Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Suggestion 2 Random subheading: falsifiability 3 Singular vs plural 4 Natural selection "undirected"? 5 The debatability of ID and evolution 6 ID not Creationism? 7 Hello, 66.213.198.226 :) 8 numbskulls here 9 Apparent partial violation NPOV policy 10 Apparent partial violation NPOV policy, round 2 11 What instructions? 12 carbon chauvinism 13 Theories of I.D. and Origin

Suggestion

The article would be better in structure and easier to read if the criticism of Intelligent Design were put to a separate article. (unsigned comment left by 130.230.93.22 - 01:00, 12 October 2005)

And no doubt the Discovery Institute and ID proponents would be pleased as well... FeloniousMonk 03:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Read on down a bit on the talk page, and you'll see an extended discussion on this very point, under the heading Apparent partial violation NPOV policy, round 2. I agree that the article will be more clear when the arguments for and against ID are separated out a bit. However, a clear description of the criticism and reaction to ID does belong in this article. The big question is how to most clearly and accurately describe both sides of the issue.Gandalf2000 04:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Random subheading: falsifiability

(What is most ironic is that many of the greatest scientists -- Newton, Einstein, et al -- believed they were studying God through science.) But the number one flaw of this article is the criticism leveled at ID that evolution is never subjected to. Take falsifiability. There is no way to conclusively falisfy the claim that the Cambrian explosion was the result of evolutionary processes. There is no way to run experiments on the Cambrian explosion. You can't run experiments on the bulk of geology, archeology, cosmology, astronomy, and any number of long-term processes studied in science. It's all about studying the evidence. Theories of origins are built upon historical evidence, logical deduction, in the context of philosophical presuppositions. That is the ID perspective, that opponents of ID get it wrong in their logical analysis of the evidence, and they get it wrong in their philosophical presuppositions. That case is being buried in the endless tit-for-tat challenge-every-statement-in-every-paragraph editing done by ID opponents in this article. Stuckerj 30 September 2005

But it has never been disproven that the Cambrian explosion was the result of evolution, even though, had the world been created by a deity, there was every reason to assume it would have been. Had the world been created 6000 years ago, there should not have been fossils. That there are fossils may not be proof of evolution, but it is supporting evidence. And that most, if not all, evidence is in support of evolution supports the validity of evolution, not as an indiputed fact, but as a rock-solid and time tested scientific Theory (mind the capital T).

There is always room for other concepts, such as the concept that a deity (or FSM) created the world. But when those concepts are unfalsifiable (which evolution is not) they are not scientific, however true they might prove to be, in the end. -- Ec5618 16:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Your objection that the Cambrian explosion have never been disproven actually supports the claim made by Stucker. He claims that you cannot falsify the Cambrian explosion, and you are in fact agreeing and supporting his claim by stating that it never has. Also, in your post, the fact that there are fossils, according to your line of reasoning, can only indicate that the earth is older than 6000 years, and does not in any way support evolution nor indicate that it had happened. My question for you, though, is if evolution is indeed falsifiable, perhaps you would like to describe for us how exactly it could be falsified? (unsig 64.106.61.54)

Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes.

There are a number of ways to create doubt about evolution. Granted, most of them (if not all) have become incredibly improbable, because scientists (and creationists) are continually trying to find such proof.

We could, for example, find a kangaroo in Precambrian layers of rock. Or a bird. Or a schnauzer. Or a cat. Finding any of these things should be pretty likely, surely, if all creatures were created at the same time. Though, I'll admit, the fact that we have found no such fossils doesn't so much prove evolution as it does make created kinds incredibly unlikely (assuming no deceptive deity).

We could also discover that DNA doesn't actually transmit genetic information, but is rather just taking uo space, or serves some devinely inspired purpose we have not yet imagined. If it would turn out that we are not the product of the DNA of our parents, but rather of a retualistic merging of their souls to create a new being, evolution would be rather wrong.

Mind you, I am not giving you a list of things that will disprove evolution, I am giving you a list of things that could disprove evolution. Just as the construction of a perpetual motion device would disprove the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so would finding that genes do not exist disprove evolution.

Please realise that this is incredibly inlikely. Scientifically, evolution is a theory, partly because it is falsifiable. Whereas ID basically suggests that 'maybe someone did it', which is obviously not falsifiable. It might be true, it might not be. -- Ec5618 09:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Singular vs plural

I notice that a recent change to allow (within this concept) the possibility of multiple designers was 'rev'ed back to a prior version. Is it the opinon of this august body that this concept precludes multiple designers as a consideration? If that is the case, then it may be useful to be specific about "a single designer or agent". Of course the other phrasing raises theological arguments ... begging the issue of who 'owns' the discourse in this area. JimNH 21:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Natural selection "undirected"?

The first sentence in the article reads:

"Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

As I understand natural selection, it isn't entirely accurate to say that it's "undirected." Although natural selection doesn't depend on direction in the sense that employees depend on managers, it is goal-oriented; the "goal" of natural selection is to sort living organisms into ecological niches. To call it "undirected" sounds to me a bit too close to calling evolution itself "random chance," which of course is a characterization no biologist would agree with. Considering this, perhaps "unguided" works better here? Moreover, because Intelligent Design sees nature as the product of purposeful planning, "unguided" seems (to me) to better communicate their contentions as well. Avertist 00:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Unguided" sounds fine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Undirected" was part of the Discovery Institute's own language describing ID: "The theory of intelligent design holds 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] We were trying to intentionally use their own language as was reasonable as they are ones who've driven the movement. FeloniousMonk 03:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well, I can understand why the DI would use those words. If the goal is to preserve their words (which seems reasonable to me as well) then maybe they should be quoted on it. I'll leave the final decision up to you, just throwing my two cents in. Avertist 06:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, interesting you want to do that here, but not when it comes to understanding the development of the intelligent design movement.

Swmeyer 16:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to understanding the intelligent design movement, I take all of their statements into account, not just those tailored to further their agenda. Anyone who claims to actually understand the movement in its full social context will have done so as well. FeloniousMonk 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I tend to think that those who have an idea should be given the opportunity to speak for themselves. Your a priori judgment that this is a religious movement without legitimate implications for science, not one in the philosophy of science with scientific implications, serves as the social context in which you interpret the movement.

Swmeyer 00:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ID has yet to produce an actual hypothesis. ID offers no testable, verifiable alternative to the widely accepted model. What it does offer is a collection of polemical critiques of evolution and the methodology of science and some debatable mathematical proofs from which we are to infer design, but no positive evidence of design. As such, ID has little in the way of a relationship to the philosophy of science, except as a criticism. Any actual implications to science from ID have yet to demonstrated, except as an attack on its epistemic underpinnings.

The article, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, presents all relevent and significant views on the topic. ID proponents have their say here. No one is denying them that. Your suggestions would deny their critics their say. Yours has been a common objection by ID proponents here. FeloniousMonk 00:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's because he's right.

