Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 20

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 Circular reasoning - not 2 Question 3 A new issue to deal with: systemic bias 4 What Le Monde article? 5 PSA 6 The Vatican issues a statement 7 Pat Robertson lets the cat out of the bag 8 Original research and inaccurrate/inadequate representation of the minority View 9 Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time 9.1 Wade's conduct here & how to procede with his objections 10 Issue with "by ID's own reasoning, designer must be IC"

Circular reasoning - not

In the section "What (or who) designed the designer?" is the statement "The sort of logic required in sustaining such reasoning is known as circular reasoning, a form of logical fallacy".

Unfortunately the term 'circular reasoning' is not correct here. Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. The logic being described is not circular. ID does not assume the existence of a designer in order to arrive at its conclusions on irreducible complexity. Instead the logic results in an infinite regression as it must be held to apply to the designer itself at a higher level, ad infinitum. In the interests of accuracy we need to quote or remove this erroneous statement. ant 17:33, 13 November 2005

An example of circular reasoning from the Wikipedia article for Circular reasoning is:

• p implies q
• suppose p
• therefore, q.

From the Intelligent Design article: "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex"

• design(p) implies irreducible complexity (q)
• suppose design (p)
• therefore, irreducible complexity(q).

It's precisely circular reasoning: If irreducible complexity demands a designer, then any designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. FeloniousMonk 01:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonius, the "example of circular reasoning" is actually just modus ponens; a prime example of a deductively valid argument. Are all deductively valid arguments circular? Additionally, "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" is evidently a distortion of the ID position, as can be confirmed by reading page 249 of Darwin's Black Box (where Behe--the champion of irreducible complexity in the modern ID movement--points to the possibility of the designers being unlike our kind of biological life, not requiring irreducibly complex structures to sustain it). Incidentally, is the criticism of circular reasoning original research (e.g. your own personal argument)? Or can you cite a reference? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What you have described is not modus ponens. Note the subtle difference. If you have P and P -> Q, then you may deduce Q. That is modus ponens. The example you and FM states that you have P -> Q. Supposing P is not the same as having proved P, or knowing P is true. Thus you may not assert Q. You may assert if P then Q. But that is merely reasserting P -> Q. Tez 09:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation. But if P is not a premise like P -> Q is, then what is it? Deductive arguments usually take the form of "Suppose [premises], therefore [conclusion]." I suppose it all depends on what it means by "suppose." Perhaps more problematically, Felonious has not shown the premise "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" to be true, leaving the argument in doubt (perhaps, ironically, even question-begging) in light of Behe's statements flatly contradicting this matter (since he claims the designer of irreducible complexity need not possess irreducibly complex structures in page 249 of Darwin's Black Box). I have repeatedly asked him to justify the claim “By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex” but he has refused. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no. P is some proposition, which may or may not be true. For example, P might be "The minimum temperature on the surface of the earth is greater than 100 centigrade", and Q could be "The surface of the earth does not have any liquid water." Then P -> Q ("If the minimum temperature on the surface of the earth is greater than 100 centigrade, then it cannot support liquid water") is undeniable. But Q is not true.

As for FM's 'shortcoming', it is hardly difficult to see; if we have some designer which is not IC, then we have a situation whereby IC can arise from non-IC. Surely this is a flat-out contradiction of IC? Well, it is unless you want to posit some mechanism that constitutes 'design', or define 'design' in some distinguishable way. Of course, such a definition has never been put forward. This is all besides the point anyway, since I think in the current state of play, all 'examples' of IC have been shown to be naturally evolvable. Tez 20:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But as I said, if P is not a premise like P -> Q is, then what is it? In any case, given FM's basis it does not seem to be the case that the circularity criticism works. You said, "if we have some designer which is not IC, then we have a situation whereby IC can arise from non-IC. Surely this is a flat-out contradiction of IC?" No it is not. First, IC (irreducible complexity) by itself is simply a description of a biochemical system requiring all its parts to perform its function. That concept by itself doesn't imply that only an IC entity can create an IC object. Second, I have not seen any ID adherent claim that only an IC entity could produce an IC object. Rather, I have seen the opposite (e.g. page 249 of Darwin's Black Box). What ID may be claiming is that only an intelligent agency can create certain IC systems, and that naturalistic evolution cannot overcome the IC barrier in these cases. But even if true, that does not imply that the designer needs to possess irreducible complexity.

On a side note, I do not think it has been shown that all examples of IC "have been shown to be naturally evolvable." It is not the case that there exists rigorously developed explanations showing how e.g. the blood cascading could have evolved. Explanations have been put forward, but such explanations are incomplete and ignore critical details. (Of course, rigorous explanations may yet come in the future; one could argue that we are not yet in a position to “give up” on Darwinian explanations.) Wade A. Tisthammer 21:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A premise can be true or false. If it is false, or not known to be true, then you may not apply modus ponens (at this point, we are seriously confusing syntactic validity and truth of interpretation).

Let's say an IC structure can arise from a non-IC structure. Then this invalidates the implication that evolution cannot account for IC structures. It invalidates the idea that IC implies 'design'. It's that simple. If you say that an non-IC structure can 'design' (whatever that may mean) an IC structure, there you have your circularity. Design -> IC, and IC -> design.

As for blood clotting: Evowiki, and talk origins have some explanations. Tez 14:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the argument, whether the premises are true or not, is not circular. You said "an IC structure can arise from a non-IC structure. Then this invalidates the implication that evolution cannot account for IC structures." Not really. A designer not possessing IC structures could create an IC structure. Evolution still doesn't have to be the only possibility. And note that not all IC structures have to be designed (I have seen Behe claim the opposite) though Behe does claim that certain highly sophisticated IC structures require design. You said, "If you say that an non-IC structure can 'design' (whatever that may mean) an IC structure, there you have your circularity." Why is that the case? You have not explained why ("Design -> IC, and IC -> design" is no explanation, particularly since neither statement is necessarily true; one can design something that does not possess IC, and simple IC systems could perhaps arise naturally). As for blood-clotting, those explanations tend to ignore critical details and/or don't operate according to Darwinian means. For instance, Keith Robison of talk.origins mentions some evolved traits that are neutral (e.g. "This arrangement is neutral; the species has gained no advantage"). The problem is that natural selection doesn't work particularly well with neutral traits, and the new trait is far less likely to spread. And when we need several neutral traits evolved in an organism, the odds aren't very good at all; they approach the same probability as getting them all simultaneously. Apparently, it still isn't the case that we have a rigorously developed explanation on how the system could have evolved (though that may change in the future).

