathematical modelling and the probabilites of such occurring by mutation and natural selection within the known age of the universe over all particles at the fastest conceivable combination rates. That is based on empirical evidence of the laws of chemistry and probability. These examples are not "microevolution" in the common sense of the word, and would therefore fall under the alternative of macro evolution. What other word would you propose that is not micoevolution?DLH 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it not microevolution? Is there a purported speciation account in the formation of the blood clotting system? If not, then it's microevolution. By the way, 40,000 generations of fruit flies? Do you mean Lenski's E. coli? experiment?
That is a red herring as the statement says nothing about microevolution. It explicitly addresses the primary issue of "macroevolution" where there is clear disagreement. Your examples are discussed under Irreducible complexity. Your comments make no difference to the statement provided.DLH 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you please supply a source for your assertions? ID is agnostic as to whether evolution occurs, and at what scale evolution occurs. It only addresses the mechanism by which some evolution takes place. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, it's a separate field.
  • I am confused by the following: "These are not ameanable to formation by small gradual changes based on mathematical modelling and the probabilites". Are you suggesting that mathematical modelling has something to do with the origin of life? Guettarda 03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Abiogenesis is foundational to evolution. If you presume exclusively natural causes, and If no abiogenesis, then no evolution. Abiogenesis is evolution's Achilles heel.

The mathematical modeling is to address Darwin's statement:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Thus ID's focus on modeling empirical evidence to evaluat what can form under the laws of nature, and by contrast what could not have by chemical laws and probabilty theory within the known age of the universe.DLH 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How precisely do you figure that abiogenesis is evolution's Achilles Heel? Evolution and abiogenesis are different subjects. Odd too how ID proponents simply cannot accept a concept like abiogenesis (note again that it is separate from evolution), but are all wild about some supernatural can't-be-seen defies-logic deity, er, intelligent designer who created something out of nothing. I guess it all comes down to a fear that our lives just might be random and without any meaning other than what we give them. •Jim62sch• 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
DLH, you seem to be missing the point of presented: ID is presented as an alternative supporting the creationist perception that evolution doesn't happen, but its proponents with scientific credentials readily accept evolution with the caveat that you note, their claim that there may be things that evolution can't explain. ...dave souza, talk 08:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
ID assumes nothing about "the creationist perception that evolution doesn't happen." That is a false assertion. Most in ID accept that random mutation occurs and thus do not object to "microevolution" per se. Thus the explicit use of "macroevolution" rather than the ambiguous term "evolution" to clarify the issue at hand.DLH 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
DLH, abiogenesis and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other. To use an analogy I'm fond of: suppose I bake you a cake and you ask me how I made the cake. I explain how I did so and list the ingredients. You ask where the ingredients came from. I tell you I bought them at a certain store. You ask how the ingredients got to that store. I say I don't know. This doesn't invalidate my recipe and other instructions. Evolution is just like how I made the cake, what happened before is interesting but doesn't effect its validity at all. JoshuaZ 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Wishful thinking Jim62sch and JoshuaZ. It's not ignorance of "where it came from", but explicit knowledge of natural laws of physics and chemistry and availability of ingrediants within the known age of the universe. You are assuming the ingredients to make the cake exist. Abiogenesis is the jump from H2O, O2, N2, CO2 & minerals (P, S ) and metals (Fe, etc.) to useful operating self reproducing cell able to assimilate energy or process organic chemicals. Darwin assumed the reproducing cell existed and knew nothing of its complexity. Later he privately speculated on the warm pond origin. If you start from exclusively natural causes, then you have to show abiogenesis before you have any self reproducing cell to mutate, reproduce and select. Abiogenesis of a self reproducing cell is the most obvious example to refute Darwin's theory according to his explict statement. Biologist are just now identifying the essential components. There are no quantified models demonstrating it. QED.DLH 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, and you still miss the bloody point. Is that part of the DI indoctrination, to imply controversy where there is none? Oh, what am I saying, of course it is. QED. •Jim62sch• 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm agreed that Abiogenesis and Evolution are conceptually distinct and neither requires the other. However, one can hardly blame ID proponents for the confusion given the parlour game evolutionists such as Dawkins and Crick have made out of coming up with solutions for the abiogenesis problem. Solutions, I might add, that in Dawkins' case seriously approaches pseudoscience, and in Crick's case leaps right in. Gabrielthursday 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Just in the same way as gravitationists make a parlour game out of coming up with solutions for the Big Bang problem, so one can hardly blame IF proponents for the confusion. ...dave souza, talk 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy is flawed. Gravitation and the Big Bang are not completely distinct scientific problems, as Abiogenesis and Evolution are. The error of the IFers in your analogy is IF; the error of the IDers here is compounding the issues of Abiogenesis and Evolution. If you're going to be flippant (which is not WP:CIV) at least get it right. Gabrielthursday 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Why can't you take this seriously? In what way are the scientific problems of Abiogenesis and Evolution more completely distinct than Gravitation and the Big Bang? As Meyer has indicated, ID is in sympathy with IF. Further down this section we have a proposed definition of ID starting from the Big Bang, which is obviously an issue for gravitationists rather than evolutionists – or do you know of a Darwinian theory of cosmos formation? ..dave souza, talk 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Back to the proposed statement where I add "abiotic" and "starting from the Big bang":
  • Intelligent design examines evidence for intelligent causation in nature. e.g., identifying evidence for design in biotic and abiotic systems in contast to exclusively natural explanations for macroevolution starting from the Big bang.DLH 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Incorporated abiogenesis:
  • * Intelligent design examines evidence for intelligent causation in nature. e.g., identifying evidence for design in biotic and abiotic systems in contast to exclusively natural explanations for abiogenesis and macroevolution starting from the Big bang.

DLH 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Did DI give you permission to rewrite their definition? Too funny. •Jim62sch• 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No DLH
To point the obvious, this proposed introductory paragraph skips ahead to the subject of the second and later paragraphs, missing out the point that ID is presented as a new different alternative supernatural explanation for features. "Intelligent causation" is an interesting term, hinting at the teleological search for a cause which underlies ID. In contrast mainstream biologists experiment, including making testable predictions, and provide explanations in which natural processes result in the evolution of these features. The claim that ID "examines evidence" looks odd considering Behe's failure to keep up with research into features he claimed were inexplicable, and "identifying evidence for design" should read "identifying unexplained features which they claim must have a supernatural cause, so can't be explained". Then shrugging off explanations. "Macroevolution" is of course a creationist buzzword, and do ID proponents openly use the term? Since evolution only starts after the appearance of life, the Big Bang's a bit premature. The present paragraph is much better. ..dave souza, talk 14:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Purpose of ID is to "examine evidence". Behe states he searched extensively for detailed mechanisms.
Amusing, but insufficient to justify a change to the existing concise and accurate paragraph. Once again you've jumped past ID being presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. Which sums up a more long winded explanation by someone who modestly describes himself as one of the architects of the theory of ID, "But what exactly is the theory of intelligent design? Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution." An explanation that's linked "For more information see" in the What is Intelligent Design? page linked in the opening statement of the article here. The rest of your comment is getting into the detail covered by succeeding paragraphs in the article, but referring to the Big Bang is certainly an obscure way of hinting at the panspermia that Behe doesn't believe in. Models of abiotic systems don't seem to be a priority in the CSC's own description. As for "macroevolution", searches of talk pages and blogs are unconvincing, and the IDwiki put together by people like yourself is hardly authoritative. Your search there reveals no article titles, and a massive six mentions in the text! However I've found a couple of mentions in a document linked from the CSC - Top Questions page: one to "so-called macroevolutionary changes", and a footnote "Because there is some debate as to whether one should apply the term microevolution (in contrast to macroevolution) to our evolution meaning #3, we have used the micro/macro “E” terms sparingly." So that's why they don't use it often. By the way, your making it a piped link to evolution suggests your creationist perspective. Why not link macroevolution which explains it well? And would give you a useful starting point for an article to fill that gap in the IDwiki.. ...dave souza, talk 23:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to macroevolutionDLH 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I find the use of the term "macroevolution" interesting. I first started participating in evolution/creationism arguments 25 years ago or so, and I recall the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" appearing in the early 1990s, used almost exclusively by creationists. To scientists, there wasn't any difference, it was just "evolution." That's still the case now. But here on Wikipedia I see these terms bandied about by folks supposedly knowledgable of science; clearly the creationists have successfully created a dichotomy out of thin air and made it mainstream. I would argue that any definition of ID that includes the word "macroevolution" automatically labels it as creationist in origin — and consequently doesn't qualify as NPOV. -Amatulic 02:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Amat, ID advocates use the macro/micro dichotomy all the time. See for example [4]. JoshuaZ 02:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's my point. The beginning of this section concerns changing the definition in the introduction to the article. The article currently defines ID quite objectively, without resorting to creationist terminology such as the word "macroevolution" — which would make the introduction kind of circular and non-NPOV, if it defines a creationist concept (ID) using creationist terms and creationist dichotomies. -Amatulic 00:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. If the dichotomy is used by the IDers also, what is the problem? JoshuaZ 01:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Macroevolution isn't a "creationist" term - it's just one that is abused by creationists. It's a valid term for a level of study of evolutionary phenomena. In part it may be more common now than it was 20 years ago because it is being pushed by creationists, but it's also a level of organisation that is more actively studied now than it was 20 years ago. Guettarda 04:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's also a term avoided by the DI in official publications, but used when preaching to the converted as the example shows. Using it in the introductory paragraph as suggested would imply Wikipedia support of this creationist gloss. ...dave souza, talk 04:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Macroevolution search of DI gives 70 hits. So there appears to be no evidence suggesting that DI is avoiding the term. e.g., Jonathan Wells states:

In 1937, Darwinian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky called the former "microevolution" and the latter "macroevolution," and he acknowledged that the extrapolation from one to the other was an "assumption."

DLH 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Wikipeia support or opposition, so that is irrelevant. (Besides, the general tone of the article is generally opposed to ID.)DLH 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Revised sentence shortening it and compacting the removed section with the following sentence which refers to the "exclusively natural" etc.
This is a positive definition succinctly summarizing the breadth of ID covering both abiotic and biotic aspects which are then expanded in subsequent paragraphs. ie It is broader than just "opposing evolution". DLH 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed "Big bang" to "formation of the Universe" to better incorporate deep design / the anthropic principle, to read:
  • Intelligent design examines evidence for intelligent causation in abiotic and biotic systems from the formation of the Universe to human beings.
  • DLH 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Natural causation

Overview continues: "This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection." This is a false dichotomy, hiding the key difference of the assumption of exclusively natural causation. Empirical evidence is not solely accessible to conventional science and not ID. Propose the following to correct these errors:

  • By contrast, conventional biological science, relies exclusively on natural explanations through processes such as mutation and natural selection. Both ID and Evolution seek to fit empirical data to model origins of biotic systems.DLH 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, this obscures the fact that there is no experimental science in ID, and there is no possibility of having experimental science or hypothesis testing in a system which fails to exclude the supernatural. Since "a miracle happened" is always an option in ID, and since there is no way to exclude the possibility, there is no way to have experimental science in ID. Guettarda 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of ID is to dump that reliance, and allow supernatural explanations. ...dave souza, talk 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot believe this has become the objection du jour. I'm sure this is in the archives somewhere. I mean, testablility and experimentation is (arguably) the core part of the scientific method. Supernatural => not observable => not testable => not scientific. Claiming supernatural-science is science is like claiming fake-flowers are flowers. Tez 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Dave souza and Tez - "Supernatural => non observal" is false characterization. Supernatural can be observable. e.g. numerous historical examples recorded in the Bible. "Supernatural => non testable" is equally false. See numerous experiments evaluating the effectiveness of prayer. The issue of abiogenesis and macroevolution is equally untestable. The issue is NOT whether you or other critics agree with those positions. The issue is to fairly present the position that ID takes. The current statement is demonstrably false and thus justifies deletion under Wiki policy. I am proposing a correction to that. Please address the correction, not your red herrings. DLH 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The supernatural is also observable in "It", "Pet Sematary" and "The Stand" -- your point? •Jim62sch• 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
DLH, what exactly differentiates an observable "natural" phenomenom versus a "supernatural" one, and how can one tell the difference between something supernatural and something currently unexplainable? --Sylguy69 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sylguy69 ID uses "intelligent causation" or "intelligent design" whether the cause be recent, historic, or in biotic or abiotic origins, not "supernatural". The inferred capabilites of the intelligent cause are sufficient to achieve the inferred task, but ID cannot infer beyond that.DLH 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sylguy69 - See Irreducible complexity and the Universal probability bound for probabilistic basis that is not just "unexplainable" but "could not happen" within credible probability. Again I do not see any objections to the proposed language describing ID, only objections to ID itself.DLH 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a question for both Guettarda and Souza. If you design something, and you are using the physical laws of the universe to then construct it are you engaging in something that is not observable?--ArrrghBob 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Strawman. •Jim62sch• 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are conflating theistic evolution with ID.JPotter 17:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No the article is the one doing the conflating. If that were rectified, you would get a lot fewer requests for changes on this article.--ArrrghBob 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are asking Bob. What you do mean by "observable"? I assume you aren't asking whether the thing you made is observable (that's a simple "detection" question). Are you asking if your action (in construction) would be observable in the final product? I assume this somehow relates to this conversation, but I'm really not sure what you are asking. Guettarda 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please disregard my mention of you in my message above. I meant to direct the question to Tez. But since you ask, both the final product and the action, if it were viewed at the time of the action, would be observable. I'm just pointing out that if there were a designer and that designer were using the physical laws of the universe rather than "miracles", the designer's actions and products would be observable.--ArrrghBob 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed, ArrrghBob ... except where they're not observable (or at least not yet observable). This is among the classic conceptual problems of every era, for sure. ... Kenosis 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you asking whether the construction, or whether the design would be directly or indirectly observable? Like Guettarda, I'm not quite sure what sort of answer you're expecting. I fear that I will be criticised for indulging in discussion not directly related to improving the article (yes, I do this too often -- I have little self-control), but essentially, my idea of 'observable' is simply the proper application of an operational definition. What you observe (in science) is pretty much equivalent to how you observe it. Does that clear things up? Tez 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I am using the exact same definition of "observable", so what do you think? Would the products and actions be observable?--ArrrghBob 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If there were a designer and that designer were using the physical laws of the universe rather than "miracles", the designer's actions and products would be observable, and the actions would appear to be the physical laws of the universe. And anyone believing in said designer would be a Deist. To cite someone on /. The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance. ...dave souza, talk 22:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Red herring. ID examines what CAN be done within the known laws of the universe over all time and by contrast, what cannot be done. ID seeks to identify distinguishable intelligent causation from observable evidence, not what is "indistinguishable from chance". So far I see not objections to nor improvements to the proposed language.DLH 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Answer to Bob's red herring. Your proposal mischaracterises both ID and evolution. The latter doesn't "model origins of biotic systems", it explains development processes through testable theories. ID doesn't seek "to identify distinguishable intelligent causation from observable evidence", it seeks to claim that an unexplained phenomenon must be inexplicable, and so is "evidence" of a Higher Designer. And under oath fails to posit any attempts to "identify distinguishable intelligent causation" other than saying that it looks designed. Research, what research? ...dave souza, talk 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Neo-darwinism apparently cannot test abiogenesis within in the known age of the universe, and has not experimentally demonstrated macroevolution, despite tens of thousands of generation of flies. Thus it relies on models such as population models. ID similarly takes those models to demonstrate probabilities smaller than the Universal probability bound. It is developing intelligent causation based theories far more than just "looks" designed.

To clarify your objection, expand the statement to:

  • Both ID and Evolution seek to fit empirical data to model origins and development of biotic systems.DLH 03:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have not heard any objections to:
DLH, your failure to hear objections does not mean that your attempt to change this sentence is agreed or accepted. As pointed out above, the existing paragraph as a whole does not need alteration. Your claim of a "false dichotomy" is incorrect as has been stated earlier in this section of discussion, and the key difference of science looking for natural causation is already covered in the linked word natural in the first sentence, though the distinction could be emphasised by noting ID's preference for the supernatural. Empirical evidence is accessible to ID as well as "conventional science", but ID features no scientific research or testing, and is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Scientific experimentation involves more than rhetoric. ....19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Natural" in the existing sentence only refers to the natural world. It does not address the foundational issues of: "relies exclusively on natural explanations". This comment is thus irrelevant.DLH 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The information in biotic systems far exceeds that in existing laws of nature and thus cannot be explained by them under any existing naturalistic explanations. Thus ID formulates hypotheses without those restrictions to test if they will better fit and predict empirical data. DLH 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The comment on "scientific research ortesting . .. .rhetoric" is an assertion contrary to ID, that again does not does not address the proposed revision. DLH 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Compacting the first proposed ID sentence and this comment on conventional science, by moving "for abiogenesis and macroevolution" to this sentence, including incorporating Dave Scott's link to macroevolution. The revised sentence reads:
Shame your sentence is a) OR, and b) wrong. Oh well. •Jim62sch• 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no ojection to the two sentences representing the respective positions of ID and conventional biological science. On reflection, prpose to add Physical cosmology before abiogenesis, to represent the abiotic side of natural science for symmetry.DLH 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Crank magnet articles Archived

While this was an interesting conversation it had nothing to do with the ID article. I've archived it. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ALMOST all

The quote cited for "all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" says "almost all of them are"--check the quote. You have to be carefull with universal qualifiers, the person cited was, and so should wikipedia. Brentt 04:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this again and again and again, and indeed I was in Brentt's shoes when I first began researching this subject (as some of the more experienced editors will no doubt recall with a smirk). Offers were made more than once on the talk page, in the context of excessively lengthy inquiry (now viewable in the archived talk links), to cite just one leading proponent who wasn't affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Notta one. Best offer was George W. Bush, to which we can now add Ann Coulter. Turns out the notable ones (to date at least) are all with the DI. Moreoever, Brentt's assertion is incorrect. The verbatim quote in the citation is "All of the leaders are" [italics mine]. ... Kenosis 04:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The question that interests me more is, do ID proponents all start as DI affiliates/members, or were some of them at one time solo and then joined the organization as a form of mutual support and alliance? Ie., does the DI necessarily create or train all ID advocates, or does it merely attract their allegiance? Kasreyn 04:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
yeah right. ... Kenosis 04:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
To which? I'm asking seriously here, I'm not trying to make a joke or sarcastic comment, honest! (I suppose the disclaimer is needed - I do have a habit of it...) I really don't know the answer to my question. Kasreyn 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, I don't know the answer to this question either. I don't know if it's a chicken before the egg problem, a cart before the horse problem, or a "which came first?" problem. ... Kenosis 06:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And in all honesty, it really doesn't matter unless one is doing a sociological or psyhological paper on the ID movement. •Jim62sch• 12:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It's actually pretty clear from Discovery Institute that it was founded in 1990, a year after ID was published in Pandas, and provided a source of funding which all leading proponents have been glad to sign up for. ..dave souza, talk 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Traffic the other way is interesting as well: historian of evolution Ed Larson (who debated Dembski on The Daily Show) was a DI fellow until they started getting into ID.--ragesoss 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The only caveat I would raise here is that the Concepts classifies theistic versions of fine-tuning under ID. But obviously some major proponents of theistic fine-tuning are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute - Richard Swinburne and John Polkinghorne for example. The solution here might be to edit the "Fined-tuned universe" section of this article to say that ID proponents have relied on and developed fine-tuning arguments, but not that theistic fine-tuning is ID in the Discovery Institute (tm) sense.--CJGB (Chris) 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
All the more reason to change "all" to "most". It is more accurate.DLH 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A link to the strong anthropic principle is included, in fact the sentence reads, "Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most notably an argument based on the anthropic principle that the universe is "fine-tuned",..." and further on, "Critics of both intelligent design and the strong form of the anthropic principle argue that they are essentially a tautology; ...". This pretty well covers the issue. •Jim62sch• 12:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph states that "all" of the leading proponents of ID are from the Discovery Institute. Please change "all" to "many" as there are other vocal organizations who promote ID. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.128.182 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (comment moved from Notes to editors)

see above. ..dave souza, talk 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Endorse the recommendation.DLH 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the Term

Deleted: "Though unrelated to the current use of the term" as false. The quotation gives the same usage as modern ID. i.e., that information and complexity in nature has no objective basis in the laws of nature.DLH 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Re: "Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intellidesign" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American and"

At least break this sentence into two with separate references.

  • What is the paragraph where this phrase is used?
  • Who stated it?
  • Why is it relevant here?

It does not appear to add to the discussion.DLH 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed from the article until a better source is provided:

Patrick Edward Dove, (1856) under the heading “Intelligent Design” discusses in relation to intelligence and infers a designer.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC18266918&id=VYRLq_L4YkkC&pg=PA476&dq=%22Intelligent+design%22&as_brr=1 ''The Theory of Human Progression, and Natural Probability of a Reign of Justice''] , Sanborn & Carter, pp 473-479</ref>

GoogleBooks is not an acceptable source. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The Author, title, year, publisher, and page are given, as well as free public access to that publication. The Google link falls under free individual use. This reference gets restored excepty where you can show explicit rules basis for not giving that part of it. DLH 22:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The book uses "INTELLIGENCE –INTELLIGENT DESIGN" as a page heading, but doesn't use the term in the text. It discusses the idea of intelligence and a Designer in relation to natural theology, and says of design "the term is illegitimate until it has been determined what a designer is". ..dave souza, talk 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It still uses the term and would constitute first use. On page 473 he refers to an "intelligent designer". On pgs 477-478 he addresses designer in context of physical science.

"Let a designer stand for an intelligence who is possessed of power, and who intentionaly adapts means to an end. Design therefore will stand for intentional adaptation. . . . the terms .. . are used ligitimately in physical science. An when, on the other hand, we find in nature the adaptation of means to an end, we infer design and a designer, because the only circumstances within our experience in which we can trace the origination of adaptation are those in which human mind is implicated."