The debatability of ID and evolution

First, I'm not trying to provoke a debate on the issue of which hypothesis is correct. I'm trying to show why your wording in the article about the unreliability, etc., of the idea is invalid. Djacobs 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems like this disclaimer might be of the sort of "the lady doth protest too much". Joshuaschroeder 03:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

About such sweeping dismissals as "debatable mathematical proofs" (have you ever reviewed these? Evolution really doesn't make sense, even with your billions of years): Why don't we say evolution is "debatable"? It most definitely is and has been since it was thought up. Djacobs 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the proofs have been reviewed and yes they are by the accounts of independent reviewers found to be debatable in that there is considerable debate on how the proofs are/should be applied to the natural world. Evolution as outlined in the modern synthesis isn't debated in the scientific community. That's why there is an ID movement in the first place. Joshuaschroeder 03:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The ideas can and have been debated: You can't say that all notable or expert scientists agree with the theory, even if some majority of the "scientific community" does. Djacobs 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Twisting my words to conform to some other argument you'd like to argue instead is called the straw man fallacy. If you have legitimate concerns, bring them up, but right now you're sounding more and more like a creationist mouthpiece. Joshuaschroeder 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Twisting your words? Right. I say evolution is debatable, you say not in the scientific community, I say not every expert in the scientific community agrees; some have debated the idea. How is that twisting your words? How is that setting up a false argument and beating it down? How am I putting words in your mouth? Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Claiming that "evoution is debatable" can be considered as you saying one of two things: one) evolution is debatable because there are people that will argue about anything, two) evolution is debatable because, unlike other scientific ubjects, it doesn't have the evidence to back it up. If you are saying one), than I agree. If you are saying two), then obviously I disagree and I can refer you over to the evolution page and you can make your case. Either way, it seems that this discussion is going nowhere fast. Joshuaschroeder 01:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me interject, and, though no one will ever read this, point out that Joshuaschroeder spelled evolution as "evoution", and thus, his entire argument is null and void. Apparently, the ID hordes didn't borrow a dictionary... perhaps this can be linked indirectly to deep set underlying emotional instabilities... perhaps. Five year old kid: "I like evoution!" Natch 14:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

People will argue about anything, true. But that experts in their fields have debated it is another issue. Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Some" majority isn't an accurate word, "vast" majority is closer to it. If you have any notable scientist who is an expert and questions the basic science(s) which form the basis of evolution (DNA, radiometric dating, cosmology, geology, paleontology) and, now this is key, who are in the field they are criticizing, then go ahead... it will be a very short list. Frankly people speaking from outside their scope of expertise, need to taken with a grain of salt especially when their opinions are put against the rebuttals of those in the fields in question. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And about how Intelligent Design isn't proveable by experiment? Evolution (from one species to another) hasn't been observed either to a satisfactory extent. You're telling me that seeing a flower have slightly altered chromosomes - which results in its inability to breed with other flowers of its "former species" - is conclusive observation of evolution from bacteria to humans? Oh wait, but if that happens enough times... Wrong. Have you looked at that probability? I'm not even going to go into it now, as its not worth wasting my time over. Many experts have written on the topic. Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a non-sequitor addition. If you have something to add, add it. But self-dismissal of your own argument leaves the rest of us wondering -- if you don't have the time to make your argument, why mention it in the first place? Joshuaschroeder 03:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm... Well, you're right that I should put more there. Point taken. I guess I just assumed you knew about the extremely unlikelihood (that's really not a good enough word) of some random energy/matter forming atoms, molecules, organic material, amino acids, proteins, DNA, life, simple biological systems, ... , the earth's biosphere, it's perfect relative position to the sun and angle... etc. I was mainly saying that I wouldn't physically crunch out the numbers. (That has already been done for me.) Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you know of a peer-reviewed article on the subject, please point it out. As an interested scientist, I would like to see this. You can make Fine tuning arguments all you want, but hopefully you recognize that there isn't only a teleological explanation for them. Joshuaschroeder 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Since your numbers are based on fundamentally poor assumptions; why would crunching them demonstrate anything useful? Let me give an example if I may. I debated with a clever engineer who was a creationist, he professed Hirudin (what leeches use to keep blood fresh) is compelling evidence against evolution, because its "design" is so complex and specific to keep blood from clotting, it had to have been designed in order for something appear out of nowhere to be so useful. He did some impressive calculations that would have made Behe and other creationists proud:

"This is roughly a 5% chance per selection, multiplied out 65 times, or 5% of 5% of 5%…. Or 0.05exp65 which comes to about one chance in 3.7exp84." [2]

But I pointed out the fundamental flaw in his argument; he required hiruden to evolve from nothing to the complexity of the modern blood component it interacted with, Thrombin. But it was clear from the evidence, that huridin evolved in parallel with thrombin and all his clever calculations had missed that option. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Since my numbers are fundamentally flawed... Hm. Proof that they're flawed? As to the other, I'm not familiar enough with that case to pretend I can talk about it. Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's quite reasonable to not talk about something you are not familiar with; you should apply that good sense further. Unlike you, I will repeat myself, since one cannot know the exact circumstances of abiogenesis; an attempt to calculate the odds of abiogenesis is a non-starter. If you don't know what actually happened, what makes you think you (or anyone else) can crunch the numbers on "it" happening? You would have to assume you know what "it" is; and the properties, behaviors of "its" structure and moreover how many components/combinations are at play. Logical proof, which I presented above. Furthermore you need to internalize the concept this isn't just about randomness.

An analogy if I may. Two very small magnets bouncing around a room, now they are flying around randomly and the chances of meeting and sticking together are remote, but eventually it will happen if they hit the right way and at the right speed (too fast may make them bounce apart). What I wish to show by this example is that while they were bouncing around with "random energy"; they have inherant properties that will make combination inevitable assuming continued energy (movement). This would occur despite low probabilities one could calculate based on the size of the room, magnets and their speed. Likewise with biological components which do form and combine naturally; without the need of a designer... and as you can imagine if you put 200,000 small magnets in the very same room, combinations would be occurring a bit more frequently and the probabilities would change drastically by many orders of magnitude. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

When I have a chance to go through my records, I will. Djacobs 22:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't hold my breath. Joshuaschroeder 01:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

So now we've come to simple jibes, have we? Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Where are the intermediate fossils? And don't give me circular reasoning in the form of Punctuated Equilibrium. (Talk about only being "internally consistent.") Djacobs 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The position is not "perfect". As to calculating odds, one would need to know the mechanism and steps involved in the creation of life (be it creation or abiogenesis), since no one does I find odds calculations... rather odd. Regardless of who calculated them. As to intermediate fossils, if you don't find these compelling, I dare say you won't find any compelling; and I assert it is your pre-conceptions, not a lack of fossils which is at play here. And to cap it all off, random energy creates atoms, atoms create molecules, molecules beget organic material all the time. Amino acids are a little rarer as they require certain conditions, but that also occurs naturally. It stands to reason further steps require even more rare and specific conditions, but as yet there is nothing to indicate it cannot occur naturally. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The position is. We know what atoms, DNA, amino acids, etc., are made of, including the mathematical order of discrete parts that make them up. We can therefore analyze their complexity and the probability that such ordered structures would come from a random assortment of energy (which, by the way, no one has explained yet). And then the chance that a series of "good mutations" would occur, once life was substantially formed... I mean, the chance for one species to dramatically change (over time) is improbable enough. That the millions of species on earth all exist now is beyond reckoning. And that is giving you original energy and amino acids as a freebie. Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Got any numbers, any priors? Have you studied statistics at all? Are you willing to show a citation to a proper Baysean analysis? Or are you simply mouthing off about Dembski's much criticized ideas? Joshuaschroeder 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are "energy" and "amino acids" freebies when it is clear they are products of nature? Since life didn't just come from a "random assortment of energy", nor were good mutations required to occur in "series", it's safe to say your probabilities contain some very lame assumptions. In conclusion, if something is unexplained... then it remains, wait for it... unexplained. We aren't exactly waiting for creationists to tell us their beliefs and guesses on the matter; we'll wait for stuff that can be confirmed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Amino acids and original energy are freebies to show its hard enough to get from amoeba to human, assuming earth exists, which assumes some original energy. Djacobs 04:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You're having enough trouble with evolution and abiogenesis, I don't suggest you delve into origins of the cosmos/Earth, its off topic as I want to focus on calculations and "logical" fossil expectations. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing once I get around to it, now that you ask. Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

See above. You're not the first creationist who has said this, and you won't be the last. Joshuaschroeder 01:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make my position wrong. You think you surprise me with that thought? Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Which intermediate fossils are you looking for? Be specific, your answer will be graded. Joshuaschroeder 03:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Where are ALL of them? By logic (again, don't give me back puncuated equilibrium. It merely exists because the dilemma exists), there should be many more "in between" stages than defined species. Why do scientists struggle to get any intermediates, most of which turn out to be osteo or a pig's tooth? They should definitely be more prevalent, even if you didn't agree that they should be dominant. Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry Djacobs... you get a failing grade for that response. You've fallen into the classic creationist argumentation of hoaxes occurred in the past, so all intermediate forms must be hoaxes. Well, you've clearly dismissed resesarch in the area so I'd say you've opted yourself out of the discussion. When you're ready to rejoin let us know. Joshuaschroeder 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