One good point that deserves close attention is the alleged refutation of the irreducible complexity of the blood cascade. It was mentioned that the Hagemann factor (I see now it was mentioned on page 84, in the diagram of p. 82 it was referred to somewhat differently) was not present in some dolphins and they "get along fine." What this means I'm not quite certain. Does it just mean the dolphins didn't die? If so, then that's not very conclusive (unless they were bleeding). Is it the case that the dolphins could still clot normally without the factor? Or is this yet another case of someone misreading a scientific report (Doolittle did the same thing with mice to claim that clotting was not irreducibly complex)? I don't know since I haven't read the report yet. Still, if valid it would indeed severely damage Behe's claims regarding the irreducibility of the blood cascade, though perhaps only to a limited extent if land mammalian species do require the Hagemann factor (and all the other components) for successful blood-clotting (remember, land mammals developed before sea mammals).

I'm not sure whether talking in the archives is the done thing, but the points to be read are now here. If someone objects (and I feel someone will, since I feel at least half responsible for diverting the topic off of wikiediting this article), don't hesitate to point out my improper behaviour.

So let us examine the determination of IC. You take all known explanations for the formation of some structure, and assign some level plausibility, say probability X (I don't care how this is done). Let G = 1 - X. IDers claim that if the gap, G, is high enough, you can say that the structure is IC. I say that no matter how close to 1 probability G is, all you have done is assume IC. You have assumed that it is scientifically unexplainable. That the determination of G is time specific, non-retrictive, and constantly falsified (when examples are put forward) is also a dead giveaway. If I come across a fallen tree in the park, I could infer IC. If I examine the shape of the New Zealand, I could infer IC. So, the argument IC -> Design, therefore Design is *exactly* a circular argument of the form in the example above, *precisely* because IC is only ever supposed. If it were not simply assumed, there would be a way of determining IC independently of other paradigms and frameworks. If I were to look at your gap probability, G, and you said "yes, it must be IC", and I said "IC? No, it's not evolution and IC is too improbable. It's Directed Morphism", how on earth are you going to argue your case?

As for 'getting along fine', I find your rhetoric particularly ineffective. Evolution has a pretty sound concept of 'fine': reproductive success. Also, death *is* pretty damn conclusive. Claiming that the blood clotting cascade is IC is saying that without *any* subcomponent, it would not be viable. Dolphins are missing a subcomponent, the Hagmann factor. Their blood can clot, and they (as a species on average) live on long enough to reproduce and care for their young long enough to ensure their reproductive success. Tez 15:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. The supposition of design is what implies irreducible complexity is an example of begging the question of whence the design. Joshuaschroeder 06:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

First, if the position being attacked is not one that ID adherents actually adhere to, it should not be represented as an ID position. Second, please explain how the supposition of design is an example of circular reasoning. Is it because we don't know the identity of the designer? Is it because ID would raise the question of the origins of the designer? None of those seem to be valid reasons. Suppose for instance astronauts go to Pluto and find robots there. These astronauts subsequently conclude that these robots are the product of design. Does the mere fact that we do not know the identity/origins of the designer make a design inference circular, fallacious, or anything of the sort? Obviously not. And remember, ID (at least when applied to life on Earth) doesn't propose to explain the ultimate origin of all complexity, just life on Earth. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one Syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive." ... "It is important to note that such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a Material fallacy rather than a Logical fallacy by Aristotle." --From the Circular reasoning (Begging the question) article.

Next time please read the article first before firing off a hasty refutation.

No, pointing out it's circular reasoning is not original research.

As far as providing a cite to support the circular reasoning argument, that's easy enough, I'll add it to the article in the morning.

You really need to start abiding by consensus here; taking additions and reversions against consensus right up to the 3RR threshold for the same content on both November 11th and tonight, November 13th is not good Wiki citizenship and can seen to point to a pattern of disruption and lack of respect for the project and fellow contributors. FeloniousMonk 06:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If the supposition of the astronauts observing the "robots" is arrived at by using the definitions of irreducible complexity, then the inference of design is indeed circular. Joshuaschroeder 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Suppose no notions of irreducible complexity are used. Is it circular to infer design? In the case in which irreducible complexity is used, care to explain why it is circular? Wade A. Tisthammer 07:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How does one infer design without appealing to irreducible or specified complexity? If there is a way, it has to state something about a designer which begs the question of either what is the designer or what is design? The two concepts are inextricably interconnected in a circular definition. A designer is the subject which designs the object which is designed by the subject...

Since irreducible complexity is defined in terms of design it suffers from the above critique. Joshuaschroeder 07:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Making a design inference in the modern ID movement (e.g. the explanatory filter) is done when artificial intervention is viewed as necessary. Take for instance archaeologists. It is agreed upon that natural processes are not reasonably capable of producing the Rosetta Stone, and under the ID position the Rosetta Stone meets the specification criterion (in the explanatory filter; specified complexity is slightly different). A design inference only "begs the question" in the sense that it raises the question of what the designer is; this is not the same thing as circular reasoning (to think otherwise is to make the fallacy of equivocation). Think back to my original scenario and please answer my question: suppose the astronauts find robots on Pluto; is it circular reasoning for them to make a design inference, even if they don't appeal to irreducible complexity?

Now you have introduced new terms: "artificial intervention" and "necessary". These terms are not defined above and so need to have definitions independent of design in order to be noncircular. If robots on Pluto are designed then one has to decide by what criteria the design is determined. If that criteria uses design as a proposition, then the reasoning is circular. Joshuaschroeder 21:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't give any special meaning to the "new terms." I assume you know how to use a dictionary and can look up the words I used? To answer your question, the astonauts would use the same criteria real scientists would use (the explanatory filter would seem to be it, but if you know of other criteria please let me know).Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who introduced the terms to try to justify your own claims. The only people who talk about design criteria are IDists (and their associated quotemines and taking things out of context from other scientists). Joshuaschroeder 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true I "introduced" the terms in the sense that I used them, but the meaning of those terms can be looked up in a dictionary if you don't know what they mean. As I said, I use no special definition. I think that ID adherents are not the only people who talk about this sort of criteria. Forensic scientists also use some sort of procedure to determine e.g. whether the cause of death was natural or murder (the latter implies artificial intervention). Wade A. Tisthammer 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If we are to take these terms on their regular meaning, we can translate "Making a design inference in the modern ID movement is done when artificial intervention is viewed as necessary" to "Making a design inference in the modern ID movement is done when non-natural action is seen as required"; ie. design is inferred when design is seen as required. Hmm. I've even been generous by translating 'artificial' as 'non-natural', and not 'man-made'. The reason Joshuaschroeder says those terms aren't defined is that you don't have a finite test to determine when some intervention is artificial or not, and whether it's necessary or not. Vacuous definitions are the hallmark of circular reasoning. Tez 09:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The specifications for a "test" for determining that artificial intervention is necessary will likely vary depending on the subject matter, e.g. forensic scientists have their own set of criteria for determining if a person's death was the result of natural causes or planned murder, or when an archaeologist determines if something is an artifact. Still, it seems that the general principle is sound and feasibly applied (in at least some cases, but I see no reason why it can't be applied to biology). "Man-made" would of course not be the best synonym for "artificial"; even women are capable of creating something artificial (though perhaps I have interpreted the term too literally). It also seems that intelligent aliens could also artificially create things without being human. Still, I don't think the adjective "artificial" has a vacuous definition. Perhaps the definition we could use here would be "contrived by an intelligent agency," which I don't think is all that much different from how we normally use the term. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Since we're discussing ID, I think the biological context is the most pertinent. Artificiality is not a vacuous concept; determining that something is artificial requires that we consider an object, as a whole or as a complex of parts, similar enough to something else we know is man-made. But as far as I can tell, ID's test (this 'general principle' i assume you refer to) is to determine that we don't yet know how, therefore 'design', defaulting to an assuption of design. This is not finite, so it's not really a distinction or definition in any scientifically useful sense of the word, and implicitly circular.