While he goes on to other issues, he does mention design, intelligence, intelligent designer, intelligent design in the context of arguments relating to the physical sciences. That has alot more applicability than the 1847 citation that has no reference to present usage.DLH 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Google Books is not an acceptable source. Normally we could just get by with a cite and no hyperlink, but since this is an incredibly obscure reference and cite that's near impossible to validate, it really it's going to need to a link to an online source (other than Google Books), either primary or secondary. FeloniousMonk 23:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that is an assertion with no reference to Wiki rules. As such is is your POV and an unacceptable reason. A full copy of the book with title, author, publisher and date is available online for any user to verify.DLH 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Earlier 1850 References to Dove:
  • Dove, Patrick Edward, The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice. London, Johnstone & Hunter, 1850. LC 08031381

Dove, Patrick DLH 00:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The Theory of Human Progression, etc. In : Science. The Science of Politics. part 1. 1850. 8º. British Library #003610093

(This appears to be the same 1850 version but author missing. Other publications are provided for (Dove, Patrick Edward) DLH 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including this citation in the first sentence of the "Origins of the term" section. The reference to "Intelligent design" is actually a chapter subheading for Dove's particular teleological argument rendered in that part of his book. It appears the reference to Dove should go immediately after the 1847 Scientific American article reference. Nice find there, DLH. ... Kenosis 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kenosis. Here is the proposed revised text:

The phrase "intelligent design" occured in Scientific American (1847) (unrelated to current use). Patrick Edward Dove (1850,1856) discussed intelligence, design, intelligent designer, mind, and intelligent agent, “as used legitimately in the physical sciences”, under the heading “Intelligence-Intelligent Design.” [1] [2] At the British Association for the Advancement of Science's 1873 annual meeting, Paleyite botanist George James Allman stated:

Dove renders an extremely interesting theological argument on pp476-478, which is a more detailed version of the argument made by Allman in the blockquote currently in the ID article. May I suggest the following:

No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.[3]

This approach keeps it simple and straightforward, because after all the arguing that will potentially occur on this talk page, it really comes down to another reference to the teleological argument, just as in the cite to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. All in all, a very nice find, DLH. My compliments on your research... Kenosis 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort Kenosis. I agree with keeping the Allman quote. My edits refer to the preceeding paragraph up to the quote.DLH 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the 1847 reference is allegedly "unrelated to current use," it is just a sidelight and its refernce should be minimized. The section should also start with the premise "the phrase intelligent design." Thus my rearranging to state:
  • "The phrase "intelligent design" occured in Scientific American (1847) (unrelated to current use)." DLH 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone provide the quote in context to see if it is really "unrelated"? DLH 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Kenosis The Dove book consitutes the first substantial use related to current use. Dove discusses many of the issues current in ID discussions in the context of physical sciences. (He then goes on to apologetic theological arguments.) Thus I hold to my proposed text. There are many far more irrelevant items in this article to cut. eg the quotes under "Improbable vs impossible" which have very little relevance to the distinguishing the validity of ID vs evolution. DLH 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No way, DLH. Dove's argument is pretty much standard mid-19th century natural theology. As a matter of fact, he runs the gamut of Kant's delineation of natural theology which was put forth in the Critique of Pure Reason, covering both "physico-theology" (extrapolation from natural events) and ethical or moral theology (extrapolation from observation of human moral behavior, which some theologians have criticized as putting the cart before the horse[citation needed]). The chapter in which he uses "intelligent design" in the subchapter heading is classic physico-theology. The whole scuff about intelligent design today is that unlike the mid-19th century teleological arguments, it attempts to disguise itself as science, rather than the theology it actually is. ... Kenosis 02:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Allman gives one argument currently used in ID -that natural laws give no basis for the origin of the complexity of the cell and information, and thus infer intelligent design. Dove gives another argument where observed correlation between human designers and known designed objects is extrapolated to nature and the design observed there. See especially mid pg 477-top 478. He then goes on to natural theology. So part of his arguments are in current use in ID.DLH 02:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

DLH, why don't you just put it in in keeping with the current format for that section--I gave one way of doing it just above which I speculate would be consistent with existing consenses about the basic structure of the article. Then perhaps proceed to put up a summary of Dove's points on this talk page, arguing the similarities with intelligent design in the modern form that has generated so much controversy today. The editors can argue it on its merits, and perhaps see if it rightly should be made to stand out from the other uses of the term in that section that are unrelated to the current use of "intelligent design", perhaps with a brief statement of whatever its similarities are. By my quick reading of Dove, though, it's classic mid-19th century natural theology (concurrent with Darwin too, so it's really interesting). But it's similarities to intelligent design today are really the same teleological slants that ID advocates like to throw in with their various arguments. Again, the real scuff, as I reiterated just above, is not over the teleological argument or over natural theology, but over the attempt to pass it off as a form of science. Recall also that science today has a completely different meaning to 21st century western culture.

But let's please argue this on the merits before doing anything radical. All the editors deserve their say about it. ... Kenosis 03:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that "Unrelated" should refer to the 1847 reference, not to the Allman article. Thus, my edit to separate into separate sentences:

The phrase "intelligent design" occured in Scientific American (1847) (unrelated to current use).

DLH 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Per your comments, I propose to change: “as used legitimately in the physical sciences” to

in the context of mathematics and physical sciences.

. That is a more removed statement without the author's statement of "legitimate".DLH 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • British Library #003309094 affirms the 1850 listing:
  • Title The Science of Politics. (The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice.) [By P. E. Dove.]
  • The revised statement and added reference to Patrick Dove now reads:

The phrase "intelligent design" occured in Scientific American (1847) (unrelated to current use). In The Theory of Human Progression etc. pp 476-479, Patrick Edward Dove, (1850, 1856) under the heading “Intelligent Design,” discussed intelligence, design and mind, in the context of physical sciences, and inferred a designer. [4] [5] [6] Intelligent Design is also used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.[7]

  • DLH 03:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Improbable vs. Impossible

I've removed this material just placed, and am putting it here for further discussion. This stuff has nothing to do with the Paulos example, which is an illustration that applies irrespective of the number of decimal places one adds to a number. Dembski's speculated threshold for "specified complexity" and the speculated "universal probability bound" is already discussed farther up in the article. ... Kenosis 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Conversely, being dealt eleven hands exactly the same in exactly the same order would have a probability less than Dembski's Universal probability bound and appear to be within the category of "impossible" events within the rational scientific understanding of probability. More strikingly, Fred Hoyle estimated of the probability of abiogenesis of 2000 proteins of 200 amino acids each as parts per 10 to (40,000) power.[8], Robert Shapiro accepted Hoyle's estimate, but Hubert Yockey consdered it "highly optimistic" and recalculated it.[9], [10] ... 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


This section with the long Paulos quote is irrelevant if not put in the context of the probabilities of abiogenesis and irreducible complex components relative to the Universal probability bound. Either put both in or delete this section as a one sided POV irrelevant criticism.

If "improbable vs impossible" is to be explored here, it has to be relevant to the maximum probability in the universe over all time. Recommend moving this section to the Universal probability bound section and including these contrasting estimates there.DLH 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay... What was the factual evidence needed for the statement I made. Statistics is not based on the real world, it is based on expectations of the real world. The whole paragraph is dodgy in my view, as the "rebuttal" misses the facts about the nature of statistics, possibly due to the fact that the first part also misses the fact. Ansell 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, but statistics as used by Dembski have no basis in the real world. Statistics in general are derived from multiple observations of some defined aspect of the real world, and it is upon this that expectations are quantified. Problem with speculating that, for example, after you reach such-and-such a probability it can't be by accident, is that this is not statistics but rather is mere speculation. Or in the case of intelligent design, is theology attempting to pass itself off as science. ... Kenosis 03:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Universal probability bound summarises estimates of the maximum possible combinations of the universe over all time, or the maximum number of logical operations over all time. It you have other citations to estimates of the maximum number of chance permutations over all time according to the known laws of physics, please provide them. Using inverse Plank time appears to be rather generous compared to using actual chemical reaction rates. Otherwise we summarize what exists and give examples relating to those estimates to help the reader understand. DLH 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved this section to the Universal probability bound page.DLH 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
DLH, I just replaced that section. I think you're experienced enough to realize that you can't just make a big removal like that without some kind of clear consensus among the many participating editors here. Anyway, please see my comment above about the other section currently under discussion. ... Kenosis 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand there can be reasonable disagreement whether the section on improbable vs. impossible events belongs as a subsection of the section on "Argument from ignorance". Confusing this argument with the idea of a universal probability bound is, however, exactly Paulos' point. People often say things like "that couldn't happen by chance", when in fact, they do not realize that highly improbable events happen all the time. Dembski is, of course, essentially saying that "well, at some point it can't be by chance", while his critics are saying "Dembski, your assertion is totally arbitrary, can't be tested, and is definitely not science, but just your own theological speculation." But either way, at the current stage of the article's development, the basic thrust of this longstanding section should not be completely removed or relocated without a clear consensus about it. ... Kenosis 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Long quote by Paulos on a trivial example appears POV. A serious article needs to address the issue Dembski raises of when does the probability become so small that it is not scientifically rational as you pointed out. Thus, there is a need to give examples of what appears to be greater than that example, and compare actual estimates of probability of abiogensis with that boundary. Otherwise it appears to be a POV coverup.DLH 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But does Dembsky support the designer or implementor, and has he communicated with him/her/them/it? •Jim62sch• 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As well as address Dembski constantly shifting the goalposts for the universal probability bound everytime he's shown to be in error. FeloniousMonk 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not describe them as refinements to the theory as most authors do?DLH 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as so doing is accurate and doesn't promote a particular view, sure. But in this instance reviewers say no amount of giggling of the terms will fix the universal probability bound; it is fundmentally flawed. Its' apparent complete lack of acceptance despite Dembski's efforts to fix it would indicate that these corrections being refinements is strictly Dembski's pov, meaning portraying here attempts to patch serious flaws as "refinements" is spin. FeloniousMonk 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
(ri)Which of course is why I used refactored, as that is far close to the truth than "refined" (unless one can refine snake oil). •Jim62sch• 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
ad hominem attack. Please stick to facts.71.120.35.49 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad hom on whom? And they's be's da fax. •Jim62sch• 01:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"(unless one can refine snake oil)." is an insinuation attacking the person's character. Please give substantative comments to the text.DLH 02:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you might want to learn what the term means before you go slinging accusations. Jim referred to Dembski's argument that his changes were "refinements" as snake oil, ie., a product of questionable value. He made no statement regarding yourself that I can see. Kasreyn 05:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you muchly, Kasreyn. I was not posting an ad hom for precisely the reason you stated. I was, however, posting an ad rem, which is quite acceptable, and in fact required if one is to take the opposite position, when discussing the matter. D, just so you know, rem (accustive of res) means "the matter (at hand)". •Jim62sch• 13:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing re ad rem, the phrase "snake oil" still gives no data or references and insinuates the author Dembski is a snake oil salesman and is thus ad hominem. Your link refers to: "The snake oil peddler became a stock character in Western movies: a travelling "doctor" with dubious credentials, selling some medicine (such as snake oil) with boisterous marketing hype, often supported by pseudo-scientific evidence." Recommend not using the term, and addressing the issue of approving or editing the proposed text.DLH 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
ROFL. It's no different from how Darwinism is used by DI in its "Dissent from Darwinism" (which is, BTW, a "terror" word -- like the phrase "bleeding-heart-liberal" -- used to refer to evolution by drawing on the negative perception of Social Darwinism) to essentialy say that Darwin was full of shit, an atheist, etc.
Moving on, the text is locked now, but nonetheless, I think it represents a fair description of Dembski's work. Dembski is hardly the Isaac Newton of info theory -- he's essentially a creationist in pseudo-mathematician's clothing. His "formula" (to be kind) leaves only one possible outcome -- everything was designed. Hardly good science, or even good math. Could you imagine what would happen if engineers applied similar mathematics -- our buildings would collapse. •Jim62sch• 00:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Readdressing the proposed text:
  • The references provided give examples of estimates of the probability of occurrence of evolution to compare with Dembski's Universal probability bound.
  • An example of winning the Powerball twelve times in a row, would give some perception of what the Universal probability bound means. The example of 6*10^-11 is not very significant relative to the 10^-120 bound. DLH 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. In addition, your assertion is flawed as the odds of winning the powerball 12 times in a row are not dependent on the outcome of the previous powerball drawings, whereas Dembski's "math" exhibits dependency on previous outcomes. Try again. •Jim62sch• 00:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please show where Dembski's Universal probability bound UPB is dependent on the sequence order of calculations. How does that address the proposed text?DLH 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only is the UPB flawed in the way Jim62sch just mentioned, it also neglects a vastly wider range of probabilities of all possible interactions of all elementary particles with respect to all other elementary particles, spread out over all time and over all space, including that which is as yet unseen by even the best instruments currently available. Using a derivative of the Planck constant merely scratches the surface of the possiblities, including that of a multiverse. It also neglects the possiblity that we've not yet gotten to the bottom of the subatomic realm in terms of defining forever what is an elementary particle--don't forget it was not too long ago that elementary particles were protons, neutrons and electrons. I strongly recommend that anyone with a genuine interest in any kind of theology other than a completely deterministic deistic view should exercise great caution in making the kinds of numerical assertions that ID advocates have displayed a penchant for. But either way, you end up with a God of the gaps speculation. For this reason, I would argue the section on "improbable vs. impossible events" is quite reasonably placed as a subsection of the "Argument from ignorance" (God of the Gaps) section in this article. ... Kenosis 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is to summarize the concept of the probability of one in all possible sets of all particles over all time, while rearranging the set of particles at the fastest possible time of Planck time.DLH 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes this does appear to be Dembski's point. Personally, I'd speculate that there are more possibilities of thought and action in 100 years of life in one rural town. But I haven't gotten around to figuring out how many orders of magnitude might be involved. And somewhat like Dembski, every time someone pointed out another independent variable, I'd probably have to keep changing the magnitude. And (at least in some towns), it would be as easy to conclude it was quite randomly developed rather than intelligently designed. But thank heaven, I'm not notable here. Either way, as to Dembski's approach, it's all speculation and not science, as the scientific organizations have asserted, and which the WP article properly summarizes. ... Kenosis 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You're on notice

Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries -- nyenyec ☎ 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so they admit to violating WP:AUTO and then try to attack the Wiki editors? Why do I feel less than rebuked? JoshuaZ 03:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for pointing that out! I particularly note the emphasis on: every Wikipedia article is expected to cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole!DLH 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, time to update the various ID articles on their expanded and self-described campaign. FeloniousMonk 03:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Quote of the day:
I know of numerous people who have tried to suggest changes to Wikipedia to lessen the current bias of the ID entries -- including staff of Discovery Institute. They were rebuffed...
Posted by Casey Luskin on September 6, 2006
Nice! Should we have a "spot the DI staff" competition? ;) ...dave souza, talk 08:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
They'll be the ones with the haloes about their heads of course. •Jim62sch• 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I particularly liked this bit : "I became interested in Intelligent Design recently and decided to investigate it a bit. Naturally I consulted Wikipedia for information on the subject and was stunned by the one sided tone of the material I found there". So much for investigating with an open mind, sounds like confirming creationism was the actual agenda. That there was science standing in the way seems to have flustered the correspondent. --Plumbago 08:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There you go screaming "biased" again. "When will they ever learn?"DLH 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone screamed. Or is pointing out fact shrill to your ears? •Jim62sch• 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
ROFL Have I ever told you what a treasure you are at this article (and the others related to it), FM? :) Kasreyn 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that I see DLH deleted this entire discussion. I've restored it, as the Discovery Institute declaring war on this article is certainly relevant, particularly in relation to the actions of ID promoters editing this article. It is also Wikipedia's policy that editors do not delete the comments of others except for personal attacks and revealed personal information. FeloniousMonk 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Soeone should go into the FSM article and whine about this there too. "It's such a one-sided article, so FSM must be real!" Great logic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.8.249.75 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By a miraculous coincidence, I was having a look around for some info on Mr. Dove and came across this recently edited page with some familiar information added by someone whose initials ring a bell... and had also linked it to their Kitzmiller article. Oddly enough in view of the complaint that we don't show both viewpoints, they seem to have been unable to find any "Reviews: Anti ID" – perhaps they should check out the page here for hints on how to be even handed? .....dave souza, talk 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Also this comment is rather fun! ....dave souza, talk 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Just following the orders at the top of the page: This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Are you seriously re going to discuss how to provide balanced editing in this article or continue ad hominem attacks and biased editing? The Kitzmiller comment just reiterates the popular perception of how biased Wikipedia articles are relating to ID. DLH 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Noting that the party primarily responsible for promoting ID has declared war on this article is pertinent to maintaining the quality of this article. Editors who have a history of one-sided editing here and elsewhere lack the credibility and standing to be lecturing on biased editing here. FeloniousMonk 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case FM, you should not be editing here either. 147.222.28.238 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi David... FeloniousMonk 22:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like FM just said what I was about to say. ;-) Pointing out that staff from the DI have attempted to twist this article to their own ends, and providing links to the discussion that outs them, is certainly discussion on "how to improve the Wikipedia article." We are here to write an unbiased article, not a Discovery Institute version. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I would concur that it is important for matters like this to be openly discussed. In the past, certain Wikipedia articles have experienced Freeper invasions and similar. The articles often suffer as a result under a sustained ideological assault and it is very important that articles receive extra attention if it is thought that a coordinated attempt to 'fix' an article by a particular ideological group might be underway. --Davril2020 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The comedy value aside, this move on the Discovery Institute's part should be included in the article, no? It's highly noteworthy, especially the part about DI staffers attempting to make the article into a DI approved POV. Mr Christopher 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's covered at the Center for Science and Culture and intelligent design movement articles. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Its good to finally see public record of the actions of "unbiased" Wikipedia editors. 71.120.35.49 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? So you have a problem with the DI's own call for action being mentioned in appropriate WP articles where it would be notable? Are you actually here to build an encyclopedia with us, or just to bitch and moan? Kasreyn 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: the article in this section. Personally, I'd like to put on notice the people who wish to abuse wikipedia by including fundamentally flawed information to attack science. These articles are being watched, and we will not tolerate white washing. If the ID people want to attack science do it in a laboratory, not on wikipedia. Arbusto 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You forget, they don't have laboratories, they only have PR-departments. DLX 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't information about articles be in their own article? For example, wikipedia has an article on itself. If there is enough notable controversy about the article, maybe it should be put in a separate article. Just a thought. Twelvethirteen 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really. This notice is important in the context of how the DI and CSC try to manipulate things not ID itself. JoshuaZ 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine-tuned universe

The following statement lacks support:

"Scientists almost unanimously have responded that this argument cannot be tested and is not scientifically productive." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert O'Brien (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to search for some over at the anthropic principle article. That goes into this at length, but I'm not expert enough (to say the least!) to pick out the best source. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a fine place to start. Also related would be Steady state theory and how it is a factor in the Tired light theory, then check out this to see how the tired light concept is used (misused?) by IDists and Creationists (especially YECs). •Jim62sch• 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Phenomenon limited to wacky US

I'm not going to go through and read all of the comments here. I'll just ask a simple question: is it very clear in this article that the Intelligent design nonsense is limited to the United States. Even the Catholic Church over here in Italy seems, for the most part, to find it bizare and dangerous. It prefers the notoion that science deals with the meterial world and religion with the spritual. This is the so-called "theistic evolution" view. It isvery important to make it very cear that this ID things is excldsuive to the US and that no on in Europe (or other parts of the world that I know of) takes it seriosuly. This would make it clear how small and insginficant a movement this really is and what its' true motivations and orgigns are. There are no scientiecs or philosopghers in Europe who take this stuff seriously. There are very few in the the US. If you oput all that toegether, it becomes clear that the amount of attention given to this thing on Wikiepdia is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion to what it deserves.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, ID does have some adherants in France (of all places), and a decent-sized following in Australia, and has been discussed in newspaper articles throughout the world. True, it is a primarily North American issue (except for Australia, which, given plate techtonics and continental drift is unlikely to ever join North America ;), butr it is a key issue and as such merits discussion and an article series. After all, adopting a world-view does not mean jettisoning isdsues that relate primarily to only one or two (or several) countries.
For example, the Englisk Wiki has a sizable article on Romano Prodi, who, while well-knownm in Italy and the EU, is essentialy a non-entity in other parts of the world. Of course, I just read the Italian article on il Professore and note that it is now locked due to conflict, and yet, even though ithis is due to Italo-centric disagreements, no one appears to be suggesting that too much time is spent on that article. Grazie e ciao. •Jim62sch• 13:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Lacatosias is correct in my estimation. The teleological argument traditionally has very little serious attention. What the whole stir is about is a socio-political battle for power in the United States. ...Kenosis 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out that it is primarily American might be a good idea, however I don't agree that it is getting more attention than it deserves from a certain standpoint (non-scientific). Obviously this article (and the entire series) has unnerved DI enough that they've called out their flacks and shills to try to make it look like an article written by DI. And while ID is a simple restatement of the teleological argument, the socio-political issue carries enough weight that an article fully explaining ID is merited. •Jim62sch• 15:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia started in North America, was mostly developed in North America, with a great deal of participation by English-speaking folks elsewhere around the planet (particularly, but certainly not limited to, the UK). Now that bilingual participation is increasingly important, these issues are getting more and more attention, and I trust that as the project continues to move forward, better methods will be worked out for making geographical differences within a subject clear to the readers. For now, though, it's already quite clear that today's controversy about intelligent design is predominantly in the US, just by reading the article. ... Kenosis 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lacatosias, Jim and Kenosis are all correct; it's simply a matter of degree. ID has followers in other Western countries, though only tiny minorities hold the view. A read of the Discovery Institute's Media Complaints Department, Evolutionnews.org, shows that the Discovery Institute's Propaganda & Misinformation Export Division is putting in overtime to correct this imbalance, with DI crony Mustafa Akyol working furiously in Turkey, where resistance to creationism is low. FeloniousMonk 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are outdoing your self in ad hominem arguments. How about some serious editing.