So say you. Hm... I failed the test you, the person I'm arguing against, gave me... But to the point. No, I don't believe that hoaxes exist implies that all intermediate forms are hoaxes. Reread my response and try again. If there were vast amounts of intermediate forms in the fossil record, I wouldn't dismiss the claim. As of now, there's no reason to accept it. Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what exactly you consider "vast"? Maybe you should search for intermediate forms on the talkorigins website and see what you get. Joshuaschroeder 01:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Evolution requires a vast number of transitional forms, it does not predict nor require a vast number of transitional fossils. Any authentic transitional fossils validates evolutionary theory. If you cannot find just cause to find current and growing transitional examples invalid; arguing how many you think there should be is rather a waste of time... and furthermore pointless since there is no magical objective number you can come up with to satisfy what is a pointless argument to begin with. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not how much I think there "'should be'" but how much logic and evolution prescribe. And I've made clear my point. I'm not repeating it to you. Insult all you like. Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It is clear your point is invalid. Evolution requires many transitional forms; but evolution also says transitional species have small populations, have a short timespan (relative to successful species since they go extinct), and indeed because they are unsuccessful, more likely to be eaten/captured by predators/scavengers. So logic indicates low fossil frequency in comparison to successful species with much larger populations, and much longer timespans. Hence, more transitional forms does not guarantee more transitional fossils... and I don't recall insulting you Djacobs. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

And where did this random energy or matter or whatever you believe it to be come from before the Big Bang? Hm? Some "super-dense ball of energy" was just sitting in nothingness waiting to blow up and form rational, extremely complex humans? The earth was perfectly positioned afterward? When did time begin? t0 = ?? Why didn't all these systems evolve in a bad way? How about entropy? (Speaking of entropy, the potential randomness of this is a result of my writing this late at night.) You believe evolution is proven, a science, but ID is "debatable"? Next time some animal from the zoo turns into a human, let me know. Then I'd give you your "observability." October 12, 2005 Djacobs 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Before the big bang is peculiar terminology. Do you mean before the Planck time? The Earth appeared on the scene nearly 10 billion years after that, so I'm not sure what you mean by it being "perfectly positioned". Your argumentative stance is hardly becoming of a discussion on how to modify a somewhat popular and frequently cited article. Do a bit of research if your interested in tackling a point or two you want to see modified and get back to us, but right now your arguments don't seem to add much to the discussion. Joshuaschroeder 03:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Before the big bang occurred. Was there time then, according to you? Where did time come from? How was the original matter created/come about? As far as perfectly positioned, I'm talking about its optimum distance from the sun, its good angle to its axis, etc. As I've said, I'm arguing as to the debatability of both.Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that you are conflating two very different arguments here -- both of which have answers but both of which you haven't cared to research beyond referencing creationist arguments. It would be a good idea for you to branch out. Joshuaschroeder 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so separate the two. How did time and the original energy originate? Where did they come from? It's not that hard. Branching out meaning explore the other side... Hm... I've aced national tests (with essays) regarding evolution and well understand the thought. I'm not some simple-minded idiot that won't look at the other side. I'm saying you need to look at your theory and admit it is debatable, not concretely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. (After all, I think I remember reading something about this in the requirements for something to be considered scientific...) Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

How did time and the original energy originate? Would you like to take on all of advanced theoretical physics here? Is that your idea of what should be included in this article? Or are you simply unaware that people much smarter than you or I are currently asking and answering these questions without the help of Intelligent Design pushers? Joshuaschroeder 01:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As I say, NO, this information doesn't need to be here. My point concerns debatability. Hence examples of how evolution could be debatable. Yes, I expect evolution to explain where we came from completely, including the "original energy." The failure to explain that, alone, would be reason enough not to believe it. Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to forget that evolution was never meant to explain the origin of everything. Evolution only attempts to study how living things have changed over time, not their ultimate beginnings. That's why it's called "evolution" and not "origin". If you want to know where the "original energy", try the advanced theoretical physics page instead. Viltris 06:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the "acing national tests" comment is supposed to elicit some kind of awed respect from me. I know some of the people who write those "national tests" and many of the people who grade them. They aren't all that familiar with scientific research, unfortunately. Many of them are very competent educators who would love to get a chance to know more. I'm surprised that you, acer of their tests, claim some level of awareness beyond theirs. Well done.

Absolutely not. By acing tests, as I clearly said, I was ONLY saying I had studied evolution in detail and understood the theory. The point was that I'm not unwilling to take a look at the other side, as I also said. Please read my posts more carefully before you respond. It's clear that passing national tests wouldn't be impressive, but would serve to show experience and understanding. Not anything extraordinary. Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally, please don't use the word "proof" in regards to science as there really is no scientific proof beyond that which conforms to observation. Nothing is proved in science, we just have a set of very well-conceived and tested theories. You may want to go take a look at that page for more on the subject. Debating can and is done all the time. Whether the debates are notable or worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia is another matter. Joshuaschroeder 01:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

True, nothing can really be known, as we all know. (Everything must be based on some assumptions, such as what reality is.) I think we have all understood that since we were able to really think. Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have done research on this; it may have been better to write this when I was more alert though. That could be a fault. And that the article is cited proves nearly nothing. Good call on my not fully making that one argument, though. The whole point was to show that evolution is debatable. Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You haven't really done more than outline common creationist positions on subjects: positions already outlined in articles here on Wikipedia such as creationism, creation science, and creation-evolution controversy. This is a page on Intelligent Design, however, and so the likelihood for inclusion of your points is unlikely. Joshuaschroeder 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As I say, but you fail to understand, I'm not arguing that these points be included here, nor am I claiming to be presenting my research. I'm arguing that evolution is debatable. It's a simple thesis. Not too hard to grasp, at least so I thought. Djacobs 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to have any of the points included, why are you talking about them at all? What would you like to see mentioned on the page? Some sort of disclaimer that evolution is debatable? What source are you going to use, the Southern Baptist Convention? I honestly don't know what you are trying to go for here. Joshuaschroeder 01:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

They are examples of how evolution is debatable. How many times will I have to say that. Read the section title. It is a thesis of sorts. Is it that hard of a concept to understand? Oh, righto about the baptists. Um, not seeing where you were going with that one. Djacobs 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I have been most persuaded by the brilliant punditry and original research displayed by Djacobs. I am convinced. I believe in the Big Bang because God said 'Bang' and there was light. That's where all the energy and matter came from before the Big Bang (silly cosmologists and their crazy "mathematics" of atheism). I'm convinced, all the transitional forms ever discovered were hoaxes. Everything from Rhizosolenia to Australopithecus is clearly fabricated, misconstrued, bad science, or simply not representative of the truly vast forms that those stupid evilutions require to make their theory (that's never been proven) right. The probabilities for life to occur are mindboggling. They're like a really big number, like much bigger than a million. And more than that the Earth is special because God loved the world that he gave his consent to make it the best of all possible worlds. This author has proven by shear force of argument and rationality the debatability of evolution. Unfortunately, we cannot cite him as per wikipedia policy guidelines, so we'll have to leave this contribution to the archives. Joshuaschroeder 05:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Haha, bravo, I really appreciate the facts behind those statements. And the lack of exaggeration, bias, or even satire. You're so open-minded! Now, because of your wisdom and pure understanding, I've been enlightened. It just all makes sense. I mean, science just proves that we must have come from energy that was sitting out in nothingness, in a dimension we may not even know about. And it makes perfect sense that an explosion would result in an orderly assortment of the world and in the fundamental forces. I can clearly see now how energy turned into atoms, then into molecules, which eventually became humans. I don't see how I was so foolish before, to think that there was an originator to our world. How silly.