I don't agree with your view of forensic investigations. I don't think they ever determine motive, intent, or design. There's that word again, and i still don't know how you distinguish what is designed and what isn't. Tez 22:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Think about it. Is it not the case that forensic scientists determine of the cause of death was natural or murder (keeping in mind that murder entails artificial intervention)? Obviously this is the case, otherwise pathologists would be writing off every dead body as "natural causes" every time. The ID principle is not "we don't yet know how, therefore 'design'." The argument--right or wrong--is that there are serious and significant barriers to the naturalistic formation of life; the currents of nature are not reasonably capable of producing (certain things) and thus an intelligent agency is required. In chapter 7 of Darwin's Black Box, Behe likens the origin of life problem to a groundhog trying to cross a thousand-lane highway; there are some serious obstacles for abiogenesis and an intelligent designer is allegedly necessary to create our kind of life. Regarding Neo-Darwinism, Behe argues from irreducible complexity on certain structures, claiming that this presents a significant challenge, that indirect routes are unlikely, claiming furthermore that current explanations are incomplete and ignore critical details. Whether these arguments are right or wrong, it's hard to argue with the basic logic. IF the obstacles were "severe" enough it would be rational to infer design. Additionally, even if the argument is wrong, ID isn't unsound because of some circularity, it's because their interpretation of the data (regarding the alleged obstacles) is faulty/wrong.

Ugh, this is getting sloppy. No, murder does not entail 'artificial intervention' (still undefined), it usually requires intent. In certain jurisdictions, negligence can amount to murder -- I would go so far as to say that negliegence is the opposite of artificial intervention (whatever that may be). Also, note the difference between forensic experts' giving evidence, and the interpretation of the evidence by the lawyer, judge, or jury in deciding whether something entails intent. Again, intent is *not* something a forensic investigator can decide upon. It may be obvious, eg. death by trauma from havin 12 bullets in the torso, matched to a gun with fingerprints of the defendant, etc, etc, but the decision that this constitutes *intent* is not in the purview of the forensic expert; strictly it is the job of the court as a whole, based on evidence, to decide upon such a matter so central to the determination of murder as intent.

As for the 'logic' of IC, again, you are claiming that if we have no reason to believe that we know the natural cause of something, we may assume design. This is a direct rendition of what you have said above. Qualifying it with words like 'rational' only makes it seem more obvious, if you ask me. Again, "If current explanations are unlikely, it is rationally logical to assume design", where design is not independently defined. With this paraphrase, we see that IC assumes design. How do we determine design? IC. It's plain, really. Tez 14:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Remember, I give no special definition to artificial intervention, so what I mean could quite possibly be learned from a dictionary. Additionally, if you check above, you can see that I did define the term. Under this definition, murder does entail artificial intervention (if the individual is murdered, artificial intervention was involved). Although I am given the impression that forensic science can rule something a murder in some circumstances (e.g. in situations where suicide is highly unlikely and the death was probably not accidental--say a person with 20 bullets in him) let's ignore that for the moment. Forensic science can infer if a man died of natural causes (e.g. heart attack, old age) or artificial intervention (e.g. someone killed him). You said, "you are claiming that if we have no reason to believe that we know the natural cause of something, we may assume design." No, that is not quite what I'm claiming. It's not that we have "no reason" to believe that natural causes, it's that we do have reason to believe that natural causes are probably not the answer (e.g. the Rosetta Stone a person who died from being shot 20 times). In these cases, we can rationally infer design (artificial intervention) as the cause (and why wouldn't we?). How is this design inference even remotely circular? You said, "design is not independently defined" but I don't understand why you think so. Does the dictionary include IC as part of the definition of design? BTW, IC by itself doesn't assume design (and I am puzzled how you arrived at this "paraphrase"). Not even Behe himself thinks that all IC systems must necessarily be designed (see this web page for an example (though the title of it is a bit of an overstatement, see Behe's remark "It does imply irreducible complexity but not intelligent design"). Additionally, IC is not the only way to infer design (e.g. the chemical problems of abiogenesis). Wade A. Tisthammer 17:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Your phrase: "IF the obstacles were "severe" enough it would be rational to infer design."

From what I understand, severity is the improbability of the evolutionary explanation, so "obstacles were severe enough" translates to "current explanations are unlikely".

Your 'inference' by reason of lack of plausible explanation is usually called an 'assumption'. So, "it would be rational to infer design" translates to "it would be rational to assume design".

Also, it is a strange concession to say the not all IC systems are designed. Is this not just admitting that IC can therefore occur naturally?

And what is your insistence that all these terms are referenced in the dictionary? If that were a valid argument for the well-foundedness of your concepts, then the mere utterance of an argument would be its own proof of soundness and existence. What a strange thought. Tez 15:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted also that irreducible complexity does not have "this was artificially created" in its definition (nor does specified complexity) and is thus not circular in that respect. Something irreducibly complex is something that, if any one of the various components were removed, the system does not function at all. Although an irreducibly complex biochemical system is often cited as evidence for ID, it does not contain ID within it's definition; indeed it is not even make evolution logically impossible. There have been some proposed ways to get around it (e.g. each component of an irreducibly complex system provides a selective advantage other than that of the completed system) though ID adherents claim such proposals are not plausible or not rigorously developed enough.