A visual map of the international range of interest can be seen at:

Interest in the ARN website is not at all obviously correlated with interest in ID. Furthermore that shows most of the interest still coming from the US. When the relatively low population of the US is then taken into account it is clear that this is almost completely a US concern. JoshuaZ 03:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The distribution of interested website visitors doesn't mean diddlysquat. The whole world was also interested in the tsunami in Indonesia last year. The whole world has been interested in the war in Iraq too. If Tony Blair quits, the whole world reads about it. Etc., etc. ... What the map shows is that the same is also true to some extent of the intelligent-design controversy in the US. Thus far that's the only locale where local school boards are being hauled into court over the issue. If that changes, the article will need to report accordingly. ... Kenosis 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
lol did you notice the numbers? less than 600 visits per day, my mid-sized public library page gets twice that traffic, heck some of my third level pages get more than that. Nowimnthing 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Not fair! Not fair! You have to calibrate that "count" against some known quantity, such as the measure of hits against Google.com. How does your local library measure up then, may I ask. --Rednblu 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. And according to the same sampling system, Google.com without the www attached got a mere 1 hit since January of this year, from somewhere in, it looks like Hungary. ([5]) ... Kenosis 01:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I can attest that the ID movement isn't exclusive to the U.S. In my home country, Hungary there is a small local equivalent of the Discoverty Institute called "Intelligent Design Working Group" (http://ertem.hu) and their members faithfully translate books, press releases etc. published by the DI and prominent ID figures in addition to their own books (usually just rehashing classical ID arguments).
There was even a (rather lame) television debate between ID proponents (some of them academics, although none of them biologists AFAIK) and those defending the theory of evolution organized in part by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

-- nyenyec ☎ 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for Hungary!! But, then, I was talking about self-labeled scientists such as Dumbski, and not theologians. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly; these kinds of theological debates are typically "rather lame" as you say, or at least relatively civilized and deferential to the presumption of good faith on both sides. For about the last half-century it was that way in the US too — until a number of school boards started proposing curricula disguising creationist theology as science, in a country which has a constitutional separation of church and state. (See also:Wedge strategy and wedge document.) That's what the controversy is all about. In the meantime, the WP article on the teleological argument continues to get relatively little traffic (except, of course, for a brief argument here and there, particularly when the words "intelligent design" are involved). ... Kenosis 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

What would it take to get this article to Featured Article? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about uninformed trolls - any argument they make on the day that is transparently bad-faith/POV will be discounted. But what things are there that well-informed trolls could use as an issue? For eg, the article is quite long, could that be used as an issue? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed TO DO

This is a Capstone article - it serves as an introduction to the series on Intelligent design.

It should provide a summary of the topic, without going into great detail on any particular aspect of the topic which is covered in the foundation articles.

Summary of problems. Please add, amend and strikeout as you see fit.

  1. Politics
    • some voters will be motivated by personal bias
  2. Issues with the article
    • must be visibly fair to both parties
  3. Length
    • The whole article is long - especialy the Notes and References section
  4. Readability
    • Sections 1 through 3 are (IMHO) good, but Section 4 (Controversy) is a hard slog.
  5. Structure
    • The last paragraph of the introduction is quite detailed - it should perhaps be moved into section 4
    • Sections 1.1 and 1.2 are about the history of ID, but they show up in the contents as being part of the overview
    • The 2nd part of Section 1.2 (Origins of the term) isn't about the origins of the term, but about the designer. In fact, it partially duplicates what's in the section about the designer, and should be merged into that section.
    • The Section titled "Religion and leading proponents" isn't really about the leading proponents, it's mainly about who the designer is
    • The Section "improbably versus impossible events" probably should be trimmed and moved into the section about specified complexity
    • There isn't any sort of conclusion to the article, it just muddles to an end.
    • The "Notes and references" section is 6 pages long. I would suggest merging half the notes into the main body and deleting the other half, leaving the References
  6. Coverage
    • The series on Intelligent design (according to the box) includes the concept Theistic realism, which this article doesn't have a section on.
    • The series on Intelligent design (according to the box) includes Santorum Amendment, which this article doesn't have a section on.
    • The main article on the designer is called Intelligent Designer, while this article has a section on 'the designer or designers'
  7. Annoying things
    • Philip Johnson is noted as being the father of ID at least twice removed the 2nd such mention. Ben Aveling 08:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The paragraph at the start of Concepts talking about the way we have arguments and counter arguments is odd. Perhaps we should have concepts, and 'limitations' of concepts.
    • Having the box "part of the series on Creationism" before the box "part of the series on ID" seems the wrong way around to me.

Box Order - ID then Creationism

I support the proposal to change the box order to common sense ID first, then creationism second.DLH 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

back the truck up

Ben, back the truck up. No one agreed to any of this, which would be a prerequisite for actions this sweeping. In addition, you have made changes that are clearly going against consensus. I'm requesting that you hold up until everyone has a chance to weigh in. I realise that your intentions are good, but you should go through the archives (painful though that is) to see why a number of these ideas were shot down in the past. •Jim62sch• 09:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I disagree with the majority of the changes listed in number 5. The legal status of ID being included in the intro was the subject of much debate, and there's broad consensus that it is necessary for a complete and accurate intro. In fact, I disagree with most of this list; much of it seems subjective. For example, the notes and references section; experience has taught us that citing credible sources is the only thing that has settled partisan objections. At least 2/3rds of the sources present are the result of direct challenges to article content. So unless we want to go back to the endless objections of 1 year ago here, removing sources from the aritcle is not acceptable. Let's just review the article against featured article criteria. Let's discuss this on a subpage, so we leave this page open for other issues. I've set it up here: /FA_attempt_discussion_2006 FeloniousMonk 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. It's your article. Ben Aveling 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Theistic realism

Should we have a section on theistic realism? Should we mention Santorum? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics

I seem to recall a group of editors resigning to never being able to get this article to Featured Article status, because of the inevitable number of opposing voices that will pop up. -- Ec5618 08:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
A great deal of toil, I imagine. It garnered a great deal of scepticism last go around. Gabrielthursday 08:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that the article is currently under siege by a partisan group that has issued a call for astroturfers. I share the desire to get the article featured, but I don't see how it could ever be done unless it were sprotected for a ridiculously long time and every change hashed out completely on the talk page. Kasreyn 10:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The article as it stands now is substantively different from what it was last go-around. It is much better written, in conformance with all provisions of NPOV and as concise as is possible given the subject material. However, given the point raised by Kasreyn above, and to an extent, the "essence" of the points raised by Lacatosias below, any attempt at FA status will likely be hotly contested by ID supporters, and, if my experience with articles of this type is an accurate reflection of reality, a "get out the vote" campaign in opposition to such status. That this possibility exists is a sad indictment of the society in which we live and the type of alternate society Wiki has tried to develop. Facts are all too easily subsumed by the vox populus and the vox regium. •Jim62sch• 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a very serious challenge, folks. We all know (all of us, that is, who are not fundies) that we're not just talking about the Discovery Institute really. President Bush and perhaps the majority of the Republican party and many Democrats have endorsed this crap. I'm actually terrified by the prospect of the kind of thing that could happen to pages like this (and other politicized scientific matters) in a "popular" encyclopedia open to everyone like Wikipedia. This is the reason I though it important to mention that the limitation of this theological/political phenomenon to the United States cannot be overemphasized. These wealthy conservatives in the States are well-known for their unbelievable capacities to organize and finance disinformation campaigns on a massive scale. They got GW Bush elected, after all, on a "social issues" agenda of intolerance and hatred. Don't think they will give up on Wikipedia easily. Good luck.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The type of soapbox advocacy directly above is really inappropriate. Gabrielthursday 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, even if it is primarily true, it doesn't belong here. However, the fact that DI has declared war on Wiki, this series of articles in particular, is an important and appropriate fact to raise, as is the reminder of the need for vigilence. •Jim62sch• 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
In a way all of the above makes me want to try and get this article recommended and if it is rejected we can improve it and try again later. The POV pushers can’t stop a good article from getting recommended forever, we should try altough would should give it a little bit of time until the DI's attempts to push there POV here has worn off.Goatan 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perceptions of fairness

The article is already very close to FA standards as it is. The problem is that there is a significant minority of pro-ID editors who will come out the woodwork to scuttle any candidacy by making bad faith objections, as seen last time.

WP:NPOV requires that on topics "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented" and "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Looking over past objections vs. the editing history of the article at that time, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Intelligent_design, what is seen is several editors who had attempted to turn this article into a one-sided article representing the single viewpoint of ID promoters, and a number of editors who never participated, all objecting because the article presents both sides of the topic. This illustrates how those not dedicated to NPOV but to a particular POV will always try to derail any FA status for this article. I'm afraid until a method is adopted to properly weigh and deal with bad faith or just clueless objections, hot button topics like ID will always be vulnerable to partisan activism. FeloniousMonk 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the place to post this. While the first sentence is a quote from the creators of intelligent design, it seems to me their explanation could be better stated.
  • Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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". could be better stated (by them) to become:
  • Intelligent design (ID) is the idea; "the existence of certain features of the universe and of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by undirected random events". Terryeo 11:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
We use the DI's definition for a number of reasons, primarily because they're the hub of the ID movement. The DI has used this definition for many years now, no doubt there are improvements they could make. One would think that God could have come up with a better argument for his existence. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that God could have come up with a cleaner and more artistic ending for the Watchmaker analogy page than you did, my friend. Great continuity! Great graphics! Nice job! --Rednblu 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on FA is now taking place here: /FA_attempt_discussion_2006. FeloniousMonk 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design in Nature Reviews (Journal)

The upcoming issue (October 2006) of Nature Reviews Microbiology has an article on the viewpoints of irreducible complexity (and ID's stance in science in general). In a very unusual style, the article has many references to the Dover trial, rather than simply being a paper explaining why IC is wrong. The issue isn't in print yet, so I can't provide a reference. Here is the abstract from the paper (From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella):

"In the recent Dover trial, and elsewhere, the Intelligent Design movement has championed the bacterial flagellum as an irreducibly complex system that, it is claimed, could not have evolved through natural selection. Here we explore the arguments in favour of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved, rather than designed, entities. We dismiss the need for any great conceptual leaps in creating a model of flagellar evolution and speculate as to how an experimental programme focused on this topic might look."

--Roland Deschain 04:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And this article, 13 days before it is in print, has already been quote mined by the DI[6]. The link goes to the respone of the article's author to DI's quote mine.--Roland Deschain 04:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's going in our article on Quote Mining for sure. Why do the IDers always shoot themselves in the feet? If I were running the DI they'd have had some much more success by now. JoshuaZ 04:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Roland, for a really interesting and useful link. It has to be admitted that the DI have brought to the fore one of the deepest and most puzzling mysteries of our time: are they really so self deluded as to believe that their lies and misinformation about science will be "justified" by "good" results? ....dave souza, talk 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
My good man, they are both serious and self-deluded. After all, the Intelligent Designer is on their side. In nomine formatoris sapientis, flagellorum bacteriae et mendaciorum aliorum. •Jim62sch• 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Um. Think I was fine with the dog latin till it got to the onions. What I mean is, why tell lies? They have nothing to lose but their credibility. ...dave souza, talk 23:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Onions? Onions go good with dog...a few fave beans,...bottle of Chiante.... ;)
In the name of the intelligent designer, bacterial flagella and other lies. •Jim62sch• 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For your analysis and criticism of Intelligent Design in their published papers of great interest, eliminating of course all reference of religion or the Bible, you can refer to: Available archives on CD at www.creationresearch.org , and online archives at www.answersingenesis.org. Some articles are very convincing from these creationists PhD's. Of course they would hardly be published in "Nature" or "Science" magazines, as some are quite revealing of what evolutionists do to cover up other evidence that doesn't comply with Evolution and natural selection. GeorgeFThomson 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Typo in the text

There is a typo in the text: "theorises" should be "theories"

I am not a member so will a member please fix this if you have the opportunity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.127.234.210 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(Section "Irreducible complexity") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.2.129 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Administrator(s), can you please unprotect this article so as to just change the misspelling of "theories" in the section on "Irreducible complexity" (which was introduced here)? ... Kenosis 05:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon, you're grammatically incorrect: "theorises" is correct in the context. However it may be possible to rephrase the sentence to avoid this confusion. How about Furthermore, they contend that in the modern evolutionary synthesis some systems are seen as developing by,,,, Comment? ...dave souza, talk 06:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Or, as Ken points out, probably better to restore Furthermore, they argue that evolution often proceeds by.... <blush> ...dave souza, talk 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I restored it to the longstanding version, which has served to reasonably explain the point for at least the past eight months or more. The theorists are not contending that the theory argues this, because we already know that the [modern] theory contends this, but rather, they argue that evolution often proceeds by.... If the statement is to be that "modern evolutionary synthesis holds that evolution often proceeds by...", then that's another reasonable way of expressing it, and there's no need to use language that essentially says "they argue that the theory theorizes this...". ... Kenosis 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Does this article need to be fully protected at the moment? Might semi-protect be enough? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Yeesh, please do not remove full protect from this article. The last thing we need is a wave of vandalism followed by a flame war over something so stupid. Dali 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Original Research" Reaper

Important counter-points were clipped due to the elitist "original research" cloak. The big bang rebuttal is so obvious that it does not need a research paper. It is like asking for formal research to prove that 2 + 2 = 4. The clipped rebuttals are in quotes below:

Intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[68] However, it should be pointed out that "respectable" hypotheses such as the big bang are not currently directly reproducible either.
There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. However, it could be argued that science books tend to teach issues that are important to humans rather than rank them purely by estimated probability of being true. For example, environmental issues may get more "book time" than information on Earth's core because we find environmental issues more important to us. The same could be said about exploration of Mars versus Mercury. The text devoted to the planets is based on interest to humans rather than on likely-hood alone, and Mars is considered more "compelling" because it may have life and may be colonizable by humans. Thus, speculation about Mars may still get more textbook coverage than speculation about Mercury even if the Mercury speculation is estimated to be more likely.

Perhaps a topic called Intelligent Design controversy should be created such that self-standing arguments can be presented without fear of the "original research" reeper. Wiki readers have the right to hear all known arguments. If you want to keep them off the "main page", fine, but at least lets find a place to pin them so that they can be heard. --Tablizer 05:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

These are some of the things cut fom the article:
"However, it could be argued that science books tend to teach issues that are important to humans rather than rank them purely by estimated probability of being true. For example, environmental issues may get more "book time" than information on Earth's core because we find environmental issues more important to us. The same could be said about exploration of Mars versus Mercury. The text devoted to the planets is based on interest to humans rather than on likely-hood alone, and Mars is considered more "compelling" because it may have life and may be colonizable by humans. Thus, speculation about Mars may still get more textbook coverage than speculation about Mercury even if the Mercury speculation is estimated to be more likely."
"However, it is unclear if SETI would fail to qualify as "scientific" if it had to turn to signal content analysis, and thus more resembling ID pattern searching. Thus, relying on content analysis is not necessarily an impediment to qualifying. The science of Archeology often relies on content analysis."
I'm afraid these things are obviously original research, as well as arguably irrelevant here. -- Ec5618 06:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are they "irrelevant"? Content analysis by itself does not make a hypothesis invalid, as the charge strongly implies. Did you interpret it differently? I suggest we start a new topic, Intelligent Design Debate, where self-standing arguments can be presented and cataloged, regardless of whether the arguments are published or not. Published works are outdated anyhow. This is the Internet Age.--Tablizer 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You're just not getting the point, are you? Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you can't deal with that, find another forum.•Jim62sch• 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tablizer, please read WP:NOR carefully and note that it is policy. If these arguments are so well known then it should be possible to cite a reliable source, taking care to ensure direct relevance. It you want your own ideas to be heard, TalkOrigins is one venue. ...dave souza, talk 07:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The barrier to original research applies equally to all pages and creating a forked article would not mean that original research would be acceptable there. This is not to say that your comments are without value; rather that this is an inappropriate medium for them unless reputable sources can be located. Remember, Wikipedia deals with verifiability and not truth, so arguing that information should be included because it is obviously true is inappropriate. --Davril2020 07:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

One cannot reproduce the original big bang, but much of the theory which describes it can and has been tested, and there are sources out there that can be found. I'm not aware of any theory supporting ID that can and has been tested in the same way? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) PS. If you want accademic literature on "2 + 2 = 4", it exists, it's called Set Theory and it's taught in third year pure maths.

  • But one can reproduce aspects of design also, just like aspects of the big bang. Witness human manufacturing, for example. Thus, "Aspects of" applies to both. --Tablizer 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

imply/necessitate

I've reverted "necessitate a designer" to "implies a designer". Clearly, there are complex systems that are not designed. The argument, as I understand it, is that a complex system implies a designed system and a designed system necessitates a designer. So a complex system implies but does not necessitate a designer. Just how one decides which complex systems are designed, and which just happen to be complex, I have no idea. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No problems. It was my interpretation of the facts, and I don't have any objections in the light of the fatcs given by you. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm curious to hear what the regulars say. (I'm not the expert on this that some of them are.) And even though I reverted it, thanks for the comment - it helped my thinking. You pointed out one of the things I was uncomfortable with about ID (the concept, not this page) but couldn't put my finger on. They say "Life is complex, which implies it was designed". Which is a bit of a logical leap. There is a missing step. There are at least two ways what they're saying can be expanded. The first is "Life is complex, and all complex things are designed, therefore life was designed", which obviously contains a false assumption, because many comples things are not designed. Another way would be "Life is complex, and some complex things are designed, therefore life was designed". That too is obviously false, because while the assumptions are now true, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. The fact that some complex things are designed doesn't prove that any given complex things is designed. Like "theory", the word "implies" is a fudge, because in some contexts, implies means 'always', while in other contexts it means 'more often than you might otherwise expect'. Thanks again for the contribution. I'd like to see something about this in the article, but I don't think I can add it without it being OR. Ben Aveling 08:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The basis of intelligent design is a hypothetical syllogism.
  1. If something is complex, then it is designed.
  2. All designed things have a designer.
  3. If something is complex, then it has a designer.
  4. Life is complex.
  5. Therefore life has a designer.
It is clear that if all the first three premises are true, then ID *may* follow. However, the premise #1 is not true, and hence the argument is valid, but unsound. Even if the premise #1 is true, the premise #2 may be false. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This is addressed by Dembski's Complex Specified Information and the Universal Probability Bound.DLH 03:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Nelson

The DI "fellow" Paul Nelson is answering questions from Dagbladet readers this friday, at [7]. Might be a good source of quotes. Perhaps editors of this page might be interested in asking some pointed questions?

English should be fine. --Nnp 11:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A word of caution while the questions will then be in what may constitute a reliably source asking him specific questions with the intention of including them in the article is pretty close to reporting and/or OR and may also raise WP:AUTO concerns. We need to be careful here. JoshuaZ 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
He's done. The answers weren't too interesting, just more of the same old stuff. --Nnp 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah not for example that his claimed method of falsifying ID isn't really a falisification of ID but a falsification of abiogenesis and given the phrasing it isn't at all clear what he would accept as sufficient evidence in that regard otherwise. Someone really should have followed up with something to the affect that "then is ID claiming that abiogenesis was a specifically intelligently guided event and that abiogenesis is not possible without intervention"? It is interesting that this claim is almost identical in form to a claim that in the Dover decision Jones hammered Behe for trying to make. JoshuaZ 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion by Jim

I just saw a reversion in the article by Jim62sch that I don't agree with. He removed the images that I had added, changes to reference #70, and title of references section.

Firstly the images: I feel the these images should be present in the article. The images give an overview of the article, without going in details. Most casual readers first browse through the images to find what the article is about, and if develop interest in the topic, proceed to read more. The images I used provided relevant information about the topic being talked about. For example, a clock showing complicated machinery to elucidate the basic argument in favor of ID.

Secondly, he reverted the correction to reference #70, that I don't agree with. Just look how that reference looks in the article. Probably that was a collateral damage caused by mass reversion, but has not been restored. Since I personally follow the 1RR, I request some other editor to review it.

Thirdly, the change of "Notes and references" to "References". As i can see, the "Reference" section contains many notes in addition to references. Ex. #11, #19, #25, etc. So I think it more appropriate to change it back to "Notes and references".

I request other editors to please discuss these changes. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the reversion of the images. I liked your images, but I felt they constituded non-sequiturs in this article when I saw them. The alleged behavior of casual readers isn't a valid rationale to include an image. Also, the caption on the mousetrap image echos a claim from Behe that was shown to be factually inaccurate years ago during a debate on the Firing Line TV show. As to the change to reference #70, all I see is that [ID] was added (creating nested brackets), which messed up the link and should be fixed. I'll fix that. I don't see, however, anyplace that indicates this reference was written by Dembski, as stated. Anybody know? -Amatulic 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No problems. I corrected the references without any knowledge of what they contained. BTW, what do you think about the notes and references issue. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No offence meant, but I too felt that the pictures, while nice (the clock was actually quite cool), weren't necessary to the understanding or presentation of the article. We'd debated the idea of adding pictures previously, and decided against it as no one saw that they added any substantive value, even if they were aesthetically pleasing.
As for notes and references, we chose that because the section contains not just traditional references (The Book, Joe Schmoe, 1882, pg 215), but actual comments and quotes (i.e., notes).