Stepping out of that voice, I wasn't going for any major proof against evolution, as I've said before. Just introducing debatability. Maybe you didn't understand. We'll know for sure who's right eventually, and then that debate will be settled, along with much more. There's no real point trying to conclusively prove it, as you have to make assumptions to believe anything. All I know is I have something to hope for until I die; I have purpose. (I'm sure you've heard that many times before.) Anyways, have a good one.Djacobs 08:06, 14 October 2005

While you wait to be vindicated before the seat of Christ on Judgement Day, the rest of us will be writing an encyclopedia article here. I'm glad you have a purpose. Maybe you'd like to go meditate on that rather than wasting your time with this secular enterprise. Joshuaschroeder 19:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of this exchange? Why bother to change the mind of someone who is defiantly and stubbornly ignorant? No amount of evidence will convince someone who is impervious to evidence. Bill Jefferys 22:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

To provide a fair hearing; one of the strong points of Wikipedia; although Djacobs may disagree its fair and he would have a decent argument since the majority here are scientifically inclined... but in summation in all fairness there isn't a debate on the validity of evolution. Creationist wishful protestations notwithstanding. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I am still new to the WikiPedia culture, and this is helpful. Bill Jefferys 02:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

ID not Creationism?

Just removed this addition and put it here for discussion:

Although Intelligent Design supporters do not limit themselves to the Christian God. They should not be confused with the Creationist movement. Creationism acknowledges the God of the bible and the genesis story and then uses science to prove biblical claims. ID is a movement that looks at the science purely and comes to no other conclusion then there must be intelligence.

I think this has been discussed at length here in the archives, but I didn't want to remove it without comment. It is certainly a form of creationism, which includes any creator beyond our abilities to see or comprehend. Jokestress 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is clearly POV and should be removed, but it is also POV to say that ID is creationism, since IDists claim that ID is not creationism, while non-IDists claim it to be creationism. --JPotter 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ID by necessity is creationism; ID posits a creator... "The Designer" (formerly known as God). FeloniousMonk 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This not the case. JPotter is on to it--ID proponents claim that it is not necessary to equate the designer with God. To quote Dembski's prepared testimony for the Dover case, "The nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview." To go from detecting design through patterns to the conclusion that this designer must be God is a leap not provided for by ID. In fact, it is possible to be a proponent of ID while not adhering to a creator in the traditional sense (a la Flew).

Swmeyer 12:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly what we'd expect Dembski to say. It's part-and-parcel of the official Discovery Institute party line. Nonetheless, any designer that selects/arranges/fine-tunes/whatever for life by definition creates life. Hence, it is a logical necessity that ID is creation.

Regardless of whether you expect him to say that (I'd suggest using "I" rather than "we" because I and many others disagree with your extreme suspicion), the question still remains--is he right? Is it possible to maintain a view consistent with Discovery's published description of intelligent design and yet not believe that designer is the God of your hated enemy--creationists?

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

All of these semantic subterfuges that leading ID proponents engage in are easily and simply put to the lie by their own statements.

Hasty generaliation?

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll start with Phillip Johnson (I can quote Dembski too if I must).

Please do.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

He confirmed that ID is a religious belief in 1996, the year the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was established. Johnson stated, "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'-- or sometimes, 'mere creation' -- as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." He clearly wants people to see ID as an idea that can supplant naturalistic science with divine revelation: "If life is not simply matter evolving by natural selection, but is something that had to be designed by a creator who is real, then the nature of that creator, and the possibility of revelation, will become a matter of widespread interest among thoughtful people who are currently being taught that evolutionary science has shown God to be a product of the human imagination." He referred to ID's religious goals in a 2001 speech when he explained that Wedge leaders founded the ID movement to explain the evidence for "a Creator" and to "unify the religious world." In an interview that same year, Johnson predicted that "with the success of intelligent design," people would understand that "the Christians have been right all along -- at least on major elements of the story, like divine creation." That realization, according to Johnson, would forestall the argument that Christian ideas have "no legitimate place in public education, in public lawmaking, in public discussion generally."

I'd like to see the sources on these compiled quotes. Please provide them.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Some more quotes of Johnson's to consider:

• Admitting that not identifying God in ID is strictly a strategic choice: "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." (Johnson in Touchstone Magazine interview, June 2002)

I already dealt with this one--in context he is playing out the characterization and even if he is not, he is attempting to avoid contentious issues so that a legitimate one can be considered--a good strategy.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy." (Johnson in World Magazine, November 30, 1996)

I explained this already as well. Even in context, you quote pieces that are about Johnson being at a meeting of Christians. Again, I ask you, is it possible that intelligent design theory (as explained by Dembski, etc.) can be separate from one's philosophical/religious point of view?

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Admitting that the entire purpose of the Wedge strategy is religious: "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the "wedge." ( Johnson in his book: Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, pp. 91-92)

This reveals your anti-religious bias more than anything about Johnson. Again, question-begging.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• "We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." (Johnson in LA Times, March 25, 2001)

I found no such article on the Times site. Could you point me to it?

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." (Johnson's foreward to the book Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, 2000)

I'd have to look at the source. I don't have it. Sounds like an interesting thought, and still question-begging. Is there anything to intelligent design? Dembski's math? Meyer's conclusions?

• "The subject is not just the theory of evolution, the subject is the reality of God." (Johnson on Hank Hanegraaf's "Bible Answer Man" radio program, 12/19/2001)

Please provide context as I do not have access to this source.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" (Johnson in Church and State Magazine, April 1999)

I'm not sure what you think you are linking to, but this link does not contain the word sin or a number of other words as I mentioned before.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the link. FeloniousMonk 15:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is attempting to reformulate the whole creation/evolution debate around the most important questions," (Johnson in Communiqué journal)

Honestly, this is the closest you get to good data. This source is compelling in that it shows Johnson thought the either/or to be evolution or creation. However, more recent statements by Dembski, who is spearheading up the math, make different claims. I also want to point out that there are agnostics on board with Discovery and the Darwin dissenters.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

So don't bother to claim that ID is not creationism/religion/etc., or attempt explain to us that these quotes are being misused, taken out of context, etc. It is, and they aren't.

Um, not so fast. See above. I put this to you--if intelligent design is merely about philosophy/religion, then so is Darwinian evolution.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute claims ID isn't creationism as part of their Wedge strategy. A fundamental part of the Wedge strategy is the rejection of naturalism as unnecessary to science. The only alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism.

Really? The only alternative is supernaturalism?

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Claiming ID isn't creationism is purely a device for removing an objection to their promoting a certain religious point of view. Doing so is called for explicitly by Phillip Johnson, above. How to do it is spelled out in the Wedge strategy. Everyone central to the topic knows that. As I've shown, in their unguarded moments, the leading ID proponents make it explicit. Those in the scientific community know it, those in academia know it, the students know it. Every blogger commenting on this topic, from either side, knows it.

Wait a minute, I thought you said Johnson said ID was creationism. Which is it? And who is "Everyone central to the topic"? How about these 400 scientists? I'm not sure these are unguarded moments as moments in context of other discussions.

Let me make something clear to you--I think that the intelligent designer is the creator God of Israel. However, I do so for reasons not associated with intelligent design. Your assertion that ID = creationism is more of a theological point than Dembski makes about what ID can tell us. I'd say let's not jump the gun on that yet.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The only issue here that was in question here at Wikipedia was whether Johnson, Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et al had managed to be sufficiently dishonest about their religious motivations to slip it past us into an article. That is all. Have they buried their intellectual dishonesty under enough semantic subterfuge to sneak it into a article? They haven't. In fact, by making obfuscation part of their strategy, they guaranteed it will be part of their story as well.

And here comes the real bias. Look this definitely shows that this article, largely written by FeloniusMonk, should be question on its neutral point of view.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not going to get much traction here with arguments supported only by the Discovery Institute and Designinference.com (Dembski's personal website). They are less than credible. They are simply dissembling.

I thought I'd merely go to them to see what they have to say. That's all. You aparently don't like to hear all the data.

Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputing well-supported content in favor of content that is in line with the agenda-driven dissembling that the articles allege is 1) not contributing to wikipedia's goal, which is compiling a complete and factual encyclopedia, and 2) likely to result in your being viewed as having an ideological ax to grind, 3) and only going to be removed when someone more objective notices the error.

Your assumption proves your point more than the data do. There is no way to get out of this catch 22 you require ID to be in. You really should be more fair and sympathetic.