A seeming red herring. We have demonstrated that the argument from design is circular in that it it assumes characteristics of design are due to design. IC is only problematic in that it assumes design. Joshuaschroeder 21:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Except (as I pointed out) neither irreducible complexity nor specified information contain "this was artificially created" in their definition, so there is no circularity in that respect. ID does adhere to the belief that there are certain characteristics to design, but if this is circular, so are all other design inferences. Forensic science would be thrown out of court because an autopsy concluding it was murder is "circular." Also, think back to my robots on Pluto example and please answer my question. Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that forensic evidence makes a design inferences except IDists. Most others simply say that forensic evidence is used as a causal inference. Dembski tries to claim "design inferences" where they arguably don't occur. Joshuaschroeder 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Forensic science obviously requires testing for artificial intervention. A quick example is determining if the cause of death was natural or murder (the latter implies artificial intervention). Wade A. Tisthammer 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Specified complexity involves a non-ad-hoc pattern for a large series of units. Contrast two sets of flower configurations on a piece of land; one distribution of flowers is scattered all over the area, the other configuration clearly spells out "I am in love with my wife Rachel." Both are complex in that each particular distribution is unlikely, but the latter meets the specification criterion (by following the non-ad-hoc pattern of a meaningful statement). Technically, specified complexity doesn't prove design (there are no proofs in science) but something with a high degree of specified complexity is often cited as evidence for design (since a naturalistic explanation seems unlikely). In neither case is does a definition assume intelligent design, though an object having those defined characteristics could perhaps be evidently designed. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Specification is simply an undefined prior that is inappropriately used by Dembski to obtain whatever probability he cares to. See the criticism on the SC page. Joshuaschroeder 21:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

But I defined specification above, and Dembski gives a more technical description in The Design Inference. How can you say the term is undefined? Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The terms isn't undefined, it's the Baysean prior that is. Joshuaschroeder 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You said, "Specification is simply an undefined prior". What exactly did you mean by that? Wade A. Tisthammer 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it has been shown that Dembski's filter would find design in a fairy ring, a purely naturalistic feature. Guettarda 19:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not if the filter was used as Dembski described it. Since a fairy ring is a relatively deterministic naturalistic feature, it would stop at the "law" node. Remember how the filter works; first the filter must rule out law and chance before it can select design. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not true. Fairy rings are not deterministic. Following the steps in the Design Inference, fairy rings show evidence of design. Guettarda 22:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

They would not because the filter would stop at the law (HP) node. From the Wikipedia article on fairy rings:

Fungi spread their spores in a circular fashion. Since multiple spores from separate fungi overlap in the inner part, fallow soil is only to be found away from the center of the "circle". This is how fairy rings "grow".

Thus, fairy rings have a high probability of occurring and thus the filter would stop at the HP node, because it is relatively deterministic. Think about this. Is it not the case that law or chance adequately describes the phenomenon of fairy rings? If they do adequately describe the phenomenon, then the filter would not select design. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(In response to FeloniousMonk) I see, and consistently violating WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience policy (with your reverts) and distorting the minority view (even when evidence is provided that the distortion is being made) isn't a pattern of disruption and lack of respect for the project? Additionally, you haven't yet shown that the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove, in part because you have based the argument on a distortion of the actual ID position. You have ignored the reference I've given that gives strong evidence that this position really is being distorted. And you have refused to cite a credible ID source to the contrary (for both distortions I have talked about). You really need to start abiding by WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience here and provide evidence of consensus regarding the distortion of the ID position. Wade A. Tisthammer 07:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the minority view is distorted. The text clearly explains that this is the view of critics of ID (although, I agree, it would be useful to provide citations). Behe's assertion that "this is not the case" isn't germane. Behe's assertion does not change the mainstream view and cannot be used to gut the description of the counterargument. Guettarda 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How can you say "I don't see how the minority view is distorted" given my citations to the contrary? You said, "The text clearly explains that this is the view of critics of ID." Are you saying it is the critics who have unintentionally distorted ID, mistaking it for the real thing? Perhaps so, but that is still no excuse for presenting a badly distorted version of intelligent design theory in the Wikipedia entry. Regarding the citation, how the heck is Behe's assertion not germane? Let’s not ignore the fact that Behe is the advocate for irreducible complexity in the mainstream modern ID movement, and he flatly contradicts this alleged ID claim in his seminal book (Darwin's Black Box) that introduced the modern irreducible complexity arguments in the first place. With all due respect, what more do you want?

And what about the Wikipedia policy on original research? Claims like "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" and "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design" is "that every complex object requires a designer" appear to be original research in light of the evidence and citations to the contrary. If these statements are not original research, please cite a credible ID reference in which an ID adherent makes these claims. (I have provided citations when I was accused of original research, I think it is fair for you to do the same.) Otherwise, in light of the evidence, these claims appear to violate Wikipedia policy on NPOV:pseudoscience and original research and therefore these claims should be removed. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

We would be distorting the minority view if we said that ID proponents said something they didn't say. To say that ID critics said something cannot be a distortion of the minority view...it could be a distortion of the critics' views, if we said they said something they didn't say.

Behe's assertion is not germane because (i) we are talking about what others have said, not Behe, and (ii), Behe doesn't "own" ID; he presented (one version of) the hypothesis. If you present an hypothesis and someone else points out, "well, if you say X, then Y follows logically from X", you cannot simply say "no, it's not so because this is my hypothesis, not yours".

FM told you just last night that he would find references. Coming back here right after that and saying "this must be deleted because it is unreferenced" is ot of line. These are widespread claims - I wouldn't quite call them "common knowledge", but they're the kind of thing you hear over and over again.

"If these statements are not original research, please cite a credible ID reference in which an ID adherent makes these claims." This sentance makes no sense. Sorry. Why would anyone look for an ID claim to point out a fatal flaw in ID? Guettarda 19:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let's look at how it is worded: "Critics point out that by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. [my emphasis]" The article gives the impression that the critics are pointing out something that is true, when it clearly is not. Another instance of truth implication is when the article says, "this contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object" when this "fundamental assumption" does not appear to exist. But suppose we reword it. You said that Behe's assertion was not germane because we are talking about what others (a source that is uncited. BTW) have said. You could say this is not distorting the minority position; it is the critics who distort the minority position and we are only presenting what the critics say. But this is still not an excuse to present a distorted version of the minority view. As an analogy, suppose a news reporter cites a source ("According to...") which she knows is giving false information on the air regarding something and she censors all corrections to the contrary. This would probably be considered an example of terrible and irresponsible journalism; perhaps even a form of dishonesty (confer the idea of a lawyer suborning perjury). Similarly, knowingly distorting a minority view indirectly (e.g. citing a source we know to be wrong and censoring all attempts to correct it) does not appear ethical and does not appear to coincide with the spirit of Wikipedia policy on NPOV:pseudoscience and original research.

Another reason you said my Behe citation was not germane was that Behe does not "own" ID. It is true that Behe does not "own" ID but he is the prominent ID proponent on this issue. Furthermore, neither you nor anyone else has cited any prominent ID adherent claiming the positions that are evidently distortions. One could perhaps attack a straw man but I hardly think this is appropriate; at least not without accurately describing the ID position after the distortions are made. "FM told you just last night that he would find references." Perhaps, but not the references I am talking about here (e.g. of a authoritative ID source on the alleged claims). And given my repeated requests of references on this matter, I do not believe I am out of line requesting the removal of these evident distortions. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(Addendum) You said,

"If these statements are not original research, please cite a credible ID reference in which an ID adherent makes these claims." This sentance [sic] makes no sense. Sorry. Why would anyone look for an ID claim to point out a fatal flaw in ID?