•Jim62sch• 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with both Jim62sch and Amatulic (and I guess with Ambuj Saxena as well, judging by the last comment). The image was indeed very cool, although a non-sequitur for this article. ... Kenosis 02:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the article would be nicer, more aesthetically pleasing, more appealing if we could add exactly the right pictures. Perhaps a statue (maybe David), an 'exploded' pocket watch, and a mouse trap of some sort? Ideally the pictures would be from a single source, so that they have a common 'look and feel'. (Don't ask much, do I?) Regards, Ben Aveling 06:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How about an exploding David? ;) Actually, Ben, we had this discussion a few times, and we've just not found that extra pics help anything, in fact we found that they just cluttered up the article. •Jim62sch• 10:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Can't use that! Surely Terry Gilliam copyrighted the concept! ..dave souza, talk 10:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Other pages find that adding images makes the page more visually attractive. What makes ID different? Ben Aveling 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You noted that earlier by saying "more aesthetically pleasing". If it's an article about a flower, an animal, galactic bodies, etc, pictures are fine as they help differentiate between species or types. In an article about a concept (which is what this article is), a picture of a clock or mousetrap really doesn't help anything. •Jim62sch• 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It was my impression that the pictures detracted from the article in that they gave more weight to the pro-intelligent design side. Mind you, I'm just telling you my impression and impressions are subjective. But it seemed to me that they begged the question of whether it is even appropriate to compare life and a pocket watch and jumped immediately into pointing out that a pocket watch has to be designed by an intelligence. Now, if you have pictures which bring out the issue of whether it is even appropriate to compare life and a pocket watch, I'd like to see them. If they actually help comprehension (and I do believe that complex issues can often be better understood with pictures), I'd be prone to agreeing with the "add the pictures" side.

The pictures which have been chosen, however, I believe, detract from understanding the subject. -Psychohistorian 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design and Physics

The following section had been added: it cites no sources and seems well off topic:

There is a further recourse in intelligent design theory with has no dependency on supernatural or the religious argumentation. It is a view that a small population of physicists (especially astrophysicists) share that the Grand Unified Theory of the natural world (simply, a comprehensive equation from which all causal events derive) is the ultimate plan for the universe. Despite a limited following in the public, scholarly debate has legitimized this concept. In this system of thought, serious philosophical problems such as free will and moral agency are called into question (the theory seems to support a materialistic determinism along the lines of Spinoza), but the upshot is that it can coexist with evolution. If an ultimate complex equation ruled the universe (it may exist despite our lack of sophistication to discover it), evolution would be a direct result of that equation. This argument presupposes that the question is not actually whether evolution happens or not--it is plainly clear from evidence that it does--but seeks to find an explanation for evolution, whether it is pure coincidence as mainstream science would have it, or whether there is a form of design discoverable in a Grand Unified Theory of the universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.202.207 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So, kind soul that I am, I've moved it here. ...dave souza, talk 10:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

While this is a somewhat interesting topic for speculation, especially on a nice Fall sunday morning, it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. If this were left in the article, I'd have needed to add references to David Hume's committee of intelligent designers (Consensus theory of design, anyone?), along with noogenesis and the Theory of Immanent Design (design as you go), and other competing ideas. ;-) ... Kenosis 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Besides, the writer mistated GUT anyway. The purpose of any grand unified theory is to successfully marry the four forces, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and gravity. What exactly that has to do with ID is beyond me. •Jim62sch• 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, just add a fifth (the designer, committee of designers, or noogenetic consciousness), who, shall we say, "shoots the gaps" between the other four. FSM anyone? ... Kenosis 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see...perhaps it's the Glue of the Gaps. BTW, I love spaghetti, and have always felt a special bond with polpette in una salsa di pomodori ed aglio col basilico. Molto squisito, mio amico, molto squisito! •Jim62sch• 21:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

For your analysis and criticism of Intelligent Design in their published papers of great interest, eliminating of course all reference of religion or the Bible, you can refer to: Available archives on CD at www.creationresearch.org , and online archives at www.answersingenesis.org. Some articles are very convincing from these creationists PhD's. Of course they would hardly be published in "Nature" or "Science" magazines, as some are quite revealing of what evolutionists do to cover up other evidence that doesn't comply with Evolution and natural selection. GeorgeFThomson 14:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, ID papers aren't published in mainstream journals because of the evolutionist conspiracy to suppress the truth, is that right?--Ramdrake 14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If there are intelligent ID arguments out there, it'd be nice if ID proponents would start using them. If I here one more argument along the lines of, "this building exists, so it must have had a creator and, so, ID is true", I just might set someone on fire.-Psychohistorian 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Relax, Ph, I'm sure they're still designing them. ;) •Jim62sch• 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
But the intelligence of their designs is somewhat debatable. --ScienceApologist 19:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Or nonexistant. •Jim62sch• 10:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Unclear

1. Assuming that intelligent design would be factually true (and I am not claiming it is), it seems to me that intelligent design would be a "complement" to evolution, not a replacement. But this article seems to claim that intelligent design and evolution are strictly "competing" one against each other. What did I miss ?

2. If intelligent design is merely a "competitor" to evolution, how does it differ in any significant way from creationism? It seems to be merely a new word for an old concept.

3. Are you (a general "you" here) trying to say that intelligent design is factually false by depicting it as "unscientific" and "pseudoscience"? If so, why not say it directly? If not, why not specifically state that it is "unscientific" strictly in the sense that it is not a knowledge acquired by the method known as "science"?

Contributors who know more about this might want to edit the article to make it clearer.

Asking questions 18:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. This is one of the primary flaws in ID. Its proponents suggests that there are problems which cannot be solved by "Darwinian" evolution. So, if not natural selection, then God (or "a designer). This obviously misses the entire point the scientific method - you can't say if not A then B, but rather, if not A then notA.
  2. ID has been described as just that "creationism in a cheap tuxedo". It uses different language (except when talking to "the faithful"). It's a new strategy though, formulated and presented in a new way.
  3. ID is presented as science, but does not actually follow the scientific method. Hence the descriptors. Truth or falsehood is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. Guettarda 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In Guettarda's response, #3, "truth or falsehood is irrelevant" refers to the policy of WP:VER in which the goal is to present concepts as they are presented by verifiable sources outside Wikipedia itself, rather than to argue about what is the "truth" in the article itself. On the talk pages, we nonetheless tend to indulge in a large share of discussion, debate, and argument about what is the "truth", which often leads us to seek additional sources that might be presented consistently with WP:VER. In the case of this article on intelligent design, these issues have been hashed out repeatedly and at great length, and this material researched very intensively. Much of the results of this research can be found in the footnotes. ... Kenosis 20:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, to answer '1', the issue is that ID proposes that evolution as it is currently understood is inadequate as a method of explaining the diversity of life. It is possible for religion and evolution to coexist, but not evolution and intelligent design. If intelligent design ceases to object to mainstream evolutionary theory then it more or less becomes theistic evolution which is a different kettle of fish. --Davril2020 19:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points:
1. In terms of its "scientific" claims, particularly from Behe, ID accepts evolution except for some particular problem that is claimed to be insoluble without accepting a supernatural intervention, thus it appears to supplement science. However ID's open aim is to undermine and change the scientific method: if supernatural intervention explains one feature, why not accept it for all speciation – lo and behold we have "creation science".
3. Wikipedia reports arguments put forward by reliable sources and has to be careful to provide citations for such contentions to avoid original research. Those are the rules and guidelines, for good reason. ...dave souza, talk 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This comment appears to refer to the Overview "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution." See discussion above under "Overview" to improve this sentence.DLH 20:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Try not to use the phrase "factually true" (or untrue) - what, after all, is the alternative - fictionally true? PiCo 06:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the concept section, introduction-summary sentence

Whoever keeps removing the first sentence of the section on "origins of the concept" please stop removing it, at least until it's discussed and re-consensused. There is a legitimate place for one or more summary or introductory sentences of a given section topic to assist in putting a section into perspective, a practice is consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR, assuming the sentence(s) reasonably reflect the summarized material and achieves WP:CON.

The opening sentence of the section on origins of the concept has read for about the last year:"Philosophers have long argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator." This sentence, in an article about a concept that has been described, inter alia, as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo", a concept whose proponents attempt to frame it as leading-edge science in an ideological socio-political gambit for power in the United States, is a very reasonable and wholly accurate summary of the section that follows. The section proceeds to briefly state the history of the teleological argument, the category of argument to which intelligent design belongs.

Therefore, I'm going to replace it until and unless a consensus can be achieved which supports the removal of this longstanding opening sentence for the section. Good regards all. ... Kenosis 15:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should point out two other things. (1) This discussion can be found in the archives several times in the last year. See, for example, the very lengthy discussion involving User:Silence from earlier this year. (2) The words "philosophers have long argued ..." are not weasel words, but basic history of philosophy. For philosophers from the pre-Socratics onward, the question was generally not whether an inherent order existed, but what was it composed of, where did it come from, what was the "underlying" order, if any, that manifested in physical "reality" (not clarified until after Kant wrote in the latter part of the 18th Century), etc. An "underlying" or at least "inherent" order of some kind has always been pretty much taken as granted in the philosophical arguments. That's a very significant part of what the concept of "logos" meant for the Greek philosophers taken as a whole. It was a very rich and multifaceted concept in its day. ... Kenosis 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just scrolled back through the archives and, while there is a lot of content there and I may have overlooked it, I found nothing which contradicted the fact that logos, as meant by the Greeks, was not a personification - it was not a Creator, but a creative force.
As for other philosophers, you are showing your ethnocentrism by focusing on the Greeks. Taoism, for example, didn't have a personified Creator. For that matter, I don't believe the Egyptians (I'm thinking specifically of Pythagoreas) did either. Again, an "underlying order" is not the same as an "intelligent Creator". There's a HUGE difference between those two concepts.-198.97.67.59 17:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Probably right about the Western bias (not ethnocentrism). And right about the other slants that didn't come through the Western flow. The history of the teleological argument is a distinctly Western argument, relying as is does on rationalist theological argumentation. Your edit of the opening sentence to read "debated whether" rather than "argued that" is completely reasonable in my estimation and I regard it as consistent with the previous consensus about that section-- but I'm just one editor. ... Kenosis 17:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Point of order.."the other slants that didn't come through the Western flow"..Pythagoreas did come through the Western flow. Further, modern science' pursuit of an 'underlying order' seperate from god has its roots in that Western flow you are talking about. The rationalist theological argumentation you are talking about was only one of many threads in Western philosophy.-Psychohistorian 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever; great; now that there are a lot of fast-and-loose terms being thrown around, most of which are tripping over each other:

(1) I didn't mention Pythagoras; someone else did (I assume User:Psychohistorian was talking to me because (s)he used the term "you" in reference to the idea of the "western flow").

(2) I was not referring to "rationalist" as it refers to Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes, etc., nor even to the more-difficult-to-pin-down distinction between Plato's and Aristotle's approach (Plato being differentiated from the last one-third of Aristotle's career here). Rather, I was characterizing the Western tradition of philosophical speculation generally, as differentiated from a wholly different set of flows in the East, which is what I intended to refer to when I used the words "...the other slants that didn't come through the Western flow." There are probably 50 histories of Western philosophy that've been on the market in the last century-and-a-half. There are only a few histories of Eastern philosophy, because it's not one clearly discernable flow, or at least not one that's easy to get a handle on; typically these are divided into Indian, Chinese, etc., and those are, shall we say, not typically well defined within their respective categories (though Wing-Tsit Chan does a fine job on an immense task with his sampling of Chinese philosophy).

(3) When I refer to "rationalist theological argumentation" I am referring to one of a number of threads, specifically the historical theological argumentation that involves, among other speculations, the teleological argument.

Now, if the statement made by Psychohistorian is intended to infer that, say "empiricist" philosophy does not involve rationalist theological speculation, I would refer to David Hume and George Berkeley, who engaged in their ample share of this kind of speculation themselves. Point being, any philosopher who engaged in the teleological argument is engaging in "rationalist theological argumentation."

That said, the teleological argument itself is an identifiable flow through Western philosophy, give or take some issues such as that just brought up involving whether the "logos" qualifies as an early version of the argument, rather than starting with, say, Plato, or say, Augustine, or Aquinas. Better to just give the reader a quick history right back to the earliest we know of, I would think. Of course, as the anon user pointed out, there are Eastern versions of the teleological argument too; and if the editors decide they wish to write a quick paragraph identifying for the reader some of the Eastern versions, I am sure this can be done without too much of a terrible headache. Thanks for the incentive to clarify somewhat what I was joking with the anon user about. ... Kenosis 20:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for the confusion, but I and that anon are the same person. I just forgot to login. As for your other comments, I might respond to them but I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet. -Psychohistorian 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

conflation of ID Concept and ID Movement (& its arguments)

Sorry I don't have time to learn the proper forms & syntax for doing this. However, I think this article could be improved by rearranging things to take care of a problem, as I see it, that I think can be understood from this comment that I just posted to somebody else's blog:

quoting myself" "... I appreciated the contribution made by Larry's insistence on his basic logical argument. I was surprised, then, by what I found in his post supporting Luskin.

Here is his lead example of bias

For example, the article says of ID, "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute . . . . ."(emphasis added) The corresponding NPOV ["Neutral Point of View"] statement would be, "many of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" -- for example, Ann Coulter and Cardinal Christophe Schonborn are leading ID proponents but are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute.

We can all agree that an encyclopedia article must be factually accurate. So beyond straight matters of fact, how does "neutrality" or "point of view" enter into this? Are there "leading proponents" of the ID movement who are not affiliated with DI? I guess that depends on who is considered to be a "leading proponent" of the movement.

I would sympathize with any ID enthusiast who'd complain that it would be a vicious, ugly slur against the movement if its critics were describing Ann Coulter as one of the movement's "leading proponents." But it is not the Wikipedia article that makes this characterization; it is Larry himself.

And as for Cardinal Schonborn, he is absolutely not a proponent--leading or otherwise--of the ID movement. The Wikipedia article could be improved by clarifying that this applies to the ID Movement, not to the broad concept as defined at the top of the article. (There is a separate part of the article on the movement itself). Perhaps most people who believe in Divine Creation would endorse the broad definition offered for the concept given for "ID," although they would not accept claims made by the ID Movement about how ID relates to science, and the consequences that they claim to be entailed by that. " (end of quoting myself)

I wanted to share this even though I don't have the time now to learn the proper way of doing this. If somebody would want to raise this more succinctly and in proper form, please feel free to replace everything I've put here with a better statement of the issue.

I do think the article could be improved, without loss, by taking care of this; but since I'm new I don't want to do the edit myself, but see if others agree & make the change.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by James A Whitson (talk • contribs).

This is a logical fallacy known as circular argument. If they aren't a member of the Discover Institute then they must not be a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. Ann Coulter, like her or hate her, is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design and is not a member of the Discovery Institute. But as long as we continue in this circular argument that in order to be a leading proponent of Intelligent Design one must be a member of the Discovery Institute then of course it will remain true that all leading proponents are members. For example [Dennis Wagner] is not a fellow at the [Discovery Institute] and it took me all of 30 seconds to find that name. I'm sure there are 100's more. So there is only the circular argument that remains. Well, Dennis Wagner must not be a leading proponent of Intelligent Design because he isn't a member of the Discovery Institute.Bagginator 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ann Coulter is a "leading proponent"? Other than shilling for ID in her lastest "bash-the-lefties" book, what has she done to promote ID on a large scale? The term "leading" does not refer to a person's popularity with the hoi polloi, but rather with his/her participation in spreading ID. •Jim62sch• 10:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Look for Wagner here, note the affiliation, the association, etc. Seems to me if ya wanna play in the bigs, ya gotta suck up to DI folks. [8]•Jim62sch• 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting that the WP article is being termed circular argument, while the concept of specified complexity, the anthropic principle, fine-tuned universe probability arguments and other aspects of ID in fact are circular arguments. The intro to the WP article on intelligent design is merely stating the fact of the matter about ID and its proponents, not making an argument that requires non-circular form. The DI is what it is, the proponents are who they are, and the leading ones are all affiliated with the DI, and the definition of ID, as agreed among pro-ID, anti-ID and neutral parties in earlier discussion among WP users, is that of the DI. So it's irrelevant whether it appears circular, because it's not an argument by WP editors, but rather a summary description based upon well-verified facts. . ... Kenosis 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Change to the Article

I propose we change the following sentence in one of three ways, "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2]"

  1. 1 "It's leading scientific proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,"
This doesn't seem quite right to me because ARN ([Access Research Network)] has scientists not affiliated with Discovery Institute that are leading proponents of Intelligent Design, but it is a compromise.
  1. 2 "It's leading proponents, many of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,"
This one would be the most accurate, tied with suggestion #3
  1. 3 "According to Barbara Forrest all of it's leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,"
This one too is more accurate and a good compromise. I prefer #2 or #3 myself but am happy to go with #1 also.Bagginator 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The first two are unverifiable. The third is verifiable. So, it seems like a slam dunk choice to me. It avoids us having to decide who is and who is not a 'leading proponent'. -Psychohistorian 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This third point, drawing on Barbara Forrest, is already mentioned as the source. But more importantly, it is not based on just the witness's (Forrest's) testimony, but that the U.S. District judge held this testimony to be credible in his finding of facts in Kitzmiller. The WP article is accurate as it stands. Like it or not, ID turns out to be an "inside job", one organization, the DI, with an agenda for the nation's public schools, which the WP article proceeds to explain per WP:NPOV, and WP:VER. This has been repeatedly discussed at least a dozen times, and per WP:CON, the consensus repeately has been that the current version is the best, most concise and most accurate way to state the verified facts. ... Kenosis 00:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, as pointed out earlier on the talk page, Ann Coulter self-admittedly needed to go inside the loop to DI affiliates to get her explanation. ... Kenosis 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to correct a few errors, Kenosis. Ive read back through the history here and ive noticed that you are incorrect on consensus. Usually there is one or two people who challenge the article, then the same four or five folks (You included) fight against the proposed change. Then one or two new folks try again, the same four or five appear again. Rinse, wash and repeat. So I disagree with your observation that there is consensus on this issue, having read through the history. Second point you make a couple of errors concerning the Discovery Institute. The first error has to do with the Discovery Institute and its agenda, which is not germane to this conversation so there is no need to dispute it. The second error is your claim about one organization. Actually, there are several and I even linked to one, ARN, above. Did you miss that? There is also [ISCID] which is the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. It is not accurate to claim that Discovery Institute is the only organization supporting intelligent design.
So, what do we know? We know this conversation has been had before, we know that some claim consensus is on their side, and ive offered what I believe is a fair middle ground. When I have time i'll go back and actually make a count of individual names from past conversations just to see the numbers on the supposed consensus. But just to be fair on the count, Kenosis, your vote only counts one time, not each time you've come out in opposition to change.Bagginator 02:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There is also [ISCID] which is the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design -- I hate to break this to you: ISCID is a branch of DI, its fellows are members of DI. Try again. •Jim62sch• 10:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The more experienced editors of this article, who are by no means limited to the seven or eight longer-term editors that still bother to post on the Talk page, but who actually recall the discussions from before when I first arrived, must still smirk upon recalling that I too had advocated the language "most of the leading proponents" or "many of the leading proponents". Like many others, upon researching it I too was astounded to learn that, in fact "all of the leading proponents" are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. This fact is verified consistently with the citation given in the article at present. And in fact, this has been discussed over and over and over.