And BTW, Flew has recanted his support for ID. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast--he

FeloniousMonk, while I see that this would require greater efforts through Wiki's allotted means to speak reasonably with someone of an "objective" perspective, if that is at all possible in Wikipedia, certainly I am convinced that you are unwilling to take the arguments/positions/math for what they are. Is it possible you're wrong? What if there isn't a religious conspiracy behind this? Or what if there is and yet the math is solid?

I addressed a number of the points you made with your quotes--you didn't respond to me but instead just piled on more quotes saying more of the same. It is unfortunate. If I have the time, I hope to take this up. Until then, your role as an administrator and my own lack of experience with Wikipedia has made this a dead issue. From our discussion, I'd say Neitzsche's right, not Darwin.

Swmeyer 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I rely on the statements of the leading ID proponents themselves to tell me what they think ID is. Look at the quotes above, and then try to us how the article and I are wrong. Vigorous denials of the obvious are not going to change the facts. FeloniousMonk 19:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your strong conclusions, but I really think you are ahead of yourself. You actually only rely on statements made by Johnson as they pertain to his conceptions, some of which is out of context and some of which are more discussions of the implications of ID, not ID itself. Finally, you fail to incorporate others into the discussion.

Swmeyer

Two things:

1) Do not cut up my posts with your responses or otherwise modify them; it's very bad form. It dilutes my comment and makes my train of thought difficult to follow. Unless of course that's your goal. I will revert any modification of my comments.

2) Your rebuttals and excuses ring hollow compared to Johnson's statements I presented here. Johnson is clear that ID's basis is Christian theology. He is clear that movement's goal is religious renewal of society, starting with science and education. His statements are clear and unabiguous. FeloniousMonk 07:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, it appears you now understand the point I have been making in the "Apparent partial violation NPOV policy, round 2" section of this talk page.Gandalf2000 00:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, 66.213.198.226 :)

66.213.198.226, your first edit to Wikipedia was a pretty contentious and arguable edit. Assuming you're not an established editor who's been working on this article who just forgot to log in (well, actually, even then), could you please explain your edit? I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be included in the article without some discussion. Thank you! :) --Ashenai (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

numbskulls here

I would like it if the numbskulls who watch the ID article would stop erasing my section about the difference between ID and creationism. They are completely different movements with different focuses. If you continue to feed people bad information by infering false motives about ID, we know someone here is obviously feeling threatened by the truth...

Please observe Wikipedia:Civility. Your section was removed because it was unsubstantiated drivel. "Intelligent Design merely believes.." ID believes nothing. And we can't be sure what its proponents believe. We can say with certainty, that a great number of ID advocates are creationist. And that that makes their motives a little suspect. We can also quote ID proponents from speeches given to select groups of people, in which some of them suggest that they are sure the Designer is god. Which is what the article does. -- Ec5618 21:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparent partial violation NPOV policy

The present organization of the article seems to violate the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" section of the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which states the following:

"Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."

Each presentation of ID concepts is followed immediately by criticism. Moreover, the total space devoted to criticisms of ID is over three times as much as is devoted to the positive presentation of ID (by my reckoning, based on compiling separate files that contain each and looking at file size).--Johnstone 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe that's because the majority of evidence available doesn't support ID. --PhilipO 23:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with criticism throughout being unfair, however the amount of criticism does not violate the NPOV policy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both of these points. --Ashenai (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Haven't you been lobbying against having any criticism in the article for some time now? Criticizing the layout of the article under the pretense of NPOV is merely nit-picking and wiki-lawyering. Its only logical that each ID argument should be followed by scientific community's criticism of it; the assertions will still be fresh in the mind of the reader. To break them out into a separate section will require the reader to scroll up and down to reference what the criticisms are addressing. Furthermore, this layout was reached by broad consensus.

As for the length of the criticisms, they are in proportion to the criticisms made publicly by ID's critics. Contrasting them against the length of ID's claims is specious: ID's claims are largely comprised of criticisms themselves. ID criticizes a very complex topic, the scientific method, using overly simplified arguments. Defending it takes more space than shooting it down. And your suggestion that the criticisms are too long mirrors what ID proponents do: Exploiting the very technicality of the issues to their own advantage, counting on the public to miss the point in all the complex and difficult details.

Reading from the NPOV policy also, one finds the Giving equal validity subsection, which applies directly to this article and states:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

The criticisms are accurate, justified and make logical sense as they are, where they are. FeloniousMonk 03:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point, that ID is the minority. However, that does not mean there is no bias in this article. See my comments above and elsewhere. I think you do take a stand against anything that appears to be purely religious-political without looking at the merits that might make it seem legitimate independently with religious implications. That should be what this is about. Say it is controversial, so the arguments for and against, and let the reader decide.[Comment by User:swmeyer(?) --please sign postings using "~~~~"]

No, I haven't been lobbying against having any criticisms in the article. That's a ridiculous characterization of my contributions concerning criticisms. For the most part, I have pointed out that some must be referred to as claims rather than stating them as facts, e.g., re: computer simulations & irreducible complexity, and have questioned the inclusion of criticisms that argue against misunderstandings of, and straw man versions of, ID as being irrelevant, misleading, and unhelpful to the reader. I don't think that any subject is immune from (sometimes unjustified) criticism, and certainly have no problem at all with including the several on-target criticisms of ID (not that it would matter if I did), and even significantly clarified the statement of one of the strongest. It may be logical and handy to have criticisms adjacent to the concepts, but unfortunately this is forbidden by the NPOV policy because of the impression it makes upon the reader. It doesn't matter if the decision to organize the article this way was reached by broad consensus here. It's a decision that violates a guideline to compliance with a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, which presumably was agreed upon by a greater consensus.

How could you possibly know if the criticisms are "in proportion to the criticisms made publicly by ID's critics"?! Also, if it takes a lot of space to explain a criticism that deals with a complex topic, then perhaps not enough space is given to explanation of ID; it could be argued that what's overly simplified is simply the treatment of ID in the article. (If a better explanation of ID concepts was given in the article, then it wouldn't be necessary to have such large sections devoted to criticism.) I consider your comparison of my suggestion to a purported rhetorical exploitation to be a personal attack.

I read that section along with the rest when I read the requirement for "Fairness and sympathetic tone." Of course, I never said that the article must "give equal validity" to ID. Describing the majority view as the majority view should go a long way toward not doing so. Devoting three times the space to criticisms simply seems excessive to me.--Johnstone 00:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is accurate and neutral, despite your vigorous claims to the contrary. ID's leading proponents own words demonstrate that ID's philosophical basis is Christian theology, its goal is religious renewal of society starting with science and education. Their words are explicit and unambiguous to readers here, regardless of your attempt to claim otherwise. Your claims that ID is independent of its proponents religious agenda is not supported by the evidence. FeloniousMonk 07:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And neo-Darwinian evolution has been accused of being fostered by atheists for the support of atheism. So what? Should that appear in the article on evolution? Both of these are instances of the genetic fallacy.--Johnstone 00:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Fostered" and "originated" are different things; whatever neo-Darwinian evolution means, it originated in experimental results and the scientific method. And I think the article supports FeloniousMonk position; yes I know he's an author, but the evidence is there... particularly the Wedge strategy. Hence the religious background of ID proponents effects far more than the origins of ID.

However, if there is something you find simplified about ID in the article, please put a bulleted list here. (with a new header of course, to keep things organized) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I was well aware of the distinction between the words "foster" and "originate." Why do you mention it? It's still a genetic* fallacy. neo-Darwinian = Darwin's theory + genetics. As for your invite, I need some time to think about what needs more detail and explanation, and the best way to accomplish it.

*From Merriam-Webster's: "genetic: 1 : relating to or determined by the origin, development, or causal antecedents of something."

--Johnstone 00:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)\\

I pointed it out because that is the distinction which should be made between your example (atheism promoting evolution) and ID. They are not precisely analogous. ID is a vague alternative to creationism and came (originated) almost out of nowhere with creationism being ruled against in the courts; whereas neo-Darwinism is the inevitable ongoing refinement of a scientific theory as new evidence came to light. Neo-Darwinism came from (originated) from science, not atheism... which certainly did (foster and promote) a theory which took leaps in removing "god of gaps" arguments from biology. While atheists may use evolution to promote their philosophy; it is not the motive or origin of evolutionary theory development.