Perhaps because an ID opponent wishes to point out a fatal flaw that actually exists in ID? A person wanting to point out a flaw in ID might point to a "fundamental assumption" and attack the assumption's veracity. However, if the assumption or position is not actually held by the ID community, there is little sense in attacking it--assuming we wish to be honest. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Critics point out" - you deleted the entire phrase. We are not discussing the difference between "point out" and "assert" - you are shifting the goalposts again. But, to address your new point - of course "point out" is appropriate - it's a logical conclusion from the assertions made by ID proponents.
• You wrote "You could say this is not distorting the minority position; it is the critics who distort the minority position and we are only presenting what the critics say. But this is still not an excuse to present a distorted version of the minority view." You aren't serious, are you? Me: "It isn't distorting the minority view" (and explained why this is so); You: "That's no excuse to distort the minority view". This is getting ridiculous.
• "As an analogy, suppose a news reporter cites a source ("According to...") which she knows is giving false information on the air regarding something and she censors all corrections to the contrary. This would probably be considered an example of terrible and irresponsible journalism; perhaps even a form of dishonesty (confer the idea of a lawyer suborning perjury)." How is this relevant? We aren't talking about false information, we are talking about things that are obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the situation honestly.
• "Another reason you said my Behe citation was not germane was that Behe does not "own" ID. It is true that Behe does not "own" ID but he is the prominent ID proponent on this issue." You missed my point and focussed on the aside. The point was, if you present a theory, and someone points out an obvious flaw, you can't redefine logic to suit your needs. Behe may be the main proponent of ID, but he can't say "this isn't so because I say so". You can only do that in creative fiction
• "Perhaps because an ID opponent wishes to point out a fatal flaw that actually exists in ID? A person wanting to point out a flaw in ID might point to a "fundamental assumption" and attack the assumption's veracity. However, if the assumption or position is not actually held by the ID community, there is little sense in attacking it--assuming we wish to be honest." You still aren't making any sense. In order to show that there is a flaw in ID I am supposed to quote Behe (or one of them) pointing out that the flaw exists? Do you believe that criticisms are not valid until they are admitted by the person being criticised? That is one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard. Guettarda 22:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll address this point by point in order.

• Yes, I did delete the phrase, because the phrase evidently distorted the actual ID position (and I gave a citation to support my claim, whereas those who put it back it did not).
• Yes I am serious, but also look at my explanation; particularly regarding the analogy of the news reporter who cites a source ("According to...") which she knows is giving false information on the air regarding something and she censors all corrections to the contrary. Even though the distortion is not done directly ("I'm not distorting it...") if no correction is made and all attempts to correct the distortion are removed and censored this hardly seems appropriate.
• Yes, we are talking about false information (e.g. "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object" and "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex."). These alleged claims evidently do not accurately reflect what the ID position actually is.
• You said, "The point was, if you present a theory, and someone points out an obvious flaw, you can't redefine logic to suit your needs." Except I am not redefining logic. I am pointing out what the actual ID position is and justifying my claim that the alleged claim appears to be a distortion. Hence, it isn't clear why my citation of Behe isn't germane to the issue I'm talking about.
• You said, "You still aren't making any sense. In order to show that there is a flaw in ID I am supposed to quote Behe (or one of them) pointing out that the flaw exists?" No, please read more carefully. I am saying that if you want to attack an assumption that ID actually contains it's a good idea to provide a verifiable reference to show that ID actually contains this assumption. To reiterate, if the assumption or position is not actually held by the ID community, there is little sense in attacking it--assuming we wish to be honest. Wade A. Tisthammer 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Felonius Monk on his reply:

"An example of circular reasoning from the Wikipedia article for Circular reasoning is:

• p implies q
• suppose p
• therefore, q.

From the Intelligent Design article: "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex"

• design(p) implies irreducible complexity (q)
• suppose design (p)
• therefore, irreducible complexity(q).

It's precisely circular reasoning: If irreducible complexity demands a designer, then any designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex.FeloniousMonk 01:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)"

Felonius, is this alleged ID claim original research? Please cite a reference of a prominent ID adherent claiming "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex". I can cite a reference to the contrary: page 249 of Darwin's Black Box. The author (Michael Behe, who is the prominent ID proponent regarding the issue of irreducible complexity) flatly contradicts this alleged ID claim, so the alleged ID claim appears to be original research of a rather nasty kind (a straw man). Wade A. Tisthammer 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You just posted the same question in response to me, and I answered it. Don't post questions if you don't intend to answer them, and don't spam the talk page with the same question over and over. Guettarda 20:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You may have answered it Guettarda, but Felonius has not. And Felonious has been the one who has often reverted my corrections and has often avoided the issue of distortion the minority view. He has yet to answer me regarding a reference of an authoritative ID source claiming the positions that are evidently distorted. (Incidentally Guettarda, your “answer” did not really answer my challange; that is you did not cite a reference of a prominent ID adherent claiming "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex".) Wade A. Tisthammer 22:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating complexity must also be complex" is not original research, it is a readily apparent matter of simple, basic logic. It is logic that is used by Dawkins [1]

and Pigliucci [2]. The infinite regression issue is common to objections to all variations of the argument from design [3], including ID; this is common knowledge.

What's troubling here is your demanding a supporting cite for common knowledge, trivial matters, and simple logic. It appears merely a way of disrupting and tying up others. You'll find that there's not much support for that here, Wade, if that's your strategy.

So before you waste anymore time of others here, you need to answer this: What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong? I simply will no longer take seriously or reply to your challenges that do not address this question. I have found this to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in seriously contributing to a factual and complete article or just advancing a particular POV. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for substantiating what you claim. It's easy to criticize long-term contributors here for being "closed-minded" and unwilling to compromise. Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong? FeloniousMonk 20:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

First Felonius, note that you have misquoted the article and me. Both the article and I have been using the quote, "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." The issue of irreducible complexity may be a part of intelligent design, but this particular ID claim appears to be distorted as does the "fundamental assumption" that "a designer is needed for every complex object." You have not cited an authoritative ID source describing this fundamental assumption despite my requests. Is this original research?

Many of your sources are those regarding the existence of God, not that of intelligent design theory in biology. Also, these sources are not authoritative ID proponents. Dawkins is an atheist, as is Pigliucci. Additionally, the "who designed the designer" may be a question that is "common knowledge" (I am not disputing that) but the distorted ID positions added to such arguments cannot be justified as such, especially when given evidence to the contrary. These evidently distorted positions are not trivial matters, nor are they matters of "simple logic."