Perhaps the consensus will change given adequate evidence to indicate some contrary fact that is also verifiable, in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight of course. Thus far, no one has been named who reasonably meets the characterization of "leading proponent" who is not affiliated with the DI. Now, if the argument being presented here is that Ann Coulter is a "leading proponent", and therefore the language should be changed, by all means proceed to make the case and see if there's some agreement on a possible change of the language to "most" or "many" of the leading proponents being affiliated with the DI. Personally I don't see it, but by all means go ahead.... Kenosis 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, users dave souza, Guettarda, Jim62sch, FeloniousMonk, ScienceApologist, KillerChihuahua, Ec5618, JoshuaZ, Roland Deschain, and myself all support the current language, and I'm sure I've missed a good few others that have also backed the current wording verbatim. Would anyone I've just mentioned please correct me if I'm wrong about that, or if I've missed too many other editors that were involved in the consensus process on this issue?... Kenosis 04:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis wrote,"And in fact, this has been discussed over and over and over." There is a very good reason for that. Hence I began this discussion. I've only gone through archive 30 so far but have found that ArrghBob, Uncle Ed, Ed Poor, AbstractClass, Coolasclyde and perhaps a couple others agree that this portion needs to be changed. Would anyone I've just mentioned please correct me if I'm wrong about that? I'll continue to go through the archives and add names as I come across them.Bagginator 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ive now only been through Archive 28 but the list of those who support a change to this wording appear to be as follows, Ben, DLH, Skye.houston, Luna Santin, Ragesoss, MattShepard, Gaohoyt, Agatellon, BradC, Wade A. Tisthammer, PeteSmiles, IlovePlankton, and Izuko. I'll continue to go back through the archives and find who else has supported the idea but right now I need a break. So far though it looks as though there are at least 19 editors (Including myself) who support the idea of changing that sentence.Bagginator 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, I forgot to include Psychohistorian above, make that 20. Bagginator 05:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I'm sure I missed a good few that were also inolved in consensusing this issue. So, by all means, let's go through all the info again to bring it current. ... Kenosis 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyone wishing to participate in this current discussion over the controversial sentence should know the history. If any of the following is inaccurate, please help me to make it more accurate. It appears that this sentence was originally placed into the article by FeloniousMonk here on January 10, 2006. The change comes from a discussion held in Archive 27 that can be found here where 4 editors agree to the change. As far as I can tell, the first time this sentence is opposed (Unless you count Ben in the opposition from the original thread) is around February 20th and the discussion can be found ::here. Joining MattSheperd is Wade A. Tisthammer. You'll notice in this discussion that Wade A. Tisthammer brings up a link to demonstrate that John H. Calvert is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. The link he provides doesn't work to the Kansas City Star, but here is one to the Columbia Daily Tribune which refers to Calvert as a prominent Kansas proponent of intelligent design. here you will find that UCSB called Walter ReMine a leading proponent of Intelligent Design as it advertises a talk he intends to give concerning his book, The Biotec Message. here is another cite that calls Walter ReMine a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. Funny thing is, they also say he is a fellow at the Discovery Institute. Which is strange, I am unable to find him on the list. Perhaps he was once a fellow? But I digress, there are lot's of websites that describe lawyers and even President Bush as "leading proponents of Intelligent Design". Editor ragesos also joins in against the line at this point and JoshuaZ makes the suggestion to replace the word all with the word many. During this very lengthy discussion editor Wade A. Tisthammer makes the best argument against this sentence, which is, it is not possible to verify it. While it may be true (I don't believe it is) Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability and it is not possible to verify such a phrase. It should also be noted in this very lengthy discussion (Please read it all) that JoshuaZ appears to change his mind due to the use of the word affiliated. Another editor, Uncle Ed jumps in to support changing the sentence. BradC also jumps in to support changing the sentence right after Uncle Ed. Anyway, reading through this discussion should get you started if you wish to join in. here editor Petesmiles jumps in against the sentence. here Editor I love plankton jumps in to request changing all to most. Ben is an editor in agreement with this. It should be noted that ive only gone back to January 2006, where it appears that this discussion began. However, in Archive 29, here Kenosis writes, "Not one notable proponent was identified in two years of discussion who was not affiliated with the Discovery Institute" I don't know where he gets 2 years from but I hope he shares it. I didn't see any discussion previous to January 10th, but if there is i'd love to see it. Also, it is here that DLH and AbstractClass join the chorus of editors who want to see that particular line changed. here editor Uncle Ed jumps in and joins the chorus. It is not clear here whether editor nnp joins the chorus or not. Here editor Skye joins the chorus to change the sentence and it seems that LexCorp does also along with editor Luna Santin. ::Here is editor ScienceApologist saying he is tired of all the editors joining the chorus (Not his words, my interpretation) and proposes a change. Editor ragesos joins in here to voice opinion against it. Alright, i'm a bit exhausted right now and i'm all the way through archive 29. I'll finish up with archive 30 and 31 later. If you want to participate, please reach through the history of this discussion.Bagginator 09:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
More history of this discussion can be found here where editor AbstractClass joins the consensus of editors to change, and here where arrghbob joins in. herei kan reed joins in. Here editor Brentt joins in and also an anon editor 24.16.128.182 joins in. And just above this message James A Whitson jumps in. This is by no means an exhaustive history of the disagreement over this one area, but it should get those wishing to be involved up to speed. If there are discussions of this going back two years, previous to January 10th 2006, as noted earlier, please link to them so we might read what other editors have been involved.Bagginator 10:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagginator, this discussion has been going on for well over two years. In that entire time, no leading proponent was identified that did not turn out upon further research to be affiliated with the Discovery Institute. That remains true irrespective of the time at which the current language was placed, which was after the Kitzmiller decision was published and there was a verified source for the current language in the article. ... Kenosis 22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagginatory, while it is admirable you are reading the archives, you may wish to read what consensus is. It is not counting people who agree with you over time. If you want to change the statement, then give an example of a leading proponent who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. We've had two suggestions for this: 1) George W. Bush (roundly rejected) and 2) John H. Calvert (and the consensus seemed to be that this person wasn't a leading proponent and may actually be affiliated with DI inasmuch he might be considered a leadning proponent). --ScienceApologist 10:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

1. whenever we find you always said it wasn't a leading proponent, so we'll never get anywhere doing that. 2. it really sucks when biased people try to own an article, which is what you and others have been doing for the past 2 years. 3. [9] [10] [11] [12] 4. just because they link to a site with the same interests doesn't mean they are affiliated with them. so put simply I support the changes. ILovePlankton 11:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the both of you adding your comments here but could we keep them to the above proposed change and not to the past? The past should be used as a reference for certain to see what has happened before, but this is now. I suppose we can chalk ScienceApologist up to wanting to maintain the current article and ILovePlankton to wanting to change it, but which option do you prefer, ILovePlankton? Thanks for participating!Bagginator 11:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
#1 I dislike #2 has been tryied #3 I think is the best. so option number 3. ILovePlankton 11:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to think that is the best one also, since it is the only one of the bunch that meets WP:VER including the current sentence. Bagginator 12:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is not based upon a mere counting of past participants who've happened to take a position, but instead involves a group discussion of all relevant issues and a demonstration of familiarity with those issues. So if the assertions by long-term editors of the article that the consensus is stable is insufficient in light of Ann Coulter's new publication (the only new info I know of), let's proceed to document where all those previous discussions are located and bring all relevant material back into the discussion. So far I don't see anything new except for the addition of Ann Coulter to the commentators on intelligent design. ... Kenosis 14:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote for option #0 - current version, because all the proposed changes are worse than the current version.

  • Option #1 is to add "scientific proponents" - however, Johnson and Dembski, two of the leading proponents of ID, are not scientists.
  • Option 2 is to change "all" to "many". "All" is sourced. Until someone can provide a source which supports "many" instead of "all", changing "all" to "many" amounts to degradation of article quality.
  • Option 3 inserts "according to Barbara Forrest..." The statement is already sourced, so there's no need to add a source. Making it a "she said" introduces huge bias into the article, because it suggests that the idea is (a) hers alone, and (b) contested. So, apart from editors on this page, who has contested the statement?

Are there any sources that question the statement as it stands? If so, let's see them. If not, this is all a violation of WP:NOR. Guettarda 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagginator listed John Umana as a possible leading proponent of intelligent design. I would dispute this characterization. Umana was a proponent of creationism who kept all his arguments and did a global replace of the term "creationism" with the term "intelligent design" per the neocreationist program. So I'm still looking for a proponent that is both leading and unaffiliated with the Discovery Institute. Once that is found, I would be more than happy to discuss changing the present wording. --ScienceApologist 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Option 2 sounds good to me. 3 is OK too. AbstractClass 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Concern from a different angle: It is not obvious that all proponents of ID consider it to be a scientific theory. No such evidence exists for at least one major proponent I can think of, philosopher William Lane Craig. Unless this can be established for every "leading" proponent of ID (and this, by the way, is only a standard I'm borrowing from those who wish to keep the sentence under dispute), it is a baseless assertion. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the question of whether there are any leading proponents of ID who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute: The philosopher I listed above, William Lane Craig, is obviously affiliated with the Discovery Institute (he's a fellow), but a more notable philosopher, Alvin Plantinga is less obviously so (there's a short article by him on the Institute's site [13] and a few other laudatory mentions of his name elsewhere). I'm not sure what the standard is to determine whether or not someone is affiliated, but I thought I'd throw this into the discussion. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Simoes refers just above to Intelligent design as if it were simply a version of the teleological argument, which it is, in part. The part of it that is simply a version of the teleological argument is only marginally relevant to the current article on intelligent design, because that's not what the controversy is about. The entire article on the teleological argument (including references to "intelligent design") gets very little attention or traffic (32 kB on the entire talk page for all of its history). Intelligent design as it is asserted to be science or a scientific theory is what is relevant and what gets all the attention in due proportion to its direct relevance in the lives of so many people, particularly in the United States, where the attempt has been made by the Discovery Insitute affiliates to insert intelligent design into public school curricula--this is what is getting all the attention and argument (well over two megabytes -- over 2000 kB -- of talk page discussion to date). The ideological socio-political gambit to wedge a form of creationism into the science classrooms of public schools, this packaging of "intelligent design" as "science", in a country that has a consitutional separation of church and state, is what the relevant issue is, and that is what this article is about.

Not only that, most (but not all) theologians today have distanced themselves from this argument even as theology, because those theologians recognize the "God of the gaps" trap that a number of previous theologians have fallen prey to. But this issue is quite secondary if not completely irrelevant to the wording of the introductory paragraph of the intelligent design article. ... Kenosis 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think ID sans its political obfuscation is basically reducible to the argument from design. However, I agree with your (relevant) points. I recant! Simões (talk/contribs) 00:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Bagginator for the great amount of work he's put into this. As to his three proposals, one and two look unacceptable. The first proposal again is tricky because it ignores a number of very significant proponents who are affiliated with the DI but are not scientists. Proposal 2 is likewise extremely unacceptable because 'many' has yet to be sourced and we fundamentally cannot alter a sourced reference because editors believe it to be untrue since this would be original research. However, if you could find leading proponents who are not affiliated with the DI then this discussion would become irrelevent since there would be sourced evidence to change it. The third point is accurate, but has worrying connotations. To put it bluntly, by suggesting it is her comment, it argues implicitly that other people do not have this view. Therefore, the onus must be on us to first find sources that dispute her point of view before altering the phrase. Unless contradictory sources can be found and verified, this proposal amounts to a rewrite of Wikipedia in general - inserting 'x claims' and 'y says' before literally every source. I doubt this is necessary and if you think it is, it would be more sensible to pursue this at a Wikipedia policy level rather than on a particular article page. As such, I'd suggest that the way forward here is to attempt to locate sources that contradict the sentence under dispute. --Davril2020 18:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm still not FOND of the sentence as it stands... "significant" and "proponent" are still, in my opinion, too ambiguous to be associated with "all" in a definite sentence. I am, though, satisfied that those who stand behind it have a significant body of evidence behind them and while I'm not fond of the phrasing, I don't think it's misleading as much as inherently hard to prove or disprove. As said (exhaustively) on other talk pages, "significant proponent" is a statement with no objective value... it's entirely a subjective opinion as to who is "significant" or not, and what qualifies one as a "proponent" rather than a "vocal enthusiast" or a "supporter." I still think of George W. Bush as a "significant proponent," for instance. Anyone with sufficient media volume that stands behind it similarly qualifies. But I've been shouted down about this before and have no appetite for getting back into it. --MattShepherd 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's "leading", a word that has nought to do with "media volume" but rather with activity (OED, That takes the lead; chief, principal; That has the front place; that goes first or in front on the line of movement) . Neither Dubya, who has refered to ID once so far as I know, nor Coulter, who latched onto ID in order to sell books, have done anything of substance to promote ID, thus to say they are "leading" is somewhat absurd..
Second, there is a bit of a gulf between a proponent (OED, One who brings forward a proposition or argument; a propounder, a proposer.) and a mere supporter (OED, One who sides with, backs up, assists, or countenances a person, cause, etc.) see Bush, Coulter, etc. Proponents are the folks who charge "into battle" with their ideas, supporters either watch from behind the lines or join up when it's safe. •Jim62sch• 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One more argument against asserting that all (or even most) "leading" ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute: The Discovery Institute primarily operates in United States. While their people may dominate the news coverage of the dispute in the United States, this is not the case elsewhere. Outside the United States, prominent proponents of ID (proponents who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute) include former Australian Minister for Education, Science and Training Brendan Nelson, University of Warwick sociologist and philosopher Steve Fuller (he actually also testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), and Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds and head of the British advocacy group, "Truth in Science" [14]. McIntosh's group made headlines most recently when they published a piece in Britain advocating ID [15]. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And George W. Bush and Ann Coulter in the US. Anyone else? ... Kenosis 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this constitutes a meaningful response. From what I read before, both W and Coulter were voted down as leading proponents in the United States. I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not being flippant, but please give a substinent response or none at all. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In pointing out that two from the US have also been asserted to be leading proponents not affiliated with the Discovery Insititute, I am by no means trying to be flippant, as Simoes just expressed concern about (although I reserve that right). I was attempting to identify those who are, or have been, asserted by one or more Wikipedia users to be "leading proponents". To Simoes' list of non-US commentators, I added two in the US who previously have been asserted on this talk page to be "leading proponents". I think it's time to debate this again in light of all the evidence, and either reaffirm or change the consensus about this particular issue. Incidentally, please also see my response to Simoes' comment a bit farther above in this section, as it is somewhat relevant to this exchange of views. ... Kenosis 00:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagginator stopped by my talk page and asked for my opinion, so here it is:

I think ScienceApologist makes very good points regarding all 3 proposed changes. The text as it stands is accurate. I'm against adding scientific to the wording, as anyone who is backing ID is disregarding science, whether they care to admit it or not. #2 would indeed be a degradation of the article quality, and #3 makes it sound like a less credible statement by her and not the fact that it is. --Nnp 23:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did not list John Umana, the Legal Times says of John Umana, "As an aside, Umana is also a leading proponent of intelligent design," It doesn't matter what my opinion is of John Umana, it matters that he is reported by the media as being a "leading proponent" of intelligent design. Therefore making the sentence in question incorrect. I would list, on the other hand all of the following as leading proponents of intelligent design that the Discovery Institute says are, "not associated with Discovery", Steve Fuller (Testified in Kitzmiller), Mark DeForrest, David DePew, Eugene Garver and Chandra Wickramasinghe.Bagginator 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For some odd reason, I have my doubts about the legal times given this evanescent example of hyperbolic, non-professional prose, "It’s your worst dating nightmare. You meet someone, the attraction is immediate, the sex is scorching, and — hold on — you think you might be falling in love." Somehow, I just expect more from a rag that calls itself the "Legal Times". •Jim62sch• 10:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and Bagginator and DLH can now be included as "leading proponents" too, if you count the number of web posts (sorry, I am being a bit flippant here).

Here's the very basic history of this issue as I see it presently:

Three years ago Johnson and Dembski had been identified as leading proponents, although the words "leading proponents" were not used in the article at that time.

Two years ago By the end of 2004 ([16]), the Center for Science and Culture had been properly identified in the article as a subsidiary of the Discovery Instutute and was no longer ever under dispute by the editors.

One year ago: Throughout all this, no one showed up at the article or on the talk page with any verified references to leaders of the ID movement who were not affiliated with the DI.

On January 10. 2006, roughly a month after the Kitzmiller decision was published, FeloniousMonk adds the language "leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"

More recently, several have been asserted to also be "leading proponents", including the various persons mentioned thus far in this section. So I'm proposing to use this opportunity to make a list of them and debate the issues on the verifiable merits.... Kenosis 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment to Bagginator and co.: It does not matter if there are 20 editors, or 200, calling for a change in wording. If its inaccurate its inaccurate, and no change is indicated. For example, according to the American Cancer Institute about 75% of Americans believe one of five common misconceptions.[17] This does not make these misconceptions accurate. Verifiability, not a headcount on what people believe, is the standard. Find a verifiable source which meets WP:RS for your claim that there are leading proponents who are not affiliated with DI, and it will be discussed. Otherwise, you are wasting our time with your adherence to a commonly held misconception about ID. Do not start with an assertion; start with the source. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's silly to keep it as it is. Being both in the introduction, and having a phrasing that is open to interpretation, it should be explicit about who said that, in addition to being cited. An example of how obviously wrong this is: George Bush could be considered a partial proponent of ID and because of his position and authority, could be called a leading proponent, though he is not associated with the DI. i kan reed 19:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagreed... Bush is not a "proponent", per se, only a believer. A proponent not only espouses an ideology, but advocates it. The leading advocates of ID, as far as I can tell, are all affiliated with one "institute" or another. I don't know what wording's best, I'd prefer #2... it doesn't mean that it won't have to be tweaked in the future though. --Storkk 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Storkk's analysis is correct; proponent is defined as 1. a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal. 2. a person who argues in favor of something; an advocate. 3. a person who supports a cause or doctrine; adherent. [18] What those raising objections attribute to a lack of clarity is better attributed to a lack neutrality. The problem with Number 2 is that it is not an improvement on the longstanding wording; it equivocates. If there are indeed leading proponents who are not affiliated with the institute as they claim, then presenting evidence of that should be no problem for them. FeloniousMonk 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't. See [19]. Here Bush gives a thesis ("I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.") and a reason ("so people can understand what the debate is about"). This is an (elliptical) argument, which, in the context of politics, constitutes advocacy and also makes him a proponent. Simões (talk/contribs) 16:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. As the article says, "Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters". Which sounds more like following than leading. Mr. Bush's science adviser interpreted it differently: a typical politician beating about the bush? Love the erratum at the foot re. Mr. Meyer talking "about the issue of biological origins" - not "biblical origins." ....dave souza, talk 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair point. As an aside, though, it's pretty uncontroversial that Bush has handlers who have to clean up after him any time he speaks. I'd go with his original statement, not his science advisor's "clarification." Simões (talk/contribs) 16:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Identifying Leading Proponents of Intelligent Design

I've opened a new section here since we seem to have drifted away from the purpose of the immediately preceding section. It's clear that there are some editors here who believe that there are now proponents of intelligent design who are not affiliated with the DI. I would concur with Kenosis that this is an appropriate time to review the evidence for and against. Consequently I would suggest that if anyone wishes to propose a new candidate as a leading proponent of intelligent design but who is not affiliated with the DI, that they post the name here, and details of why (with supporting sources) they qualify as a 'leading' proponent. --Davril2020 01:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this new section, Davril2020. A 'leading proponent' is someone who is identified as such through a reliable source. For us to define what a leading proponent is becomes original research. As WP:NOR states, "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources" This is why John Umana should be the end of the discussion, as cited via theLegal Times. It's just a matter now of deciding how the sentence should be properly edited.Bagginator 02:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Happy to participate. Here is my list, with reasons copied from above.
1. Alvin Plantinga - American philosopher of religion (among other subdisciplines). Depending on our usage of "affiliate", he might be considered as one, but if this is the case, it is not obviously so. He is not a listed fellow, nor does he mention any association with the Institute on his faculty site [20]. There is one article by him on the Discovery Institute website [21]. Aside from that, there is a small collection of laudatory mentionings of his name on the aforementioned site. Along with Richard Swinburne (who is opposed to ID), he is the most prominent, living, Christian philosopher of religion.
2. Brendan Nelson - Medical doctor and former Australian Minister for Education, Science and Training. He is probably the most recognized advocate of ID in Australia. In his capacity as an MP, he introduced legislation to have ID taught along side evolutionary theory in science classes. See his Wikipedia article for more information and references.
3. Steve Fuller - University of Warwick sociologist and philosopher. He testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and has published multiple times on the question of whether ID is a science. See his Wikipedia article for more information and references.
4. Andy McIntosh - Professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds and head of the British advocacy group, "Truth in Science" [22]. He is only recently notable in the context of ID controversies. McIntosh's group made headlines most recently when they published a piece in Britain advocating ID [23].
Summary: My understanding is that the purpose of this discussion section is to identify (or not) at least one "leading" proponent of intelligent design who is not a member of the Discovery Institute. Consensus on any name found here would be grounds to change the wording of the sentence, "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]" Given that the present article under discussion is not limited to the controversy as it exists in United States, I think the context of the term, "leading proponents" must have a domain larger than the US. Since the Discovery Institute almost exclusively operates within the US and there are DI movements outside the country, claiming that all leading proponents are members of the DI must be incorrect. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources for any of this? What credible sources have called them "leading proponents" - sources written by people who would be in a position to judge? Digging through lists of people and trying to come up with our own definition of "leading proponents" amounts to "original research". Guettarda 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest reading the discussion in Archive 28, which I've reproduced here for convenience. There are other threads too, but this is by far the longest, roughly 23kB for this one section of Archive 28 alone. ... Kenosis 03:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) ... I also added another section of talk from Archive 28 to the same temporary link here. All told, more than 32kB of talk appears to have been spent on this one issue to date in Talk:Intelligent_design, as much or more than the total amount of discussion on the entire teleological argument for all of its history to date. ... Kenosis 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone (notable) who has used the exact term "leading proponent" to describe any of the above is sufficient, but not necessary, for them to be leading proponents (and for us to verify as much). Another sufficient test would be the following: Google "'intelligent design' australia." All the front page hits mention Nelson or have to do with responses to Nelson's proposed legislation in 2005.
The most recent controversy in Britain caused by McIntosh's group is the dominant ID newstory in the UK. The mere fact that I have named a single public defender (using the term colloquially, not in a legal context) in the UK is evidence that there is someone who is more "leading" in the UK than the DI affiliates, as none (as far as I am aware) are "leading proponents" there. Steve Fuller is another pro-ID figure in the UK who is considered notable enough by the Kitzmiller legal team to be invited to testify in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Finally, the Barbara Forrest citation does not, as you have implied, give a definition for "leading proponent;" it only gives Forrest's opinion that the leading proponents are all affiliated with the DI. The domain of her usage of "all" in the case is obviously limited to the United States (or else she's just incorrect. I also disagree with your bald assertion that using our own (commonly-used elsewhere on Wikipedia) methods to decide who the leading proponents are amounts to original research. By the choice the person who inserted the Forrest citation, the article already implicitly defines "leading proponent" as "someone Barbara Forrest labels a leading proponent." Simões (talk/contribs) 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


"Someone (notable) who has used the exact term "leading proponent" to describe any of the above is sufficient, but not necessary, for them to be leading proponents". No, that's not true. Having a notable source isn't adequate - the source has to be authoritative. After all, Britney Spears is notable, but I wouldn't put much weight on her opinion on this issue. "Another sufficient test would be the following: Google "'intelligent design' australia."". Definitely not. To begin with, being locally prominent does not necessarily make one a "leading proponent".
"The mere fact that I have named a single public defender ... in the UK is evidence that there is someone who is more "leading" in the UK than the DI affiliates". On what basis do you conclude that the person is a "leading proponent"? What is your functional definition? And what authoritative source supports your definition? Even if McIntosh is the leading proponent in the UK, does that make him a "leading proponent"?
I did not imply that Forrest gave any definition for "leading proponent" - but presumably she has one. It isn't just "Forrest's opinion" - it's the opinion of one of the leading experts on the ID movement. On what basis do you say that her statement only applies to the US (or else is incorrect)? Do you have a source to support that assertion?
Making decisions like this is the absence of authoritative sources is original research. Guettarda 04:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
For a person to be a leading proponent, someone has to describe them using the exact term, "leading proponent?" Sorry, but this kind of sophistic contrarianism isn't worth replying to. And what is an "authoritive" ID proponent? Someone who is careful with his or science? If they were, would they even support ID in the first place? My functional definition of "leading proponents" are those who are most publicly active wherever there is a major public controversy. Next: on what basis do you say Forrest is a leading expert? She was invited to testify, but does that make her a leading expert? This is original research even by your (personally contrived) standard. On what basis do you say she was referring to the entire planet and not just the US? Given that there are major ID-proponents who are not Americans (and are, mutatis mutandis, not DI affiliates), I'm thinking the intended domain for "all" is limited to the US. That's my basis for the assertion. Also, calling British or Australian proponents "local" while not extending the same classification to Americans constitutes americentrism. Your comments are littered with this bias, and I recommend checking it. The DI operates almost exclusively in the US. By your (filtered for ethnocentrism) standard, they are therefore local, and their members cannot be called "leading proponents." Simões (talk/contribs) 05:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "For a person to be a leading proponent, someone has to describe them using the exact term, "leading proponent?" Sorry, but this kind of sophistic contrarianism isn't worth replying to."
    • That's nice. Unrelated to anything I had to say though
  • "And what is an "authoritive" ID proponent?"
    • I have no idea. I was talking about authoritative sources. Maybe you should re-read what I had to say.
  • "My functional definition of "leading proponents" are those who are most publicly active wherever there is a major public controversy"
    • Ok. And how is that not OR?
  • "[O]n what basis do you say Forrest is a leading expert?"
    • On the basis that she has made a professional study of the ID movement.
  • "She was invited to testify, but does that make her a leading expert"
    • I'm not sure. But the fact that she has made a study of the issue as an academic does. The fact that she was established as an expert on the matter under cross examination does. Read the Kitzmiller transcripts.
  • "This is original research even by your (personally contrived) standard"
    • No, it isn't. And they aren't my "personally contrived" standards, they are Wikipedia policy.
  • "On what basis do you say she was referring to the entire planet and not just the US? ... I'm thinking the intended domain for "all" is limited to the US"
    • You are the one who said she wasn't. "I'm thinking..." really doesn't cut it. In addition, your argument is totally circular - you believe that there are leading proponents who are not affiliated with the DI, thus Forrest wasn't referring to them? That's absurd.
  • "Also, calling British or Australian proponents "local" while not extending the same classification to Americans constitutes americentrism."
    • To begin with, ID has been overwhelmingly an American phenomenon. That isn't americentrism, that's simply reality. In addition, once again you mischaracterised what I had to say. Why not try reading (and responding to) what I said, as opposed to what you think I said. I said that being locally prominent does not necessarily make one a "leading proponent". ID is overwhelmingly the creation of a few people - Johnson, Dembski, Behe, etc. These are people who have devoted a substantial proportion of their career to developing and advancing the ideas around ID. These are the leading proponents. In terms of global contribution, either intellectually or through activism, where does the top UK proponent fall? Somewhere in the top 10? Somewhere in the top 100? Local prominence does not necessarily mean global prominence. Dembski is prominent in the ID movement regardless of where you go. Is McIntosh?
  • The DI operates almost exclusively in the US.
    • Really? Can you please provide some some support for that assertion? How much of the ID movement in the UK is independent of the DI? Has the Australian ID movement written up their own material? Have they formulated their own theories? Can you show that they have not received support - be it in kind or in cash - from the DI?
  • "By your (filtered for ethnocentrism) standard"
    • Now you've entered the realm of true absurdity. Please explain how my "ethnocentrism" relates to this issue. Let's see, I identify primarily as Indo-Trinidadian, a little as mixed Trinidadian, and given the indoctrination of my youth, a monarchist and loyal subject of HM the Queen. So please do explain how my ethnocentrism comes into this.