Whereas ID keeps questions of a designer vague, but is being predominantly promoted by a group of people who have a designer in mind... hence its reasonable to question the motivation they have for postulating and promoting ID, not for its own sake, but for their deeply held beliefs. The demographics might change in the future as other groups take up the cause; but to ignore the initially conflict of interest and coincidental timing is folly. To consider them equivalent is to ignore and/or obfuscate these differences. Hence, atheism "fostered" evolution and creationists "originated" modern ID. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Atheism did not "foster" evolution. Evolution has been, and is, scientific. Atheists may embrace the idea, as it does not require a god, or "designer," but that is not the same as ID, which was created with the specific intent to attribute all of creation to a higher being. Its coming at it from different ends of the stick. Perhaps a way to have both an accurate NPOV and include all the information would be:

• Evolution was developed by the scientific method
• Religious Creationists disavowed evolution because it did not require a deity or other higher power
• Atheists embraced it for the same reason, no god needed
• Some conflict has resulted, including the misunderstanding or mislabling of evolution as an "atheist theory" by some creationists and ID proponents, who have confused support or agreement for development.

... Obviously that's the cliff notes version. KillerChihuahua 13:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification appreciated, but it would be accurate to describe atheism as fostering evolution. Foster is a very broad term. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, I reluctantly withdraw my comment on the use of the word "foster" - reluctantly because the word does have connotations. However, perhaps they are not as pervasive nor as strong as I thought. KillerChihuahua 15:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparent partial violation NPOV policy, round 2

This original point by Johnstone in this Talk section still holds true. Unfortunately, refuting opposing views as one goes along is the essence of the Intelligent Design article, from the first paragraph to the last. The entire article is written with a bias against ID. That is obvious, and the people I see in this Talk page saying it's not obvious have devoted great amounts of effort to defeating ID. I was tempted to catalog the negative bias present in nearly every paragraph, but I see that Johnstone beat me to it. I begin to wonder if NPOV means "negative point of view". Gandalf2000 15:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that - refuting opposing views as one goes along - I see the ID position, then several 'points of view' as presented by several sources, as well as conflicting statements, which is how balance is achieved. What on earth do you suggest? Currently, the article is "ID position is A. Here are quotes from Tom, Dick, and Harry of the ID movement. They represent 3 different ID positions. Here are places where Tom and Harry said the exact opposite. Here are quotes from Bill, who disagrees for x reason, and from Bob, who disagrees for y reason". This is NPOV. What can you possibly leave out? Tom's quotes that support ID? Dick's quotes that support a different interpretation? Bob's refutation of the position? I don't understand your point. KillerChihuahua 19:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This is precicely the kind of content organization that violates NPOV. Rather than clearly summarizing and developing the lines of thought in the ID movement, we find a hodgepodge of point-counterpoint, in nearly every sentence!!! When the majority of paragraphs in this article develop a complete line of thought, whether positive or negative, then the article will be much closer to NPOV. When the paragraphs are gathered into complete sections on the various issues and sub-issues (both for and against ID), then we will be shedding real light on the issue.Gandalf2000 20:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This point has been made before. It would make the article much more complicated, as readers would be forced to continually scroll up and down between the ID argument, and the scientific rebuttal. Readers might be tempted to read only the ID argument, or only the scientific rebuttal, when either agrees with their view. Although the article isn't perfect, splitting the article into two lists of arguments is impossible, and undesirable. Point-counterpoint seems to be the most logical layout. -- Ec5618 21:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618, that is your opinion, to be sure, but an opinion that is inconsistent with the NPOV guidelines. Further, it seems you underestimate the ability of a reader to hold a train of thought for more than 10 seconds. (The Lincoln-Douglass debates lasted for hours, and listeners had to hold the opposing viewpoints in mind for days to get the entire picture.) Certainly, the attention span of modern man has declined, but not by that much! I find no good reason for every paragraph in the article to have an embedded rebuttal. It's a disservice to both the argument and the rebuttal, and an insult to the intelligence of the reader. That is the reason this approach is certainly not normative among other articles covering controversial topics, and part of the reason it's part of the NPOV guidelines. By failing to communicate complete, logical trains of thought, the article encourages the reader to make a knee-jerk, emotional assessment rather than logical judgement of the issues at hand.Gandalf2000 03:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You're arguing that ID be given "equal validity." It is, read Giving equal validity. Also, it has yet to be demonstrated, despite other attempts by ID proponents here to do so (of which yours is but one), that the current layout does indeed violate the NPOV policy. The claim it does is a highly attenuated, focusing on one passage in the NPOV policy, the Fairness and sympathetic tone subsection.

But it's the Giving equal validity subsection of the same policy provides specific guidelines that address this very issue:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Now you can argue that the guidelines of the Fairness and sympathetic tone subsection trump those of Giving equal validity, but you'd first have to demonstrate why that is, and then you'd have to demonstrate convincingly how ID arguments factually are not being presented in positive, sympathetic tone. Neither of which has happened here. As the article stands, ID is given something very near equal validity to mainstream science: Each claim, assertion and argument made by ID proponents is given it's own subsection with a paragraph or paragraphs dedicated to just its pov. These are followed by the responses from the scientific community. There is nothing pov, imbalanced or inherently unfair about that.

One can also argue that to present ID fully in its social and scientific context accurately and fairly demands that the positions and responses of the scientific community be presented alongside those of ID. And indeed this argument was compellingly made and widely accepted when the article was restructured last. The reasoning behind that being that though ID makes simple assertions, the responses of mainstream science to ID assertions are generally long and complex. Lumping the majority of the scientific responses (with their own subheadings) at the end of the article would result in a section for the responses to ID that is longer than the description of ID. Of course there were some that wanted the responses of mainstream science left out altogether... FeloniousMonk 05:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand how this situation arose. Your statement that ID makes simple assertions, the responses of mainstream science to ID assertions are generally long and complex is not entirely correct. Remember that ID is both a scientific and cultural movement (as any paradigm-shifting belief system is), and the broader culture has become accustomed to understanding the universe as the product of chance and mutation, rather than design. Those of a scientific mindset (even scientific credentials) who believe ID to be a correct understanding of origins know that their understanding has significant complexity and subtlety, in many ways comparable to the complexity and subtlety in evolutionary theory, not the least of which is overcoming prejudice (please read this word without negative connotation) in the scientific community. Different evidence will lead you to either conclusion, and how the evidence is interpreted is a key factor. Exposing presuppositions and reframing the issues is a challenging task for any proponent, a task made all the more difficult by constant interruption. Now please re-read what I just wrote and notice that I am not commenting on the correctness or incorrectness of ID, but on the challenge of making sure it is not characatured and misunderstood. Also, I am not arguing for "equal validity". I am arguing for an organization of this topic that describes ID, and its criticism, with clarity. That means carrying on a train of thought for more than one sentence -- perhaps even multiple paragraphs -- before shifting to criticism or refutation. Gandalf2000 14:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I recognize and appreciate your balance in presenting, not arguing for, the ID position. But you've made my point for me: ID being both a scientific and cultural movement, and one that challenges the epistemic underpinnings of science and how it's conducted, and in so doing alleges to be even more "scientific" by exposing the "presuppositions" of science, means it's necessary to present the response of the scientific community to each ID assertion in context, immediately following the assertion in its own paragraph, as the article does.

Furthermore, our job at Wikipedia is not to criticize or refute anything, it's to cover all significant and factual aspects of a subject in an encyclopedic manner. The article does this now. Any "criticism or refutation" of ID are merely the responses of the scientific community; that these are largely critical is incidental.