You asked "What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?" (I am assuming this is in regards to the evidently distorted ID positions.) As I have said before, an authoritative citation. To give an example, if Behe said that "designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" in Darwin's Black Box then you would be justified in claiming that the position is neither original research nor a distortion. If in Dembski's Design Inference he wrote "a fundamental assumption of intelligent design is that every complex object must also be designed" you would be justified in claiming that it this position neither original research nor a distortion. (Incidentally, Dembski himself claims that not every complex entity is designed; the added criterion of specification must be used before a design inference can be rationally made; hence the term complex specified information. See this web page where he admits that chance can generate complex (albeit unspecified) information.) However, you have done no such thing. If you cannot defend your assertions in the face of the evidence I proffered, it seems that these evidently distorted views should be corrected. Wade A. Tisthammer 21:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My paraphrase of the passage does not change its meaning materially; complexity is still complexity, irreducible or otherwise. Irreducible complexity being argot; an ID-only concept, and one that does not change the underlying concept of complexity as it is commonly understood.

There is an unbroken thread of logic and reason from the earliest arguments from design to the current iteration, ID. The only material difference is whether design is ascribed to God or an unidentified designer. The problem of infinite regression is a traditional criticism of all design arguments, ID is no different. It is not original research.

So you only will accept evidence drawn from ID proponent's work. Further, the evidence you claim you'd accept is a complete non sequitur to the subtopic being discussed, which is "What (or who) designed the designer?" not irreducible complexity or specified complexity. Behe's Darwin's Black Box and Dembski's Design Inference (both of which I've read) are both books aimed at disproving Darwinism and proving design, not arguing the metaphysical fine points of the argument from design, which is what the |"What (or who) designed the designer?" subsection does.

Because you effectively rule out being convinced by anything other than evidence that arising from ID proponents and that isn't relevant to the issue, in other words, ruling out being convinced that your wrong, you're quickly earning yourself a place on my Crank list. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You said, "My paraphrase of the passage does not change its meaning materially." On the contrary, it is not even a paraphrase. Irreducible complexity is a specific form of complexity that the designer does not necessarily have to have; and the original quote is flatly contradicted by the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity whereas your "paraphrase" might even be true. I suggest you remove the "irreducible complexity" version and replace it with your "paraphrase." Even if your "paraphrase" is not entirely accurate and given without a citation, it at least seems better than the apparent distortion I have been trying to remove.

You said, "So you only will accept evidence drawn from ID proponent's work." When it comes to what the ID position actually is yes. I do not believe hearsay is acceptable here; and I've seen enough misconstruals of the opposition in debates like to know that it's best to get it straight from the horse's mouth. I don't understand why you think this standard is unreasonable or why it rules out the possibility of me being convinced. If you find, for instance, the "fundamental assumption" in authoritative ID literature as in the example I described, I would be convinced that I am wrong. Of course, you have not done so, nor have you attempted to appeal to any other ID reference regarding "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object" nor have you done that for "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." You haven't done anything to show that these statements are something else other than original research (of the straw man kind), nor have you adequately addressed the reasonably strong evidence regarding these apparent distortions of the ID view. (Particularly regarding Behe, the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity; with all due respect what more do you want?) Wade A. Tisthammer 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, it is a matter of simple logic that by ID's own reasoning a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity would also be irreducibly complex, and that this opens the door for the question of infinite regression. We don't need a quote from an ID proponent to tell us that.

Please read WP:RS. You may choose to rely only on support from ID propoents, we, on the other hand, need not to.

Considering your fractious and adversarial methods and closed-mindedness toward evidence and the reasonings of others, I see little benefit in continuing to respond to each of your objections here or elsewhere. Please do not infer that my silence implies support. I will respond when I see a change in attitude or a point that has merit. FeloniousMonk 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain your "simple logic" to me that by ID's own reasoning a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity would also be irreducibly complex, particularly when the belief that the designer must be irreducibly complex is flatly contradicted by the ID community itself. How can you say I am closed minded towards the evidence, particularly when I am the one who actually gave any? You did not cite any sources regarding e.g. "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object" nor have you ever explained your "simple logic" regarding "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." You didn't even specify what ID arguments allegedly show this. You just claimed it, without any citation and without any explanation and despite evidence to the contrary.

Additionally, how are my standards unreasonable? My belief: if you want to say that ID has a "fundamental assumption" get this "assumption" straight from the horse's mouth. Don't make it up, and don't rely on hearsay. How is this unreasonable? You have not explained why. Do you honestly think that ID adherents are not a reliable source regarding what their own claims are? Wade A. Tisthammer 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that your application (of the Wiki definition of circular reasoning to ID) is incorrect, esp your first point which is back to front ie is the religious creationist statement, the reverse of ID. This is the correct application:

• irreducible complexity (p) implies designer (q)
• analysis of nature and natural laws shows irreducible complexity (p)
• therefore, designer (q).

Perhaps it will help to point out in passing that neither concept is assumed or supposed in ID.

Additionally, assuming for the moment that ID logically implies an irreducibly complex designer:

• designer (r) implies irreducible complexity of the designer (not the designed, in this argument) (s)
• irreducible complexity of the designer (s) implies designer of the designer (not the designed, in this argument) (t) - ie, a higher designer.

This is not circular reasoning either. Another way of looking at it is that you can't have your cake and eat it - it canot be both circular reasoning of complexity=>designer=>complexity=>designer and indicate a spiralling infinity of designers. ant 12:54, 14 November (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder: Just a gentle reminder to please not interleave your comments with someone else's. thanks much for trying to keep this little courtesy in mind - KillerChihuahua 22:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting a new topic for circular argument as this one's final refutation of its respondents' criticisms has not been refuted but overlooked. ant 22:36, 15 November (UTC)

Wade A. Tisthammer is militantly ignoring the fact that the only people who use the "design inference" are IDists. He claims that others use it without providing any evidence other than saying that certain activities of certain scientists must qualify as design inference on the only authority that he and other IDists claim they do. Joshuaschroeder 19:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, "militantly ignoring the fact"? Strong words. If you recall Joshua, I did provide some examples. (Note: "design inference" in this case merely refers to rationally inferring artificial intervention.) First let's note how the explanatory filter works: once law and chance are "ruled out" design is selected. In a nutshell, that's all it really is. What happens when archaeologists find the Rosetta Stone? Well, they believe (rightly or wrongly) that naturalistic (law/chance) processes probably didn't create this, instead it was designed. What happens when we find a body shot full of bullet holes? Well, detectives/forensic scientists would conclude (rightly or wrongly) that this body probably did not die of natural causes, but by design (suicide/murder). (Note: ask the detectives and archeologists if it’s reasonable to believe that these events were the result of natural causes.)