And now, instead of slinging insults and attacking arguments I didn't even make, will you please re-read what I had to say? Guettarda 06:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Point-by-point responses:
  • That's nice. Unrelated to anything I had to say though
    • Allow me to rephrase using your comments above, then. Someone (authoritive) who has used the exact term "leading proponent" to describe any of the above is sufficient, but not necessary, for them to be leading proponents (and for us to verify as much).
  • I have no idea. I was talking about authoritative sources. Maybe you should re-read what I had to say.
    • Sorry, my fault for misreading.
  • Ok. And how is that not OR?
    • By virtue of it not being research in the first place, original or otherwise. Definition-by-consensus for classification terms is commonplace on Wikipedia (search "leading proponent" on the wiki for examples). If others agree with my definition, we can run with it. That's how.
  • On the basis that she has made a professional study of the ID movement.
    • Claiming that "one who has made a professional study of the ID movement" is one who is a leading expert (without citation!) is your own definition and therefore original research by your own standard.
  • I'm not sure. But the fact that she has made a study of the issue as an academic does. The fact that she was established as an expert on the matter under cross examination does. Read the Kitzmiller transcripts.
    • This doesn't establish that she's a leading expert. Medical doctors can be invited to testify in cases where their expertise is relevant. Are they necessarily leading experts? Of course not. I'm asking for an authoritive citation that establishes your opinion that she's a leading expert (and therefore an authoritive source of who the leading proponents are). And it better have the words "leading," "expert," and "Barbara Forrest" (and no vague pronouns!) in the same sentence.
  • No, it isn't. And they aren't my "personally contrived" standards, they are Wikipedia policy.
    • Name the specific policy statement that says we must use someone you arbitrarily decide is a leading expert who classifies someone else as "leading proponents" in order to call the someone else a leading proponent.
  • You are the one who said she wasn't. "I'm thinking..." really doesn't cut it. In addition, your argument is totally circular - you believe that there are leading proponents who are not affiliated with the DI, thus Forrest wasn't referring to them? That's absurd.
    • "All the chips are gone." Is the domain for "all" set here? It isn't encoded semantically. We have to interpret from context. Would I be referring to all the chips in the world? Someone would probably use context to interpret this as referring to all the chips in my house. Likewise, we must determine her domain for "all," and it is far more difficult than my chips example. Limiting her domain of discourse to the United States makes sense in the context that she was speaking--a U.S. trial in which all the pro-ID testimonies came from Americans. If you disagree, you need to give your own evidence that she was referring to the entire globe.
  • To begin with, ID has been overwhelmingly an American phenomenon. That isn't americentrism, that's simply reality. In addition, once again you mischaracterised what I had to say. Why not try reading (and responding to) what I said, as opposed to what you think I said. I said that being locally prominent does not necessarily make one a "leading proponent". ID is overwhelmingly the creation of a few people - Johnson, Dembski, Behe, etc. These are people who have devoted a substantial proportion of their career to developing and advancing the ideas around ID. These are the leading proponents. In terms of global contribution, either intellectually or through activism, where does the top UK proponent fall? Somewhere in the top 10? Somewhere in the top 100? Local prominence does not necessarily mean global prominence. Dembski is prominent in the ID movement regardless of where you go. Is McIntosh?
    • The names you list are published authors, and I agree these are leading proponents. Why do you list these people in particular? Forrest didn't name them as the top three. Are only the creators of ID the leading proponents? What about those who have devoted substantial proportion of their careers to developing and advancing the ideas around ID? Do you have any citations for why they in particular should be considered so on this basis? Granted, they are DI affiliates, but Forrest says all the leading ID proponents are DI affiliates, not that all DI affiliates are leading ID proponents. You must be using your own working definition (note: I think this is fine, but, as you have stated before, you don't.). Would you care to be explicit about the definition you're using?
  • Really? Can you please provide some some support for that assertion? How much of the ID movement in the UK is independent of the DI? Has the Australian ID movement written up their own material? Have they formulated their own theories? Can you show that they have not received support - be it in kind or in cash - from the DI?
    • "Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of 'Cascadia'"[24] . Cascadia is a region covering part of southwest Canada and part of the northwest United States. Additionally, all their ID-related press releases that cover public controversies are speaking about controversies in the United States[25]. Finally, the burden of proof lies on you to show that the DI does finance or contribute material to movements abroad. The Australian movement obviously borrowed the term "intelligent design," since it was coined by the DI, but what evidence do you have that all non-US movements use materials and expertise from the Institute?
  • Now you've entered the realm of true absurdity. Please explain how my "ethnocentrism" relates to this issue. Let's see, I identify primarily as Indo-Trinidadian, a little as mixed Trinidadian, and given the indoctrination of my youth, a monarchist and loyal subject of HM the Queen. So please do explain how my ethnocentrism comes into this.
    • Sorry, I used "americentrism" and "ethnocentrism" interchangably. Your favoring American figures over all others (despite my evidence that the controversy occurs elsewhere) is evidence of americentrism, your own background notwithstanding. It's not conclusive evidence, though, so I suppose I should leave this line of discussion. Simões (talk/contribs) 15:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok. And how is that not OR?
    • "By virtue of it not being research in the first place, original or otherwise."
      • Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written based on existing sources. The synthesis of new information which cannot be found in sources amounts to OR.
    • " Definition-by-consensus for classification terms is commonplace on Wikipedia (search "leading proponent" on the wiki for examples). If others agree with my definition, we can run with it. That's how.
      • Just because people violate policies doesn't meant that it's ok to violate policies. Coming up with a new definition of a term which is outside of the meaning used by authoritative sources is a policy violation. People try to vote policy out of existence all the time. That doesn't make it acceptable.
    • "Claiming that "one who has made a professional study of the ID movement" is one who is a leading expert (without citation!) is your own definition and therefore original research by your own standard."
      • I have no idea what the heck you are talking about here. Forrest's statement is sourced. The relevant testimony has been quoted here, and is linked to in the article. So your allegation is simply blatently false.
    • "This doesn't establish that she's a leading expert. Medical doctors can be invited to testify in cases where their expertise is relevant. Are they necessarily leading experts? Of course not. I'm asking for an authoritive citation that establishes your opinion that she's a leading expert (and therefore an authoritive source of who the leading proponents are). And it better have the words "leading," "expert," and "Barbara Forrest" (and no vague pronouns!) in the same sentence."
      • Once again - this information is all present in the source that is linked from the article. READ THE LINKED SOURCE.
    • " Name the specific policy statement that says we must use someone you arbitrarily decide is a leading expert who classifies someone else as "leading proponents" in order to call the someone else a leading proponent."
      • It's there, it's linked. READ THE DAMN SOURCE AND STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME. This is clearly tendentious editing.
    • "Sorry, I used "americentrism" and "ethnocentrism" interchangably. Your favoring American figures over all others (despite my evidence that the controversy occurs elsewhere) is evidence of americentrism, your own background notwithstanding."
      • YOu have provided no evidence, only a slew of insults. Either you (a) don't know anything about the subject, (b) lack the ability to interpret and synthesise the plethora of available information or (c) are simply being disruptive here. The nonsense you have posted strongly suggests to me that you are merely being disruptive. Guettarda 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda asks a question, "Sources for any of this?" I very clearly linked my source.Bagginator 05:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Nice to see Brendan getting some recognition at last. He's not widely respected in Oz, having sold us to the American pharmaceutical firms during the negotiations on the Free Trade agreement. But I don't think a politician, even one with a medical background, can be be regarded as an authority on ID or any other branch of science. Or religion either, for that matter. Mind you, if he prescribed me a pill for hayfever or a law on pharmaceutical benefits, I'd listen with respect. The others...same problem as with Brendan, really: are they authorities in the field of biological science, life sciences, etc etc? Have they relevant expertise? A philosopher of religion, a social epistemologist (whatever that is), a professor of thermodynamics...no, I don't feel confidence in their credentials to speak on the origin of life or of species. As Jim says somewhere up above, these people are supporters of ID, not proponents. But by all means, let's have more suggestions. PiCo 06:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

From Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcript, Barbara Forrest testifying: "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes. Q. Mr. Johnson? A. Mr. Johnson is the advisor. He's held that position as advisor. He's listed that way on the website. Q. Steven Meyer? A. Steven Meyer is the director. Q. And Michael Behe? A. Michael Behe is a senior fellow. Q. Scott Minnich? A. Scott Minnich is a fellow. Q. Nancy Pearcey? A. Nancy Pearcey is a fellow. Q. Dean Kenyon? A. Dean Kenyon is a fellow. Q. Paul Nelson? A. Paul Nelson is a fellow. Q. Jonathan Wells? A. Jonathan Wells is a fellow, in fact one of the earliest ones along with Dr. Behe and Dr. Nelson." The decision in this case drew heavily on Forrest's testimony, and described the ID movement as a product of the Discovery Institute.

So, even assuming there are any other notable "leading proponents", it would appear the introductory section of the WP article appears at a minimum to need to give credit to the Discovery Institute and the CSC as the nexus and creator of the ID movement. ... Kenosis 07:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is another article titled Intelligent Design Movement. And of course there are other "leading proponents" I cited the source for you. We shouldn't assume anything, this is an encyclopedia that doesn't work off of assumptions.Bagginator 09:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We appear to be getting off track. Ive identified a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. We are not looking for "authorities" on Intelligent Design, by the way. If we want to look for "authorities" on Intelligent Design we should change the sentence to read "authorities" instead of "leading proponents". If you want to accept anyone who is an "authority" on Intelligent Design as a "leading proponent" please indicate such and of course we can change the sentence and begin our search for "authorities" on Intelligent Design instead of "leading proponents". But for now let's stick to calling them "leading proponents" as "authorities" is not what the article said and unless you have a source, is not what was meant in the trial by Barbara Forrest.Bagginator 09:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Looking at This paper in the Ohio State Law Journal identifies Gerald Schroeder also as a "leading proponent" of Intelligent Design. Or should I be looking for reliable sources that call them "authorities"? Have we decided which words we are looking for?Bagginator 10:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It does? Not in the article by Jeffrey Addicott that you linked to. "Leading proponent" is used twice - to refer to Behe and Dembski ("Two of the leading proponents of intelligent design theory are probability theorist William Dembski and microbiologist Michael Behe.") and again to refer to Behe (where it points to footnote 428 which says "See, e.g., BEHE, supra note 96, at book jacket cover (“Michael Behe is not a creationist.”).") Guettarda 12:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It does. Here is the relevant text...
A review of intelligent design literature shows both acknowledgement and concern over this accusation with some of the leading proponents of intelligent design going to great lengths to point out that they have no particular religious beliefs and are certainly not “creationists.”[428] And those who do hold religious beliefs insist that their personal beliefs have no relevance to the study of intelligent design theory.[429] House points out that proponents of intelligent design in the scientific community come from a diversity of religious backgrounds—Eastern Orthodox, Unitarian Church, Judaism, Protestant, and Roman Catholic.'
Obviously Behe is not Eastern Orthodox, unitarian Church, Judaism, Protestant and Roman Catholic and the author of that text finds a much larger tent for leading proponents than you or FeloniousMonk.Bagginator 08:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Alas, my good man, the study of the words, how they are used, what they mean, when they are used (or omitted) is quite important -- yes, you'll say I'm arguing semantics, and guess what, I am. Why? Because absent semantics everything we write is devoid of meaning.
Now then, in your case above, you'll not the the first reference to proponents is, "...some of the leading proponents of intelligent design..."; in contrast, the second mention of proponents contains a glaring omission, "House points out that proponents of intelligent design ...". See leading in there anywhere? Nor do I. Now, is Addicott merely being sloppy? Is he assuming, against all proper use of the language that the modifier "leading" carries forth to every other mention of proponents? If you were to answer "yes" to either you would be incorrect. A forensic study of his syntactical usage shows that of the 14 cases where he has used "proponents" in re ID, in only two of those (one at 404 and the one above) did he use the word "leading". Clearly, Addicott has made an important distinction between the two terms, pitching, as it were, two separate tents.
Oh, BTW, Behe is Roman Catholic. •Jim62sch• 10:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Jim, you might also notice that all of this is contained in the same paragraph, IE: The same thought and that he does not write leading proponent singular, rather leading proponents plural, and therefore can not be only referring to Behe. I'll keep Gerald Schroeder on the growing list of leading proponents.Bagginator 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes a leading proponent is already defined in previous discussions, now archived. By any meaningful, reasonable definition, a leading proponent of ID is one who has published the most influential books on the topic. That would be those whose work is recognized/cited by others as being crucial to understanding the topic. Those who are recognized ID's leading proponents are widely accepted as Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Wells, Gonzalez and Pearcey. Gerald Schroeder has never published on the topic even close to the degree of those listed here, so rightly he has never been considered a leading proponent. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems we've got a lot of talk already past this but I figured I should keep adding leading proponents that I discover. So far our list contains John Umana, Alvin Plantinga, Brendan Nelson, Steve Fuller, Andy McIntosh, Gerald Schroeder and now i'd like to add two more, that Barbara Forrest in her Testimony in Kitzmiller calls leaders of intelligent design, Edward Sisson and Jed Macosko. I believe if we are going to accept Barbara Forrests testimony in one part to indentify leading proponents, we should accept her testimony in all parts. The following is the testimony I refer to.

Q. Matt, could you pull up the Exhibit P-410? And this is actually the cover of a magazine. Can you tell us what this is that is?
A. This is the cover of a magazine called Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. This is the July/August 2004 issue. The special title of this issue is Darwin's Last Stand, a special issue of Darwinism, naturalism, and intelligent design.
Q. And what was contained in this magazine?
A. There were articles by intelligent design supporters, and most prominently, an interview with the leaders of the intelligent design movement.

And if you go and visit the magazine she is talking about, and the interview in particular, you will see that Edward Sisson and Jed Macosko are two of those who were interviewed.Bagginator 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is an almighty stretch here. Forrest did not use the words "an interview solely with the leaders". This was an interview of Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Weikart. ... Kenosis 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Forrest also did not use the words "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute".Bagginator 09:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sign your posts.
In any case, when asked: Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? Forrest did say this: A. All of the leaders are, yes.". Would you prefer "leaders" over "leading proponents"? They are, after all, synonymous terms given the OED definitions of the words "leading" and "proponent" (see section above). •Jim62sch• 09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement here, Jim62sch. Yes, leaders is the same as proponents, hence my point above that Barbara Forrest calling Edward Sisson and Jed Macosko leaders is the same as calling them leading proponents. That's why I added them to the list.Bagginator 09:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, no. The actual quote was. "A. There were articles by intelligent design supporters, and most prominently, an interview with the leaders of the intelligent design movement". To parse: this is a compound sentence containing two thoughts: a) there were articles by ID supporters; and b) there was also an interview with IDM leaders. If A then B is a fallacy here: there is no reason to logically assume any equality between the people mentioned in the two portions of the sentence. •Jim62sch• 10:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, we are in agreement. The interview was with IDM leaders. Two of which were Edward Sisson and Jed Macosko.Bagginator 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Alas, Macosko has his fingers in the DI pie see here. •Jim62sch• 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Good catch Jim. That leaves Edward Sisson identified by Barbara Forrest as a leading proponent of Intelligent Design not associated with the Discovery Institute.Bagginator 11:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, not quite. Hunt down the funding source. ;) [26] •Jim62sch• 11:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
?Bagginator 11:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me again, but this discussion has completely lost perspective. Folks are now arguing whether to use the term "leaders" rather than "leading proponents". Since some of the various participants are picking nits about precision of language, we should perhaps note that intelligent design per se doesn't have leaders, it is the movement that has leaders, and the concept that has leading proponents. So we'd rather mangle the language, or refer to the "movement" in the very first paragraph of the intro? It sounds, to say the least, very un-parsimonious for the introductory paragraph. The paragraph already summarizes the verified reality of the concept of intelligent design quite succinctly and accurately, despite protestations about the words "all of the" and the words "leading proponents". It accurately and verifiably summarizes what it is, and where it came from.