We already have an organization in the article that describes ID and the scientific community's responses to it with clarity. One that fully allows ID to develop a train of thought for more than one sentence. There are already multiple paragraphs dedicated to the specific ID conjectures: IC, SC, and FTU. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from developing those arguments further, intact. In fact, others recently have. The responses of the scientific community to these arguments is restricted to its own subsequent subsections. FeloniousMonk 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the section titled ID concepts is pretty close to what I'm advocating for the tone of the entire article. If the article's introduction and first few sections maintained this sense of clarity in summarizing the topic and subtopics, including ample opportunity for distinct and well-formed criticism, it would be a huge step forward. Gandalf2000 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, Stuckerj/Gandalf2000, I'll bite. If the other regulars here agree, why don't you rewrite the first five paragraphs of Intelligent Design in summary in the manner you propose, and we'll have a look at it. If it doesn't pass the sniff test we'll just go back to the old version for the time being. Those are the paragraphs between the heading for "Intelligent Design in summary" and that for "Origins of the concept." And be sure you do refs and footnotes, not external links in the article body, and keep the footnotes in proper order (Can you tell I'm getting tired of fixing everyone's footnotes/ext. links. ;-)?) Everyone else agree? FeloniousMonk 21:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too thrilled with this idea. Though somewhat off topic, I'd like to recount my experience with the article on specified complexity. I believed (and still do) that a technical exposition of specified complexity would be useful (especially for physicists and mathematicians) as a guide to Dembski speak. Here's a guy that's making claims cloaked in mathematical language, and regardless of the validity of the claims one can at least try to provide an exposition to the extent any of it makes sense and maybe even attempt to convey what he attempted to do. This project confronts right away several problems with Dembski's writing, such as his puzzling confusion of entropy, probability and complexity. Mathematical integrity requires that any exposition clearly and unambigously point out this confusion. A more serious obstacle, however, is that Dembski changes his positions often. The notion of specified complexity in his August 2005 paper is on the surface different from his earlier concept of complex specified information. This change was made, as far as one can tell, to obviate previous extensive criticism of his work (such as the Ellsberry Shallit paper). For example, instead of dealing with the basic argument from improbability as Jason Rosenhouse calls it, now he's got an argument from the computational capacity of the universe. This doesn't fundamentally change anything, but it makes writing an accurate article a lot trickier. Beware.--CSTAR 22:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That's right. Both the factual claims and the explanatory claims offered by ID proponents are constantly moving targets, being rooted in notions and analogies rather than actual data. This makes any attempt to summarize them narrowly problematic. This needs to be taken into account. Any rewrite of that section would need to summarize the points CSTAR hits on, and further objections or reservations may cause me to withdraw my offer of support for a tentative rewrite of that section. FeloniousMonk 23:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FeloniousMonk, I'll be submitting minor improvements over time. I appreciate everyone keeping this conversation in mind as they improve and extend the article.Gandalf2000 00:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a violation of NPOV policy to refute ID in the article about the subject. For a comparative example, look at Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Joshuaschroeder 20:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No dispute there, just a discussion about how to preserve clarity and NPOV in the ID article....Gandalf2000 00:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What instructions?

I'm puzzled by this edit summary from Swmeyer:

per instructions to simply add it back in if it was removed--see talk page for debate, especially given fact that author is the one most strongly against considering NPOV on this

Whose instructions are those? --CSTAR 05:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

His. He's been campaigning to dilute the article for nearly a week now. General consensus from objective, regular editors has been for some time is that the article is accurate and NPOV. That the ID pushers here disagree is not sufficient justification for an NPOV warning. I've removed it. Long term contributors to this article have to tolerated disruptive editors in the past, but Swmeyer pushing the limits. He's already been cautioned about disrupting ID related articles with specious objections to well-supported content once before. FeloniousMonk 06:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's where I found the instructions I referred to. I now see that I read it incorrectly. Nevertheless, there are enough people here to question the neutrality of the article.

That ID proponents here share the same view, that the article's criticisms and content that connects ID to creationism and religion is POV, is not proof that the article violates NPOV. The article accurately reports both sides of the topic. It is one of the better supported wikipedia articles, with many links to credible supporting evidence. One more thing, I didn't write most of this article, as you claim. Just the movement and defining ID as science parts, and one or two other paragraphs. You need to stop trying to impugn me right now. FeloniousMonk 07:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, it's not that there aren't links between ID and religion. It is that the links are more implications. The purpose of the ID movement was to challenge what was thought to be false assumptions about philosophical issues that were leaking into biological sciences. This does not negate the merits of the project, which is what the critical tone that underlies the article implies (as others have pointed out). While I disagree with much of the way it is portrayed here, you must know that the issue is how unfair and unsympathetic the article is to ID and ID proponents (all of them, not just Johnson), even when supposedly quoting them. And by the way, the peer review was silly--there was nearly no evidence of fact checking (only twice was anything close to legitimacy of sources mentioned).

Swmeyer 07:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Tone is a difficult thing to judge an article on. I think that this article is extremely sympathetic to ID given that it has been attacked by impartial groups such as the NAS. The "philosophical disagreements" inherent to the "controversy" are, for better or worse, invented by the ID proponents themselves, and to make a claim that this constitutes a legitimate critique of science is tantamount to saying that people can simply make up arguments without considering the rules and conditions of the scientific method subject to the scrutiny of the scientific community. The Discovery Institute admits as much when in disputing the Dover Scool District's curriculum change, but they also talk out of both sides of their mouths as evidenced from the numerous non-peer reviewed articles arguing against science. Dembski has said he doesn't like to publish in secular journals because they cramp his style. I have plenty of colleagues who have made similar claims, but instead of going the next step and claiming that this is because they are right and the rest of science is wrong, they take a hard look at their own research and take notes from reviewers seriously. None of this sort of evaluation appears in the article because it is considered too harsh when it does get put in. That's a concession to tone right there. Joshuaschroeder 13:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a leading expert on creationism has stated that ID does not merit this label--and he's anti-ID. "University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of `The Creationists,' agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, its `the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.'" (Ostling R.N., "Ohio School Board Debates Teaching 'Intelligent Design'," The Washington Post, March 14, 2002)

He's on to something. Johnstone gets it and has defined it--genetic fallacy. Swmeyer 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this, somewhere where he makes the argument? Thanks. Guettarda 05:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a rough source--still looking for something better. Also, Robert Wright (journalist) explains it some in this article from Time.

Swmeyer 06:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an interview with Dr. Numbers that appeared in Science & Theology News where he says:

Except for the fact that both of them oppose evolution, they have nothing in common.

Swmeyer 06:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

So what are the differences? Personally I'm interested to know and if there are legitimate differences then they should be included in the project page (after being discussed on the talk page of course). From reading the article, it seems that there are only two main arguments presented: (1) "ID is a legitimate science" and (2) "ID is not a science, because it doesn't adhere to the scientific method and is just creationism in disguise." My own opinion lines up with the second statement, but I am not against hearing why you think this is not true. Rather than continue this feud with FeloniousMonk, (who is similarly guilty of continuing this going-nowhere debate), post some good solid proof that ID is a viable scientific endeavor. I'm not saying that it will solve what you deem to be problems with the neutrality of the argument, but it would certainly show that there are arguments that are being excluded from the article (which might be indicative of NPOV violation). I would be curious to hear some real arguments and maybe it would take this talk page in a much-needed new direction. I read the interview with Numbers and he doesn't mention any differences, he just states that they exist and moves on to bashing ID, so I don't see that helping your cause. What (other than the contentious assertion that "ID is a legitimate science") distinguishes ID from creationism? -Parallel or Together? 11:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

His perceived weaknesses of ID are separate from his conclusion that ID does not equal creationism. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text, even though many proponents may have a theological belief in a Christian God. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect through specification whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. It is a similar method of detection as that used in fraud detection.

Creationists know ID is not equivalent and, in fact, have said so. For example, AIG says: (1) they (ID proponents) do not agree within themselves on a story of the past, (2) the success of ID could result in other perspectives on origins, and (3) there are many philosophical and theological perspectives among ID proponents. A quote on the last point:

"For example, Dr Jonathan Wells is not only a scientist but also an ordained cleric in the Unification Church (the ‘Moonie’ sect) and Dr Michael Denton is a former agnostic anti-evolutionist (with respect to biological transformism), who now professes a vague form of theism. However, he now seems to have embraced evolutionary (though somehow ‘guided’) transformism. Dr Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, is a Roman Catholic who says he has no problem with the idea that all organisms, including man, descended from a common ancestor."