Of course, most scientists claim that law/chance (e.g. mutations and natural selection) are adequate for creating life, and that design is not needed. In the end, it's really not Dembski’s explanatory filter per se that's being disputed, it's whether or not law/chance are adequate. In any case, this is somewhat beside the point. Can we agree that this circularity charge against ID doesn't quite hold water? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No scientist in real life uses Dembski's EF. In all the examples you give, the similarity between the artifact and other things known to be of human manufacture/origin is determinative. When one sees a body shot full of holes, no forensic scientist goes about applying anything like the EF. Such a scientist has seen bodies shot full of holes many times, and knows that a murder has taken place and that someone did it. Bill Jefferys 17:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If the EF (explanatory filter) is not used as you say, what would happen if you claimed that the body shot full of holes died of natural causes? What would happen if you told the archaeologist that natural processes created the Rosetta Stone? Note BTW that the similarity between a thing and "other things known to be of human manufacture/origin" may perhaps be a factor used, but this factor is also used in the EF (confer the specification criterion, which is about the existence of a "non-ad hoc pattern" that warrants a design inference; this exists both in forensic science and archeology). So you’ve done nothing to explain why my examples aren’t valid. Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The same thing that any sane person says when he sees a watch upon the heath: "This is a thing/event that I have seen/heard of many times before and which I know from experience has characteristics that are like those that are made/produced/caused to happen by human beings." The notion that the things/events happened by natural processes doesn't even arise in real life. I stress in real life because Dembski's silly notion is never used by practicing scientists to infer design. It's solely a figment of his fertile imagination.

As for life, that's a wholly different thing. Life is entirely unlike anything designed by the only intelligent designers we have experience of. It reproduces, imperfectly. It grows. The notion that there is anything in common between life and ordinary designed things like Rosetta stones and bullet-filled corpses in plain silly.

I dare you to find any forensic scientist, for example, who actually uses Dembski's EF to decide whether a bullet-filled corpse died of natural causes or by deliberate murder. The fact is, they may consider whether natural causes were the cause of death, but it will be by looking for specific evidence, e.g., a heart attack prior to the bullets being pumped into the body. And they will still not wonder if the holes appeared naturally. Go ahead, humor me. Find a reputable forensic scientist who says that he uses Dembski's EF in any way in his daily job. Bill Jefferys 22:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

But it isn't just that we know humans can cause event X, it's also that natural causes are not reasonably capable of it. For instance, what would happen if you claimed that the body shot full of bullets died of natural causes? What would happen if you told the archaeologist that natural processes created the Rosetta Stone? They would probably claim that natural processes just don't do those types of things. Think about it. Suppose a dead body met the specification criterion but did not pass through the law/chance nodes. At best, the pathologist would say the cause of death is "inconclusive", because she can't tell you if it was through natural causes or not (if natural causes are reasonably capable of producing the effect). Simple observation reveals that the EF is followed all the time, it's just that it's followed more intuitively (e.g. an archaeologist doesn't actually do rigorous mathematics to come to the conclusion that natural processes probably didn't create the Rosetta Stone). Wade A. Tisthammer 23:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it is because we have a huge amount of experience that humans cause event X, and no examples where event X happens spontaneously. If a dead body met the specification criterion "but did not pass through the law/chance nodes," the pathologist would say that some aspect of law/chance/specification had been neglected. [I really think this is a huge stretch on your part: Please give a detailed, realistic hypothetical where, given a dead body full of holes, a forensic pathologist would conclude that the dead body met the specification criterion but "did not pass through the law/chance nodes."

The EF remains irrelevant. No scientist uses it in real life. Again, I ask you for some forensic pathologist scientist who actually uses it. When you do, I will concede your point. Bill Jefferys 00:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that we do not believe X happens spontaneously (law/chance) is grounds for dismissing law/chance and going straight to design (if the specification criterion is met). You ignored my example of event X meeting specification but not passing through the law/chance nodes (which, contrary to your assumptions, was not the scenario of a man shot with bullets; that scenario was used to prove another point, namely that a forensic scientists would not believe this man died of natural causes). Consider this hypothetical case. We know of a poison that could cause this man's death without the poison being detected (specification criterion). But we also know of a natural cause for this dead man's condition (we did not pass through the law/chance node). At best, the pathologist would rule the cause of death "inconclusive." She could not conclude design (suicide/someone killed him) without also rejecting a law/chance explanation. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to see. You seem to think that the "specification" criterion is sufficient--which is ironically a lower standard of design inference than ID adherents use, one I suspect you would quickly abandon in some circumstances. Consider this hypothetical case. With the help of some advanced nanotechnology, scientists finally find a way to artificially create life from non-life (event Y). Moreover, this experiment is replicated many times over. We now have a huge amount of experience that humans cause event Y, but still no examples where event Y happens spontaneously (i.e. life from non-life via undirected chemical reactions). Would you abandon abiogenesis and accept intelligent design here? Wade A. Tisthammer 01:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let me say that I admire you for using your actual name and identity. I think that this whole enterprise would be better served if everyone, including those who agree with me, would take full responsibility for what they write, by name and actual identity, as I do.

OK, that said. I don't understand your example. In your example, there are no bullet holes. Please explain how your example is relevant to what we have been discussing. Recall: A body is discovered that is full of bullet holes. The forensic scientist is supposed to worry about whether the bullet holes just happened by natural causes, and not by deliberate murder. Suppose you are going to try to convince a bunch of college Freshmen that your analysis make sense. Discuss :-)

In your second example, scientists creating life from non-life (an event that is probably closer than you realize, or want...but I digress) I would have to consider the circumstances. Were the scientists recreating conditions that other evidence reasonably implies existed in the early earth? If so, then, well, no, I would not abandon abiogenesis. I would consider it confirmation of abiogenesis.

Third, you have a strange notion about how abiogenesis might occur. Life from non-life may be undirected (that is, not by telos), but it is not random. Just like evolution is undirected, but not random.

I ask you again for evidence that any reputable forensic scientist uses Dembski's EF. Bill Jefferys 01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that forensic scientists do this sort of thing automatically, as my examples illustrate. For instance, if a pathologist finds a body full of bullet holes, she will immediately reject the claim that this person died of natural causes; for she does not believe that could explain these effects (thus going through the law/chance nodes). Additionally, this meets the specification criterion: a non-ad hoc pattern to warrant a design inference (i.e. we know humans can do this). Thus, a design inference (suicide/someone killed him) is made. But what if the specification criterion (in that we know humans can cause event X) is met and we have not rejected law/chance? For this we turn to my other example (regarding the possible poison scenario). Here we have an instance where we know a human could have been the cause (i.e. design), but since natural causes are equally possible (we have not bypassed the law/chance nodes; i.e. we have no grounds to reject them) we cannot conclude design. So at best the pathologist could say "inconclusive."

To answer your questions regarding the scientists artificially creating life; no, they are not emulating early Earth at all. Instead they use advanced nanotechnology. So would you abandon abiogenesis? Regarding your third point, why do you think I have a strange notion of abiogenesis? I did not say abiogenesis was completely random. Though it might include some random elements, it also has the laws of chemistry to work with (like evolution; for evolution relies both on random mutations and non-random natural selection). Wade A. Tisthammer 02:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

A forensic scientist finding a body full of bullet holes has no reason to assume anything else than deliberate murder. Why should s/he? And?...

A scientist encountering a body with no evidence of malfeasance (since you stipulate that the poison is indetectable) will not say "inconclusive," but will say "no evidence of malfeasance." He will then look to see if there is other relevant evidence. This is very different.