How about maybe developing a flow-chart illustration for possible inclusion in the article (consistent with WP:VER of course), like an evolutionary tree starting in the late-1980's showing who's involved in naming, defining, disseminating and promoting the concept of intelligent design. Then proceed to tag them according to DI affiliation. What you'll find is that it was not until the turn of the millennium that these other players in the controversy began showing up conspicuously in the debate bacause the idea of getting a wedge into the public school system was copacetic with their particular agendas. These are people who got on board with something they each thought they could "hang their hat on", so to speak, each for their own reasons. So, if the counter-argument is, for instance, that George W. Bush or Ann Coulter or the Australian Education Minister have become leading proponents, they can at least be put into proper perspective by the reader of the article. At least a flow chart would show how far down the hierarchy of development and dissemination these persons actually are. ... Kenosis 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Another addition to the list according to the San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday August 28th edition[27] is Norris Gravlox.Bagginator 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Looks like Jody Wheeler, or maybe it is the folks at the Tribeca Film Festival (It's not clear which)[28] holds the opinion that Jack Cashill is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design.Bagginator 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) The Orlando Weekly, from September 1st 2005, calls Mat Staver a "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" is that the same thing?[29]Bagginator 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your enlightened input. We value your opinion. Please feel free to share at any time. •Jim62sch• 01:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this list is getting quite long. By the way, these are not my opinion but that of reliable sources. Avant News from November 18 2005 [30]Metcalf Poppikoch a leading proponent of intelligent design.Bagginator 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your enlightened input. We value your opinion. Please feel free to share at any time. •Jim62sch• 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting; yet another purported reliable source by Bagginator, dated 2007 by its author(s) here. ... Kenosis 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be instructive at this point to update the list. So far, those who are considered leading proponents of Intelligent Design who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute are as follows:

John Umana,Brendan Nelson, Steve Fuller, Andy McIntosh, Gerald Schroeder, Edward Sisson, Norris Gravlox,Jody Wheeler, Jack Cashill, Mat Staver, and Metcalf Poppikoch. Removed from the list were Jed Macosko and Alvin Plantinga due to their affiliation with the Discovery Institute as fellows at ISCID.[31]Bagginator 07:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Suggest adding Paul Davies to the growing list. [32]Bagginator 07:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, none of these are "leading" proponents really, are they?
As for Fuller, please note what his exact point is, "An acceptance of the "postmodern condition" as a fact but not a norm. Fuller is presented, with some accuracy, as trying to reinvent positivism, especially the traditional positivist aversion to metaphysics as a necessary feature of the scientific method. This came through in Fuller's role as a defence witness supporting Intelligent Design in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where he questioned the implicit metaphysics of "methodological naturalism" as necessary to the conduct of science." Note that it's a philosophical argument based on his reinvention of positivism. Important point, that. •Jim62sch• 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are all leading proponents in the opinion of the reliable sources quoted. Those that are found to be affiliated with the Discovery Institute (The two struck off previously for example) are obviously removed from the list. But yes, the rest are leading proponents. I think it is a good idea to move this discussion to talking about how to change the sentence from if we should change the sentence.Bagginator 12:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you've been trolled. You're arguing with a guy who cited fake news...and doesn't even blink when Kenosis points it out. Laugh it off. Bagginator, good one. You had me going for a while there. Guettarda 12:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No trolling going on here, I missed Kenosis pointing out the fake news. Good eye, Kenosis, ive struck Metcalf Poppikoch from the list.Bagginator 12:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Aw, no way...I'm sure they're just obscure references.
Unfortunately, my local paper, the Bovifeces Iowa Intelligencer and Gazette isn't on-line. Just last month they had an article on the Rev Homer Irving of the Third United Church of Christ the Redeemer, Savior and Almighty Lord of Light noting that he was a leading proponent of intelligent design. Think I could scan it and upload it as a jpeg or would that be a copy-vio? •Jim62sch• 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Ha, ha. Very convincing, but you've only admitted the most obvious. I caught one of your jokes, Jim caught a couple more. I just figured they were mistakes. But anyway, I'm not dumb enough to fall for yet another of your jokes. Guettarda 13:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to be civil Guettarda. You know there is no joke here, I wouldn't spend so much time researching if this was a joke. It was a mistake, I admitted it, now move past it.Bagginator 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Civil? Come on, of course you're joking here, aren't you? Quoting fake news sites, quoting the Addicott article to support Schroeder when the footnote refers to Behe, all that stuff? Come on, you're really stretching this joke a bit too far. Guettarda 17:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has a desire feel free to check the sources, as Kenosis did. I provided a link for that very purpose. You will see that we have many examples here of leading proponents of Intelligent Design that are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. I encourage you to check the sources and if you find errors to report them in a civil tone, not a mocking tone.Bagginator 13:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Also, Jim makes a very good point above. Pretty soon I believe I shall have access to Lexis Nexis and will be able to do a lot more research on this issue. How does one confirm a source through the use of Lexis Nexis?Bagginator 13:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda was quite civil, I feel, compared to what he could have said. Essentially, beside pointing out that your behaviour is very much representative of what we call trolling 'round these parts, he could, just as an example, have noted that in 3 or 4 days you've yet to discern the meanings of the words "leading" and "proponent", that you misrepresent facts, that your research is sloppy to say the least and that the word "affiliated" seemms to be causing some difficulty as well. Not of course that either he or I would say that.
Re Lexis Nexis, one wonders why you would even need access to that or even think it would be of assisstance, given that it is primarily used in the legal field and by governments. Nonetheless, I'm sure you'll be able to wend your way through the instructions, copyright limitations, legal limitations re restricted use, etc. •Jim62sch• 13:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming too personal for my tastes. It is time to move this to the next stage. Bagginator 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By the last count in this section, Bagginator had narrowed down the list of possible candidates for leading-proponents-of-intelligent-design-who-are-not-affiliated-with-the-Discovery-Institute to: John Umana, Brendan Nelson, Steve Fuller, Andy McIntosh, Gerald Schroeder, Edward Sisson, Norris Gravlox, Jody Wheeler, Jack Cashill, Mat Staver. Fuller is an epistemologist whose views about the demarcation problem were useful to the defendants in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and not a leading advocate of intelligent design per se. Sisson is affiliated by merit of funding connections and a de facto association with the DI (part of the $3.4 million in CSC grant money). Other than Nelson, the rest are at most minor influences in the intelligent design debate or controversy within the last several years, and had no leading role in the development and dissemination of intelligent design. That leaves Brendan Nelson, the Australian Education Minister who latched onto the idea in 2005, proposing the teaching of intelligent design in Australian schools. Is Nelson a leading proponent sufficient to negate the statement "it's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory, ..."? ... Kenosis 14:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't have Schroeder and not have Dr. Poppycock/Poppikoch. Both are obvious jokes. And surely the Umana reference is meant as a joke too. We need more Poppikoch! Guettarda 17:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

defining ID, defining natural selection

The first line of the article defines ID as the concept 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." I'm uneasy with the part that comes after the comma, characterising natural selection as an 'undirected process', which is inaccurate and tendentious (I've been longing to use that word). Should the article be assisting the Id people to mischaracterise natural selection? How about cutting the quote off at the comma? PiCo 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to define what the term "undirected process" means in this context. Pro-evolution and pro-ID advocates disagree about what words like "random" and "directed" mean. I proposed (and even created) an article to clarify this matter.
I don't think the article should be assisting the anti-ID people (or the pro-ID people) in this matter, but should remain neutral about this aspect of the evolution controversy.
Mutations (leading to the emergence of new species) are called "random" or "undirected" when emphasizing a lack of Action or Intent by an intelligent, purposeful agent. They are also called "not random" (and even "directed") when referring to the presence of Natural Forces and Principles such as cosmic rays, copying errors, and natural selection. --Uncle Ed 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. To avoid original research and competing ad hoc definitions we rely on the definition of ID offered by it's leading proponents. FeloniousMonk 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Attributing POV to advocates

Why is it important to stress that all (or almost all, or most) leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute? What are the implications of such an affiliation?

If someone is making an argument that because of this affiliation, a conclusion follows THEN we should spell out the conclusion. Perhaps it is the argument that:

  1. The Discovery Institute has a pro-Creationist bias, because of an evangelistic purpose: it wants people to believe in God and live a religious life.
  2. All leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
  3. THEREFORE, ID itself has a pro-Creationist bias, because of an evangelistic purpose.

I note that this conclusion is held by nearly all the 'contributors' who are resisting Bagginator's proposed changes. It seems that this faction all want Wikipedia to endorse a POV. However, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on controversial matters.

So it would be better for us to dig a little further and provide sources pertaining to advocacy of viewpoints such as (1) that ID itself has a pro-Creationist bias and (2) that ID has an evangelistic purpose.

I daresay the dispute over whether #1 and/or #2 is true, lies at the heart of the controversy over Intelligent Design. --Uncle Ed 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is important to attribute special relativity to Albert Einstein? Why is important to attribute Newton's laws of motion to Sir Isaac Newton? Because they are the one's who brought the concept to the fore. Please don't start up with the tendentious objections again here Ed. FeloniousMonk 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
We're not talking about to whom the original attribution belongs to; we're talking about the current leading proponents. Your examples are not relevant. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Intelligent design as is found in the national debate is wholly attributable to the Discovery Institute. Period. Just as special relativity is to Albert Einstein and Newton's laws of motion are to Isaac Newton. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read the discussion of that past couple days. It has been pointed out repeatedly that this is not just a national debate. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The international ID movement is the poor step-child of the US ID movement, and is also driven largely by the Discovery Institute as well, which has made efforts to expand the topic to AU and EU and setup affiliates. Ten minutes spent reading the press releases on the Discovery Institute website will make that clear. FeloniousMonk 18:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless you have citations, this is just your personal assessment. If the DI really does dominate the international movement, you should be able to easily establish as much. However, the non-US names I've listed above are not affiliated with the DI. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As I understand, this article is about Intelligent Design as a brand name associated with the Discovery Institute. The philosophical concept intelligent design is covered elsewhere, e.g. "teleological argument", so this one is about the views of the ID movement in the US. I think that's perfectly fine. The only problem is that the first sentence defines ID as something very vague, even compatible with Theistic Evolution, but I believe the ID movement's refusal to accept Theistic Evolution was a major point against them in the court case. --Vesal 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Intelligent design is not a brand name; it has no trademark associated with it. Additionally, the title not the "ID movement in the US;" it is not even about the intelligent design movement (as you can see, that has its own article. It's about intelligent design, the large umbrella term (see the given cited definition) that includes theistic evolution, young- and old-earth creationism, and whatever other popular myths (I use this in the descriptive sense, not the pejorative) are out there. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, take "brand name" a bit more figuratively... I mean what makes the term Intelligent Design notable? But, I shouldn't have been telling you guys what to do, but I can tell you my impression from reading this article: it is 100% about the Discovery Institute's view. --Vesal 19:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Your syllogism is invalid. The dispute over whether #1 or #2 are true has nothing to do with the controversy. The controversy comes purely from an organization and propponents attempting to pass off something as science when it's not, and using fallacious bifurcation arguments to make their case. Science has nothing to do with creationism, evangelism, or gods. As to your question why it's important to stress that leading proponents of ID are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, well obviously it's because the Discovery Institute has made itself the focal point for Intelligent Design. So why shouldn't the article mention the fact that leading proponents of ID are associated with the one organization that's really pushing ID? -Amatulic 19:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
For example like Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter who wrote: "A teacher in Kansas, where war over Darwin in the schools is still raging, calls the theory of intelligent design 'creationism in a cheap tuxedo.' Great line, but unfair to the elegant tailoring of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that has almost single-handedly put intelligent design on the map." Monkey See, Monkey Do. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One more time...

Since those with a pro-ID slant have resurrected the issue again that there may be leading ID proponents who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, I'll issue my same challenge one more time: Name one leading ID proponent one whose work is widely recognized and who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Just one. FeloniousMonk 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, why don't you make life easier for yourself, and define this article to be about the views of the ID movement. The point is that other people who believe in the concept of intelligent design do not use the label intelligent design and, I would say it is perfectly okay, to focus on the discovery insitute here... you could make the disambiguation link say something like "This article is about intelligent design as defined by the Discovery Institute, for other uses see Intelligent design (disambiguation)" --Vesal 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
"Other people who believe in the concept of intelligent design do not use the label intelligent design." Say what? Who, for example? Everyone I know personally who advocates Intelligent Design uses that label. Some even use it interchangeably with creationism. -Amatulic 19:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Well of course other people also use the words intelligent design, but usually they are referring to the philosophical concept. I'm living in Europe and the first association I have to the phrase Intelligent Design is Kansas! That's notability, so I believe it is fine for an article on intelligent design to focus on the most notable case and let Argument from Design hold the umbrella. --Vesal 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That would create a POV fork since there is not a different intelligent design that's being promoted by a different intelligent design movement. That's not to say that ID proponents don't redefine some minor elements of their arguments on an ad hoc basis, but it's still the same argument made by the same people. FeloniousMonk 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, ok... but there is still the confusion between the intelligentdesign as almost synonymous with philosophical arguments from design,and the intelligent design of the DI, which is pseudo-science. --Vesal 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're wrong and, at the same time, are revealing your own POV problems. I am an atheist, a materialist, accept evolutionary theory and the standard accounts of evolutionary history, and believe ID is not a science. I also happen to think that the DI is not, in the strictest sense possible, the sole source of leading advocates for intelligent design. Check your own pathological biases before throwing accusations like this again. And, "one more time," read the previous two days' discussion. All of your concerns expressed today thus far have already been addressed. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Really, where would that be? Again, all you have to do is name a single leading ID proponent whose pro-ID work is widely recognized and who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. FeloniousMonk 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Change the title of the article to "Intelligent design (Discovery Institute)." Even though the DI's own definition is rather problematic if they're aiming to exclude every popular creation myth out there, stating that this article is about DI's actual usage (as opposed to definition), which is obviously a reiterated version of the Abrahamic creation account, would settle things in my mind. The base intelligent design article would simply be a survey of all creation accounts signicant numbers of people still believe in today. Thoughts? Simões (talk/contribs) 19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design isn't a synonym for "the collection of all creation accounts." It's a subset (or an evolution) of "scientific creationism" that makes specific claims and arguments. It happens that the leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute at the moment and they insist it's scientific, but that doesn't mean leading proponents making the same arguments won't crop up elsewhere. The definition you're advocating is not one you get from reading or hearing about Intelligent Design in the news media or on other web sites. I think the title in this article is accurate. -Amatulic 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me, there are many different understandings of what intelligent design should mean. The most general use of "intelligent design" as a philosophical concept is extremely inclusive. I was even wrong to think this to covered by the argument from design, which is a very theistic argument. So what does intelligent design mean? --Vesal 20:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point, and ask a good question. I'll attempt to answer it like this:
I have no problem drawing a distinction between the Teleological argument and the term "Intelligent Design." ID certainly appears to be an extension of the teleological argument in that it contains a premise based on complexity, but the differences lie in how the argument is presented. Instead of acknowledging itself as theistic, intelligent design tries to avoid traditional creationist references and terminology while dressing up creation science to seem more scientific. ID is an argument from design, but it's not the argument from design.

-Amatulic 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Discovery Institute (and this article):

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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."

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence[33]

The Discovery Institute is saying that ID (specifically their version of it) is scientific. This is distinct from it being part of the definition. "Intelligent design" does indeed refer to all creation accounts. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


So we have three different concepts

  1. "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence", this is pure Creationism.
  2. "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This is belief in final cause.
  3. Some form of general Creation Science.

All of which have articles, therefore I suggest this could focus on the Discovery institutes specific views, AS IT CURRENTLY DOES ANYWAY, only it could be more specific about doing so! And have a disambiguation notices pointing to all three above articles! So this was my little proposal, what do you thing? :) --Vesal 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#undue_weight. The talk page for the teleological argument is 32kB long for its entire history, including Plato's Timaeus, Augustine's City of God, Aquinas' Five ways, the various watchmaker arguments including Cicero, Voltaire, Robert Hooke, Paley, and intelligent design. The talk page for the article on intelligent design, by contrast, has over 2mB (2000kB) over its three year history (with over 6500 namespace edits on the article itself). Treating it as if it was on a par with uses of the term "intelligent design" independently of it's ideological socio-political application by the Intelligent design movement would be a mockery of rationality. It is the attempt to pass this particular set of teleological arguments packaged as science by the Discovery Insitute affiliates that is the only noteworthy concern of the present article -- i.e., the attempt to get a wedge into the public schools in the context of the culture wars. For persons today, in 2006, to say "well, it's still a nice idea independently of the Discovery Institute's version" is somewhat like trying to say in 1955, "well, communism is a nice idea independently of Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party". The term "intelligent design" has been co-opted for all practical public uses by the DI affiliates, and there's no getting it back for other purposes for the forseeable future. Unfortunately, that's just how language tends to work in the real world. ... Kenosis 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The Discovery Institute and pro-ID contributors here have been trying for over a year to create a disconnect between ID and the Institue, there's only one intelligent design, and it happens to be the product of the Discovery Institute, regardless of how uncomfortable that fact may be. In fact, Vesal's line of reasoning is identical to that of User:Benapgar. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but I think I have different motives, I'm actually very impressed with this article and I think you guys have done an excellent job with it, especially with citing the sources. So please don't label me pro-ID just because I might make the same argument as they have made. I agree there is only one "intelligent design", damn it, I even called it their brand! But, I still believe a stronger statement on the disambiguation link would help this article, it would reduce the conflicts, although it seems I'm just causing more conflicts, sorry about that! It would focus this article on why scientists are so opposed to ID, namely that it is wrapped as a scientific theory, and would direct the reader to creationism etc for more serious expression of the ideas. --Vesal 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If the Internet and Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, I dare say that the article on communism should not have been "'communism' as used by Josef Stalin." There would be a separate articles for communism and its history starting well before Marx and Engels (though this article would certain have a section on Soviet communism) and communism qua Stalinism. And it would be the former to have the title of "communism." Simões (talk/contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Indeed, Wikipedia would have been considered communist! ;-) ... Kenosis 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Creating a "Intelligent design (Discovery Institute)" article would create a POV fork, as there is no alternate intelligent design being promoted, as has been explained here previously. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The teleological argument is already linked to in the article on ID. So are all the specific concepts, such as watchmaker analogy, Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity, Fine-tuned universe, etc. This article already is an excellent disambig to all the related concepts. ... Kenosis 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Wikipedia is not here to assist the DI in their effort to spread FUD about their role in the concept through ambiguity and denying the obvious and easily verfiable. I see no legitimate reason to change the article, all of which is consistent with the Kitzmiller ruling. FeloniousMonk 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, your claims are at odds with published definitions. That the DI currently uses "intelligent design" more than any other group in the United States does not change this fact. Westerners and some radical groups in the Middle East may use "jihad" to mean suicidal attacks by Islamists on civilian targets, but the Wikipedia article on it shouldn't be rewritten to merely cover this. Like "intelligent design," "jihad" has a definition that exists prior to the late 20th and early 21st century, and the definition remains to this day. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That ID was a concept prior to the Discovery Institute latching onto it is a topic already addressed in the article. FeloniousMonk 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue of historicity of the term and of the concept intelligent design is already well covered in the article. The term would have gone virtually or completely unnoticed in the context of the teleological argument had it not been picked up, given a shine, and used as a handle by the DI affiliates in the late-1980s and 90s. ... Kenosis 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why must we have this discussion every few months? This herring has been out of the water so long it's a pasty fetid grey-brown. •Jim62sch• 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose page move. Please consult the naming convention of the Manual of Style. This is about the Discovery Institute's Intelligent design. Other uses are listed at Intelligent design (disambiguation). Other uses exist, but the term overwhelmingly applies to DI-ID. I see no reason to move this page and turn intelligent design into a disambiguation page, but if that is what you want to do, please feel free to propose a page move. Guettarda

Dispute about who "leads"

The only issue as I see it from above is that this is a dispute about who "leads" in promoting intelligent design and who follows. If a random ID-believer on the street think that their pastor, a lawyer in Kansas, the president of the United States, or the cardinal from Austria whose comments DI lauded is the person who "led" them to intelligent design, I think we may be hardpressed to verifiably support or contradict this opinion. It is entirely conceivable that someone was led to their belief in intelligent design by someone other than the DI leaders. We could say that the DI-affiliates "leads your leader", but this defies verifiability. How are we going to verifiably show that every conceivable "leader" is "led" by a DI-affiliate?

I think that this weird issue makes the current wording slightly weasely. I absolutely agree with the intent and stated explanations of the wording but I disagree with its phrasing and think it is too open to inaccurate interpretation. Unfortunately, I have been unable to come up with an alternative way of precisely indicating what is being illustrated by this single sentence.

The association with DI is absolutely unmistakable (to the point of being uncanny) when evaluating the evidence that ID advocates present. This is precisely the sense in which all the leading proponents are affiliated with DI. However, the term "leading" itself is (sadly) an equivocal and somewhat weasely adjective. Let's brainstorm about alternative wordings that can get across the same meaning without being subject to such handwringing.

--ScienceApologist 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'm all for clarity, we can't sacrifice accuracy, and the current wording, "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." is accurate and verifiable. There's no shortage of sources that that the leading ID proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Here's just a couple of the more obvious ones for starters:
  1. Newsweek: "A teacher in Kansas, where war over Darwin in the schools is still raging, calls the theory of intelligent design 'creationism in a cheap tuxedo.' Great line, but unfair to the elegant tailoring of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that has almost single-handedly put intelligent design on the map." Monkey See, Monkey Do
  2. >"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Testimony of Barbara Forrest in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial
  3. "Prominent IDM leaders are in agreement with the opinions expressed by defense expert witnesses that the ground rules of science must be changed for ID to take hold and prosper. William Dembski, for instance, an IDM leader, proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (5:32-37 (Pennock)); P-341 at 224 (“Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.”). The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (P-140 at 4). In addition, and as previously noted, the Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Id. at 6. The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.14 Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. (1:98-99 (Miller); 14:75-78 (Alters); 37:25 (Minnich))." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover, pg 68
  4. "Dramatic evidence of ID’s religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the “Wedge Document.” The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM’s goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document’s goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity. In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID’s religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66. Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural. Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover, pg 28
Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sources. So if you have a proposed passage that is more clear than "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." without sacrificing accuracy, I'd be happy to discuss it. We literally half a dozen pages archived that went over this already though. FeloniousMonk 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm proposing we brainstorm: statements that are more accurate and more clear than the current one. --ScienceApologist 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you propose? FeloniousMonk 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
See the intro. I was bold. Revert as required. --ScienceApologist 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Too wordy, didn't improve on "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." FeloniousMonk 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well I'm not sure I agree with the "too wordy" critique, but might I suggest that the fact that the sentence is trying to say too many things at once is causing a lot of the grief? There are really two ideas in this sentence: 1) that all leading proponents are affiliated with DI and 2) that these proponents say that ID is a scientific theory. These two separate ideas might be better separated into two sentences. --ScienceApologist 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Of the two points, 1) isn't really that important, who cares if it is all (and I'm not so sure that someone like Alvin Plantinga can be dismissed that readily [34]) or most of them, the point is still valid; but 2) is crucial, which is why the next paragraph contains the references to pseudo-science, junk-science, etc. --Vesal 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
While not a DI Fellow, isn't Plantinga still clearly a DI affiliate? Guettarda 05:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
They have one article by him on their site. It seems a stretch to call him an affiliate based on this alone. Simões (talk/contribs) 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Plantinga is plainly listed as a fellow. ([35]) That means he's affiliated. ... Kenosis 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh stop. See this. •Jim62sch• 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I note this is from International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. I grant that Dembski is the executive director, but are they a branch of the Institute? If they are, why hasn't FeloniousMonk gone over to their Wikipedia article and added that to it? Simões (talk/contribs) 15:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture (CSC), International Society for Complexity Information and Design (ISCID), and a few others are all part of the same kit-n-kaboodle, the DI being the nexus. They all have verified direct links with one another, as opposed to operating independently of one another. I don't have the links handy to prove that at the moment; perhaps another editor can post it for you. I apologize that this wasn't made explicit earlier in the discussion. ... Kenosis 15:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree the DI and CSC are linked; that is stated clearly on the DI website. The ISCID, on the other hand, has no visible link that I can find (it seems to be a side international project of Dembski). I'm also aware, however, that the CSC didn't acknowledge their subsidiary status with the DI for a long while. One final note: I think it is indisputable that Plantinga is a leading proponent. However, if the ISCID and DI link can be established (and more than just a donation or laudatory press release of one to the other), I'm willing to drop my dispute, as I also think Plantinga is the only not-obviously-DI-linked leading proponent (And this makes sense: he's still considered a reputable academic philosopher and has universal respect among his intellectual opponents. Associating with the DI in any visible way may damage this reputation.). Simões (talk/contribs) 17:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
William Dembski is the executive director of the ISCID, as well as Editor-in-chief of the PCID journal. Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells are both fellows. These three people are also the core of the Discovery Institute. Rather odd for an organization that appears to hold itself out as "independent" of the DI. I believe (but don't quote me on this yet) some of their funding comes in part from a modest membership fee with encouragent to donate more, but that most of it comes from the DI/CSC funding, including but not necessarily limited to some of the $3.6 million in fellowship funding disbursed by the CSC. And, I refuse to be bound by Simoes' arbitrary restrictions on showing additional connections potentially involving large donors such as the Abramsons (whose verified donations are over $9 million thus far to the DI) and perhaps others. ... Kenosis 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You're responding to me; you don't have to refer to me in the third person. As for the possible Abramsons funding source, I don't think this would be sufficient to establish a link. If I support abortion rights and donate to the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party, are the two parties now linked? I don't think we would normally say this. I do agree that the involvement of the three major DI figures is suspicious, though. And if the DI/CSC finances all or many of the fellowships of the ISCID, this would be pretty close (if not identical) to an indisputable link. I'll wait for your or someone else's source on this. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is the real problem, then ...