--Swmeyer 21:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This discussion is also taking place here.

Am I wrong in thinking that ID advances the theory of some "being" as the force behind life on earth? If so does that not ipso facto mean this entity is either an alien from outer space or GOD? Then, any designer not meant to be GOD does not rule out evolution. This designer might have evolved on mars. So, if ID is to show an alternative to evolution it has to involve GOD. Hence ID must be a modern day creationism. Nomen Nescio 21:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct. It's a form of creationism. Swmeyer's confusion about ID and creationism is caused by his reliance on the narrow definition of creationism. He considers "creationism" to mean only a specific form of creationism, the one found in the book of Genesis. The general definition of creationism is merely the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. ID is the assertion that life is the result of intervention of a designer. The two are not just consonant, but equivalent.

The Designer (formerly known as God) could be God or aliens. Dembski suggests it could be angels as well:

"And another thing I think we need to be aware of is that not every instance of design we see in nature needs to be directly attributed to God. Certainly as Christians we believe there is an angelic hierarchy - it's not just that there's this physical material world and there's God. There can be various hierarchies of intelligent beings operating, God can work through what can be called derived intelligences - processes which carry out the Divine will, but maybe not perfectly because of the fall." - William A. Dembski. Address to Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004

Also note that here Dembski tacitly admits that ID is creationism. Straight from the horse's mouth. FeloniousMonk 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that the horse was standing that way round? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Good show, old chap! --goethean ॐ 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Whichever way the horse is pointing, you can see some recent discharge here [3], to which apparently some contributors to this talk page are also adding.---CSTAR 15:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Going back to Numbers, the quote "Except for the fact that both of them oppose evolution, they have nothing in common." distinguishes scientific creationism from intelligent design. And this is true, but it is very different from the assertion that ID is not creationist. Guettarda 00:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

carbon chauvinism

In the criticism of fine-tuned universe, the article says:

The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible (see also carbon chauvinism).

But the last link goes to alternative biochemistry. That article says (emphasis mine):

Alternative biochemistry collectively refers to an assortment of astrobiology theories and hypotheses in which life is based on chemical systems other than those used by currently known forms of life. 'Proponents of such theories sometimes use the expression 'carbon chauvinism' to pejorate the assumption that carbon molecules are necessarily the basis for all life. Up to this point, however, no non-carbon based life-form has been discovered.

I think that the "see also" text should be changed from "carbon chauvinism" to "alterative biochemistry". That's the name of the article. --goethean ॐ 20:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the "see also" passage altogether as alternative biochemistry is a bit of a non sequitur to the point being made. What's missing is an actual article on carbon chauvinism, a concept distinct from alternative biochemistry. Just delete 'see also' althogether. FeloniousMonk 20:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Theories of I.D. and Origin

A link to Evolution of Religion Consider that all of the theories of origin could be flawed due to the vast expanse of an infinite universe. Thinking outside of the BOX you might consider that something that is infinite could not have an origin. The mass inside of the infinite might very well be in constant flux with a multitude of random explosions, consuming and recreating the very mass consumed. An ongoing cascade of events, in the same way that life on Earth could have evolved not as one species but as many species in several locations all at the same time. (Gary)TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 01:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually we cannot think outside the box here - our job here is to document what's out there from reputable sources. Guettarda 03:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So what source tells you that the universe has borders? As I have yet to learn we have not found the edges of the universe, in fact we are still finding more and more to expand the known universe. The universe being limitless would have a difficult time being created! Therefore my theory which you are deleting and removing faster than I can post it are being destroyed and violated because my theory is a neutral point of view. Wait until Jim Wales gets a hold of these edits? Maybe the chance to debate the value of my work would have been better than to just move and remove everything that I write.TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 01:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

IN thermodynamics, and in Physics I believe, universe simply refers to the entirety of the system being analyzed, even if some day radio teliscopes discover that the universe is surrounded by green jello food snacks, that is still part of the observed system, and thus part of the universe, there can't be an outside, that's like saying you have a quanitity of greater magnitude than whatever the largest number you can think of is--Hey you 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting 'Hey You' I like green jello also. The center of an infinite line is the very point that you are looking at. Stay centered and focussed. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 01:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Gary, one of the limitations on our universe is its age. We can't see anything past 13.7 billion light years away because the universe is only 13.7 billion years old (give or take 200 million years). Even if something did exist, say, 20 billion light years away, its light wouldn't reach earth for another 6 billion years... because light, traveling at the speed of light, could only travel 13.7 billion light years in 13.7 billion years. Thus, time itself imposes a boundary on the universe. David Bergan 19:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting concept, we haven't been able to find the boundaries, yet you have the known age of the universe? What are other ways of finding information beyond the light sources? What are radiation signatures? What is the background of the universe? David what you have speculated is that we can only look back 13.7 Billion light years, I suppose if you limit your research you can not look any further. I don't get it. I have a hunch that we can go further. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 01:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please consider the mission statement of Wikipedia.

As for source work, you can read through this material, it is all unique to the knowledge that I offer.

• A new link to Evolution of Religion Please consider the theoretical value and how they both can work together.TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 01:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-10 T 03:26:35 Z

What is original about the information that I am offering, it is only original in the manner to which I have put together the thoughts. Think of it like Solomon giving the baby to the woman that truly respected the baby's life. The one that would give the baby away would naturally be the more compassionate parent that would truly love that child regardless of wether she was the biological mother or not. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's original enough to fall under the policy. You should really take a read of the policy. Guettarda 04:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well Guettarda

To you it may seem new and original but to others it is only logical that many people assume one thing, as in the real biological mother recieved the baby, when actually it might not have been the biological mother. You have heard of Mommy Dearest? Maybe I could enlighten you with some truths, that Mommies are not always putting life before the death of a child. When I say my sources are old sources or common knowledge that is true and it does fall into that other catagory to allow my work to remain here at Wikipedia, where I reference to my work and ideas or theories. And these ideas and theories can be attributed back to the author of the ideas and also worthy of refference.

I know that I am new here, and I appreciate all of the knee jerk reactions, but I would rather discuss the true merit of the work rather than whether or not this work should be refferenced to an Astronomy website or the Bible. The thing you are overlooking is the actual value to civilization if we can find a way to stop abusing people and children. How are you gonna do that? I would recommend going back to the link and checking out what I have been trying to show you. The link will now reveal my writings on a new blog, where the greater text is not hidden as comments.

My writing might be a little amateurish but the idea will drop on you like a ton of bricks, it usually takes two reads to glean the really rich and sweet cream from the words that I have put together. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Gary, we are constrained by the mission of Wikipedia. These sorts of things are outside of our purview. That's all there is to it. Guettarda 03:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Something to consider, if the material in my work is refferenced to by a link to my series of prose and composition that is the book and words describing and allowing the free flow of thought by the reader. The key to this theory is that it is neutral, you can be athiest or you can be a believer and this theory works for everyone. But you would have to read my work to understand what I mean by this. A link to Evolution of Religion TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

GWB, it has nothing to do with the neutrality of your work. Since it is "your" work, it is original research. There is a place for that - your blog. Keep writing, and good luck to you, but when it comes to wholly original research: stick to your own website. -Parallel or Together? 11:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

GWB/Gary - Markaci, Parallel or Together? and Guettarda have put it succinctly. Your work is original research, which Wikipedia has a policy against. If you want your work published, do so through a publisher, good luck, and who knows? If you become noteable enough you might be used as a source for a Wikipedia article, or rate a Wikipedia bio. Until then tho, your work is inappropriate for inclusion, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publishing house, forum, or blog. I sympathise with your frustration. It really truly has nothing to do with you, your work, our opinion of either - its just not what Wikipedia is about. KillerChihuahua 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well Killer Chihuahua,

The work as I said is the culmination of many sources put together in a unique way that brings total understanding and a cure to many of the problems in our world today. Peace is the only way, not violence, not war, and not restricting people from getting their access to information that is very relevent to society at this very moment. How would you like to have your intellectual property stolen? It isn't very cool. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 01:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)