The article starts with a very bad definition: Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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." I take definition very seriously, so for me the next sentence reads "The leading proponents of the view that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute". That is clearly false! Many honest creationists also believe design to be the best explanation, but they admit it is an irrational, faith-based explanation, or that science has not yet uncovered the evidence, whatever. No scientist has a problem with that... So am I just annoying you guys with "pro-ID propaganda" or do you think I might have point, because I actually came here to help and for the record, I'm very anti-ID. --Vesal 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You definitely have a point, but I think this is more of an issue where creationism overlaps with ID rather than a true contradiction as you seem to argue. The honest, non-neo-creationists dispute, in particular, the ID attempt to be explicitly neutral (purposefully not include in the definition) toward the suggestion that the "intelligent cause" is in fact "God". Inasmuch as a concept is accepted that the features are explained by an intelligent cause, that's "intelligent design". It's a level of specificity removed from creationism on purpose so as to attempt to get around linguistic dismissal of supernatural teleology as being unfalsifiable. By avoiding words that are commonly known to be associated wtih "supernatural", intelligent design proponents obfuscate and confuse the issue that they are, in fact, talking about supernatural events when they cite their euphemistic "intelligent cause". So the short answer is, this isn't really a contradiction if you are very pedantic with your reading. However, causal reading leads to all kinds of equivocation, as I illustrated in the above section. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the definition used by all the leading ID proponents, Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Wells, yes, who happen to be Fellows of Staff of the Discovery Institute. Coming up with our own definition would violate WP:NOR, and using one from a group or individual who is not prominent would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. FeloniousMonk 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus far, the only concise way the editors have found for accurately representing the role of the DI in the packaging and dissemination of ID is exactly as the article is currently written. Perhaps something like the following in the second sentence of the intro? "Intelligent design was formulated and disseminated by members and affiliates of the Discovery Institute." might seem more accurate and less weasel-worded at first glance. But upon closer analysis, the intro is already accurate: First the Discovery Institute's definition is used as the basis for introducing the concept, with a citation. The DI and affiliates are the ones that packaged and disseminated this modern formulation of the teleological argument to the public, so they are the authoritative source for this brief definition, and that's verified through almost an endless number of sources, one of which is cited in that particular footnote. The second sentence then proceeds to build on the first. Given that the definition is that of the DI, this sentence proceeds to say, verifiably and accurately, that "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]" I suspect this is as good as it gets and as accurate as it gets for a subject as complex as this one is. The article then proceeds to explain it, quite informatively in my opinion. ... Kenosis 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I stress that I'm very happy with this article, would really like it to be featured article, so yes, I do realize the current wording is the result of a lot of hard work and compromize, but still the pro-ID people are not happy, and I doubt they ever will be. But, I'm starting to see there really is no obviously better way, you can't really cite a critic claiming "ID is a pseudo-science..." :) --Vesal 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Our experience here has shown that they will not be happy with any article that does not present ID as more plausible or accepted as it really is, or that presents viewpoints unflattering to ID, something that is necessary per policy. WP:NPOV says clearly that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular ... Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." The Discovery Institute, being the most largest source of ID books, articles, and the primary source of ID promotion, is going to always be the center piece of any ID article to which the NPOV policy is applied. FeloniousMonk 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Second compromise proposal (or brainstorm)

Replace the vague (and perhaps also weasel) word "leading" with "internationally prominent." This will exclude those who are more identified as leading the ID charge in certain nations or regions (and, as ScienceApologist pointed out, also arguably "leading proponents"). Behe, Johnson, and Dembski are all internationally well-published and affiliated with the Institute. It is less vague to describe them, in particular, as "internationally prominent" than "leading." And if anyone considers the two to be synonymous, then they shouldn't have a problem with a swap. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Internationally prominent" is less weasely than "leading"? I don't think so. There are only a handful of leading ID proponents: Behe; author of Darwin's Black Box, Dembski, author of The Design Inference, The Design of Life, The Design Revolution, Mere Creation, Signs of Intelligence, Johnson; author of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, The Wedge of Truth, The Right Questions, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?, Meyer; who co-authored/edited Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe, Wells; author of Icons of Evolution, and a few others. All are Discovery Institute staff or Fellows: [36] [37] Specifically who are these alleged people "identified as leading the ID charge in certain nations or regions"? And what makes them notable? I'm very familiar with ID in AU and EU and there they cite the same ID proponents as we do here, those listed above. FeloniousMonk 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to ignore someone who believes all who disagree with him in this dispute are creationist POV warriors. Thoughts from anyone else? If in disagreement with this proposal, is there some other noun phrase that might address the concerns in this dispute?Simões (talk/contribs) 23:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
FM is right. These are verifiably the leading proponents. The problem is that some readers don't know and won't explore what a "leading proponent actually is. --ScienceApologist 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
To find out what a "leading proponent" is, they have to dig through the talk page archives and decide which half-consensus of a definition they want to go with. Thus my attempt to offer a less vague noun or noun phrase. Especially using the adjective "internationally" assists in making the term less vague. So what should be the noun itself? Active? Influential? Simões (talk/contribs) 00:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"Leading proponent" is not a difficult concept to grasp. What constitutes one is a matter of common sense. Worth noting that it's generally only pro-ID editors who object to the idea and term. FeloniousMonk 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The source(Forrest's testimony) doesn't say anything about internally prominent, the proposed wording change would therefore be unsourced original research. JoshuaZ 01:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not inclined to ignore editors who refuse to present evidence to support claims that run counter to ample existing evidence. Particularly since the primary promoter of ID has called for attacking this very article [38], and the unsupported claims being made are identical to those they make themselves. Luckily, we have policies for dealing with unsupported claims, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is the Leading Proponent?

Search on "John Umana"+intelligent+design -- 79 hits.
Search on "Michael Behe"+intelligent+design -- 193,000 hits.
You decide. •Jim62sch• 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about Google stats, but they are a fair representive of notability. "Alvin Plantinga" + "intelligent design" seems almost impressive with 23,700 hits, that is, until you compare to "William Dembski" + "intelligent design" with 192,000 hits. Steve Fuller with 16,800, Andy McIntosh's 1,310 and Brendan Nelson's 735 hits are even less impressive. Contrast those numbers to Michael Behe's 204,000 hits, Johnson's 84,500 and Meyer's 50,900 and it becomes a little clearer. FeloniousMonk 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"George Bush" + "intelligent design" yields 463,000, trumping them all. If you're going to use google as a clear indicator, you might want to first make sure it works for your POV agenda. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In using Google to scope political figures, it can get even more ridiculous than that. "Tony-Blair + intelligent-design" gets 1,170,000 hits (actually 710,000 if you use hyphens, and 370,000 if you use quotation marks). I agree that sole reliance on Google is not a sensible way to decide notability. When, however, someone only is getting 50-70 hits (depending on how "John Umana" "intelligent design" is entered), I think it's fair to say the fellow's not exactly a leading proponent. Moreover, it gets interestinger and interestinger as time goes by and more folks will inevitably try to work the search-engine system in various kinds of attempts to achieve notability-- a trend that I think it's fair to say has already begun in many quarters. As to John Umana, it would appear, based on this kind of result, to be a misuse of the term "leading proponent" by legaltimes.com ... Kenosis 04:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Attributable no doubt to all the recent Republican support of science and science institutions. When Bush publishes his ID book then we talk about putting him the intro. Until then he's only a believer, not a proponent. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The publishing of a book is not necessary to be a proponent of an idea. Wikipedia is not interested in truth but in verifiability. Calling someone a "leading proponent" is an opinion that anyone can hold, no credentials needed. As long as that opinion comes from a reliable source it should be included in the article.Bagginator 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call him a "leading" proponent, but I'd certainly call him a proponent. Bush has not only stated his own private belief in ID, he has also gone so far as to say (paraphrasing from memory here) that many different ideas should be taught in schools, and this has been interpreted to mean advocacy for the teaching of ID in schools. (It has to be interpreted, because Bush loves to dance around this question.) I see little difference between an advocate and a proponent. Bush has essentially said he is for the opening of science classrooms to the teaching of non-scientific material. It seems quite clear to me that he is indeed an ID proponent/advocate, though certainly not a major one. As in, I wouldn't put him in the intro, but he probably ought to be mentioned somewhere. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis, how exactly can a publication "misuse" an opinion?Bagginator 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

One possible way is calling a virtually unheard-of lawyer who happened to publish a book titled Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things (2005), a "leading advocate" of intelligent design. ... Kenosis 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a difference of opinion, not a misuse.Bagginator 03:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh! You bet. Legalitmes.com calls Umana a leading proponent of ID, and we get 70 hits on Google, virtually all of which are a result of legaltimes.com calling Umana a leading proponent and putting it on the web. And that's virtually all because of this story which is also cached here]. Now, what's wrong with this picture as it relates to WP:RS. ... Kenosis 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely understand (But do not agree with) your difference of opinion with Legaltimes.com. Your difference of opinion, however, does not have an effect on Legaltimes.com standing as a reliable source.WP:RS So, to answer your question, nothing at all.Bagginator 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for just myself, I might sign off on the language "It's leading proponents, virtually all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory ...", except that it would most assuredly be attacked as WP:Weasel, because, of course, in the introductory paragraph of the article on Intelligent design, it is necessary to be precise in our language on a subject which aims to include theological concepts as part of the public school science curricula in accordance with the promulgation of a "theistic methodology of science", especially in the United States (and perhaps elsewhere of course, though the US is where the controversy was/is primarily created and located). ... But I digress somewhat. ... Kenosis 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My other "issue"

My only other major concern is the length of this article and maybe the controversy part should be a separate article, although it is a very crucial part. I also don't like the term controversy, because controversy is immediately used as in "teach the controversy". "Pseudo-scientific nature of Intelligent Design" or "Conflict with the Scientific Community" I think are more precise, or "Intelligent Design and Science", which could also be the title of a separate article summarized here. Well anyway, good night! --Vesal 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The length is something we've really grappled with over at least the past year. Splitting items off runs the risk of creating POV forks, and reducing any of the sections runs the risk of not fully explaining the issue.
Controversy to me seems quite appropriate as there is much controversy, but the other two options imply something that simply isn't true. •Jim62sch• 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
For a long time the two sections were called "Intelligent design controversy" and "Intelligent design as a movement". About 700 edits ago, around the beginning of July, the two sections were changed to "Controversy" and "Movement" without any real objection on the basis that it was unnecessary to restate the words "intelligent design" in the section title (see the lengthy archived discussion driven primarily by User:Silence). I have no objection to returning to the older way of titling these two sections. ... Kenosis 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I'd forgotten 'bout that. I have no objevtion to such a return, either. •Jim62sch• 06:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe that is more clear, currently controversy are used to refer to different things, so yes, that might be a good solution, but it is not that big of a deal anyway. The length is a problem, the controversy part is as long as a separate article. Good luck, anyway!--Vesal 14:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

ID claims to be science, but the scientific community's response to ID has been nothing but critical. NPOV policy calls for presenting all significant viewpoints on disputed topics. WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience tells us "...the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Splitting off the scientific community's reception and opinion of concept that claims to be science into a separate article would create a POV fork, and POV forks are forbidden by policy. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here FM clearly shows his bias. If the article is only about the ideas of the Discovery Institute and not about the essential idea that there may be a design in nature, then what is the problem with having disambiguation at this point. The main problem with this article is that it conflates the two ideas. Over and over the problem has been brought up, but it has never been addressed by the controlling editors. One easy way to resolve this problem would be to include a sentence like: Many people including scientists not affiliated with the DI harbor the feeling that there is a design in nature. How would that be?ArrrghBob 23:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What other "essential" idea that design in nature implies a designer is there other than the one being promoted by the Discovery Institute? Sure you're not conflating the teleological argument with intelligent design? We've been hearing about all these unaffiliated scientists that are notable proponents of intelligent design, but still have yet to see evidence of them and their notability. FeloniousMonk 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't you see that the DI has unofficially co-opted the term "intelligent design", but that this article does way more than that. You have codified it, used it interchangably to mean 1. What the DI says it is, and 2. The essential idea of there being a design in nature. The way the article is phrased, especially in the first two paragraphs, presents the two ideas as one, and therefore makes the reader think that anyone who believes there is a design in nature, must by definition adhere to the tenets of the Discovery Institute. This needs to be corrected ASAP!!!ArrrghBob 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Aaargh, just for funsies, define design. Define interpretation of design. Define anthropomorphism. Define why you're here. •Jim62sch• 02:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You know Jim, I am really tired of your flipant sarcasm toward anyone who you disagree with. But I am happy to oblige you in your suggestion that I define design. I think it would greatly help this article if that were undertaken in the article. But of course, since this article is nearly perfect, I don't expect there will be any interest from the controlling editors. Design implies intention, which implies an intender, it encompasses the idea of planning, either premeditated, or in process, and the idea of a creative process.--ArrrghBob 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

'Critique'

"Intelligent design presents a critique of.." 'Critique' seems like way too strong a word as ID proponents have no scientific basis and no meaningful response. How about "Intelligent design proponents are of the opinion that.."?

I'd say it's virtually a paraphrase. ID proponents do have an extensive critique of evolutionary theory and while most of us here would agree that it is groundless and based upon error, I don't think that in itself disqualifies it from being a critique. --Davril2020 16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design presents a critique of naturalistic explanations for biological evolution.
For what it is worth I do not think intelligent design is a critique of anything. What exactly has the ID crowd actually critiqued? Most of what the ID crowd writes about evolution and science in general is a form of slander, or blatant dishonesty, depending on how you look at it. I don't think their motives are to critique anything, their aim is clearly outlined in the Wedge Document. No where in their litterature is there a mention of a desire to critique. They indulge in character assasination to discredit Darwin (Hitler was a Darwinist dontcha know) they suggest evolution leads to mass murder and totalism. That is not a critique, it's slander. They want to overthrow "Darwinism" and replace it with "theistic understandings" and they're pretty honest about it. How is that translated into a "critique"? Stating that Intelligent design presents a critique of naturalistic explanations for biological evolution is very misleading in my opinion. Finally, feel free to offer examples of ID presenting an *honest* critique of "naturalistic explanations..." Those guys bring up the same discredited notions that creationists were offering 2 decades ago. Mr Christopher 17:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed it to Intelligent design is advocated as an alternative to naturalistic explanations for biological evolution. Hopefully that resolves the issue, although I don't like the passive voice I introduced in the grammar. -Amatulic 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Where this discussion is going, and where it can possibly go

This discussion about "leading proponents" makes no sense. We don't create knowledge, we report it. Without an agreement as to what constitutes a "leading proponent", there's nowhere to go. We have an authoritative source, which has not been challenged by any other authoritative sources. If no one has challenged Forrest's definition statement, then we have no grounds change it. What makes a leading proponent? Would that be the top 10% of active proponents? The top 5%? The people who had written more than one book or 5 scholarly articles? The people who were involved in a full time basis for >6 months, or a half-time basis for more than 2 years? What sets a leading proponent apart from others? If we want to have this discussion at all, we need to define the sample space. If we don't have an agreed-upon definition (which, of course, is supported by external usage, as per the idea of NOR), then we can only rely on authoritative sources - academics who have devoted the professional career to studying ID and the people behind it (Forrest, Pennock, etc.) and people who can speak on behalf of the movement. Maybe a journalist who did an in-depth article looking at this issue. Beyond that, we can't go. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it. Guettarda 17:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • "If no one has challenged Forrest's definition, then we have no grounds change it."
    • Forrest never gave a definition.
  • "If we don't have an agreed-upon definition (which, of course, is supported by external usage, as per the idea of NOR),"
    • Then lets distill an agreed-upon definition from external usage. Or, even better, let's use another word. "Notable proponents" (viz. notable proponents who are notable for their "proponency") would be groundable via WP:N. This would also have the benefit of flexibility beyond the ridiculous task of having to find exact usage of a particular phrase. Simões (talk/contribs) 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Typo. Fixed. Guettarda 17:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, we can go a little further if need be, such as to a request for comment. And I'm not confident that those who aren't already heavily involved with this article and intransigently against modifying the sentence in any way are going to agree with you, FM, et al. Simões (talk/contribs) 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The passage "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" is accurate. No one has yet provided evidence that there are proponents who are more notable than Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Meyer, et al. Until notable sources per WP:V and WP:RS are provided that outweigh all the evidence that all leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute is submitted, this is a dead issue. Continually raising dead issues is considered tendentious argumentation, and it is disruptive to the article and project and highly frowned upon. The project provides a number of processes for dealing with tendentious and disruptive contributors and cranks, and there is a limit to what long time contributors need to put with. FeloniousMonk 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it tendentious argumentation just because we have a lack of consensus. Probably more accurate to refer to this as deadlocked disagreement.Bagginator 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A lack of consensus among who? Certainly not among the long term contributors to this article, who've made it a good article, widely cited as excellent by neutral sources. Any lack of consensus is purely contrived and transparent. FeloniousMonk 00:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Among Wikipedia editors there is a lack of consensus. On Wikipedia there is no ownership of articles.Bagginator 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This page indicates otherwise. There is no lack of consensus among the regular participants at this article. And the last I've checked the changes were rv'd by a number of different, varied editors, not just one or two. The issue is that the passage you, Simoes and Ed Poor want to change has stood a very, very long time in the article because it is factually accurate and supported by easily verifiable facts. Contrast that to the changes you three have sought; despite numerous calls for proof no one has yet presented evidence of a leading ID proponent who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Instead we've gotten semantic ploys to redefine "leading," "proponent," etc., and offerings that are neither notable nor actual proponents. That's why your changes have not found traction, not article ownership. FeloniousMonk 17:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You've stated this before on other articles where there are nearly identical disputes, and three of the "regular participants" almost always seem to include among of them you, Jim62sch, and Guettarda. Between you immediately accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being pro-ID and Jim62sch repeatedly insinuating that Bagginator is an idiot (see below for an example), this is a dubious "consensus" if there ever was one. Simões (talk/contribs) 18:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second here. Saying the words "dubious consensus" doesn't make it so. Translation: "I disagree heartily with the consensus". In the section above involving mainly Bagginator proposing new candidates for "leading proponents who aren't affiliated with the DI, we ended up narrowing it down to a small group of minor commentators, including several that turned out to be fictional. The remaining question was whether the Australian Education Minister who proposed putting ID into the schools there can reasonably be classed as a "leading proponent". In another section above, Simoes is asserting that Alvin Plantinga's fellowship with the ISCID is not an affiliation with the DI, despite that at least three of the core leaders/founders of the DI are the founder and executive director of the ISCID (William Dembski) and [Michael Behe]] and Jonathan Wells are fellows. So we have some absurd questions being asked by those questioning the consensus (thus some of the deterioration of discussion we've seen), and a few reasonable questions being asked too (thus the willingness to engage in fairly lengthy discussion). That does not make the consensus dubious in the slightest. ... Kenosis 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your enlightened input. We value your opinion. Please feel free to share at any time. •Jim62sch• 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Transcendent

Dude, the following couple of sentences in the article are grounded in the same proof as the content you just deleted. It makes me wonder if you even know what 'transcendental' and 'immanent' mean. -Psychohistorian 18:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Which source is that? FeloniousMonk 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"Dude"... I'm a DD. I do know what 'immanent' and 'transcendental' mean. I cannot, however, despite my doctorate, divine which "couple of sentences" followed. Please explain. --Storkk 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The same source which proves the statement, "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection." -Psychohistorian 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you give us the number of the specific cite you are refering to? FeloniousMonk 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can't figure out exactly what you are asking for. Are you saying that the quote I just referenced, "Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection", isn't sourced and needs to be removed? Are you saying that you can't figure out the reference for that statement? -Psychohistorian 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you say that your edit, [39], is supported by a source that already exists in the article, and I'm asking which one. If you're saying that it's supported by subsequent sentences and not a cite, then which sentences? FeloniousMonk 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
And I'm pointing out that, if ID claims that a creator exists which is not purely in this world (and there are sources in the article which make plain that it makes this claim), then ID is a transcendental argument. So, what's your poison? Is ID transcendental or not? -Psychohistorian 10:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Does it matter? Calling it transcendental is OR unless you can find a reliable source that has noted thesame. You seem to be missing the point that ID is not "sold" as a philosophy, it's sold as science and must be dealt with as such. In fact, if ID were a mere philosophy, instead of a rehashed concept dressed up in a cheap science tuxedo, it'd be a blip the size of a gnat on the national radar. •Jim62sch• 12:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It is no more OR than pointing out that a source which states that a light source has a wavelength of 510nm means that the light is green.-Psychohistorian 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EIntelligent_design_Archive32_96e5.html"