About the scientist who creates life using advanced nanotechnology: Good for him. This experiment is not relevant to whether abiogenesis occurred on the early earth (since it does not attempt to emulate those conditions), so no change in my opinon about abiogenesis would take place. Why should I abandon my opinion about abiogenisis because of someone doing an experiment that is irrelevant to that question? Bill Jefferys 02:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's not forget what you said earlier. You said we make a design inference for event X "because we have a huge amount of experience that humans cause event X, and no examples where event X happens spontaneously." But here we have an example of an event that fits that very description, and yet you still reject design. So clearly, what you described was not a sufficient condition for making a design inference.

Regarding the possible poison scenario: suppose there is no other relevant evidence. Would she conclude design (somebody killed him)? The answer is no. Even though we have a known human cause, design will not be inferred because the law/chance nodes are not rejected. BTW, how is "no evidence of malfeasance" different from "inconclusive"? (Remember, I said at best the pathologist would find the cause of death "inconclusive", "no evidence of malfeasance" would also work for "not selecting design").

You said, "A forensic scientist finding a body full of bullet holes has no reason to assume anything else than deliberate murder." I agree. "And?..." And this is an example of how the EF is put into practice: she immediately rejects death by natural causes (bypassing the law/chance nodes) and infers design (somebody killed him). As I said, the EF is often used automatically and intuitively. We can see it in use with some simple observation.

I'm still waiting for the name of a real forensic scientist who claims to use the EF in his or her daily work.

To your point: No, this isn't how it works. The EF is eliminative: Consider A, reject it; consider B, reject it. C is left, adopt it.

But this isn't how real science is done. Instead, a real scientist considers simultaneously the probability that we observe data X, given A, given B, given C, given D, given E,... Then tentatively adopt/consider most probable the hypothesis or hypotheses that best predict the data. (This adoption can be overridden at a later time by new data.)

The EF is asymmetric with respect to the hypotheses, since it considers them in sequence, one at a time. If you were to change the order in which the hypotheses were considered, there is no guarantee that you'd get the same result. For example, suppose you put "design" first; then since you can't rule out design, you never consider the other hypotheses, which remain in limbo, undecided.

Real scientists use a different procedure. Real scientists consider the hypotheses in a symmetric fashion. And even a hypothesis that seems to be strongly undermined by evidence at one point in time can (and often is) resurrected when more evidence comes to light. An example: Wegener's hypothesis of continental drift, which was generally rejected when first proposed but which was revived when more data came to light. Had real scientists used the EF, once they made the initial mistake of rejecting continental drift, because of inadequate evidence at the time, it could never be resurrected. This is the Achilles' heel of the EF. If it makes a mistake at any point, the mistake can't be rectified.

In the bullet example, it isn't as you say. The investigator considers the probability of observing the bullet-ridden body under all hypotheses symmetrically. If she doesn't think much of the idea that the bullet holes just appeared at random, it is because she has evaluated the probability of seeing bullet holes under both hypotheses and concluded that under the hypothesis of murder, this probability is higher. This is not the eliminative EF at work. It is an entirely different procedure.

Problem is, when you consider the hypothesis "everything was designed by an intelligent designer," without specifying further the nature of the designer, it is impossible to make probability statements about what data we expect to observe, given that there is an intelligent designer. Bill Jefferys 13:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so now your criticism is that a "real scientist considers simultaneously" all the options. I'm not quite sure how is this is much of a criticism (since all three nodes are still used + the specification criterion), or if this could work even in principle because it may not be possible to adequately evaluate those three options independently of each other. We could perhaps consider law/chance simultaneously (and so you may have a point there), but law/chance must still be eliminated before design is chosen, so the consideration cannot be completely simultaneous. I just don't see how you can adequately assign a "probability" for design without taking into account the law/chance explanation. After all, if law/chance cannot reasonably cause the event (e.g. the Rosetta Stone), the "design" hypothesis becomes more probable. If law/chance can cause the event and causes the event on a regular basis (e.g. a regular stone), the "design" hypothesis becomes less probable.

Actually, let's revisit the issue of considering law and chance simultaneously. At first I thought this was a legitimate criticism, but this might be one of those things where one factor influences the other. For instance, if law (high probability) explains event X extremely well, than chance (lower, intermediate probability) becomes less plausible (even if chance can explain it). If law doesn't explain event X, then chance becomes more plausible (if chance can explain it). The one difficulty that might be relevant if there were multiple law/chance explanations, which the filter really doesn't address all that well. Still, the basic logic of making a design inference seems sound; law/chance must be excluded before design is conclusively chosen.

Note for instance the pathologist immediately rejects that the person shot 20 times died by natural causes. If one does not reject "natural causes" design could not be conclusively chosen (as my example with the poison illustrated).

It is true that scientists can go back when new evidence arrives, but this does not materially affect the filter, since one simply re-uses the filter when new evidence arrives. Even if law/chance could be considered simultaneously, beyond that the rest of the filter seems to work.

In any case, it isn't clear how this strategy of making a design inference is circular even if it is wrong. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph and a citation (Wilkins and Elsberry) to the main article. Read the cited article, then get back to me. If you can't find the cited article, email me. Bill Jefferys 20:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Wilkins-Elsberry article. Bill Jefferys 04:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The link has the abstract of the article but not the article itself. Can you present some of the article's objections here? Wade A. Tisthammer 23:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

Are there any adherents of non-Semitic religions who feel that the argument is not circular? Would it be logically possible for a non-created (non-designed) simplistic intelligence to create a universe of irreducible complexity? Is "simplistic intelligence" not an oxymoron? Essentially, the argument that ID is not circular reasoning is a modern-day restatement of Anselm's ontological "proof" that "God exists because he exists and if he didn't exist nothing would exist". Such "proofs" are utter nonsense.

Jim62sch 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) ~~

I suspect there might be some deists who believe the argument to be non-circular, since deists believe that God created the universe and yet they are not adherents of any Semitic religion. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

And if we run across one of the five Deists still extant we can ask them, although I have a feeling you would probably be correct. Nonetheless, Deism was essentially an attempt to develop a philosophical answer to Abrahamic theology. Thus while it exists outside of Judaism, Christianity and Islam it cannot exist without them as it is a direct response to them.

However, as Deism's argument is essentially that a deity must have created the universe because the universe could not exist had it not been so created, it is still a circular argument and a logical fallacy. Additionally, as the genesis (no pun intended) of Deism is rooted in theology it is non-scientific and thus falls prey to the same non-confirmability that plagues ID. Both are, as I noted earlier, restatements of Anselm.

Finally, it seems to me that the initial purpose of creationism was merely to provide some answer (any answer, really) to questions that man (specifically Semitic tribes) hadn't the wherewithal to answer rationally (the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc., all had their own answers to such questions). This propensity carries forward in ID. There is are both tacit and implicit assumptions that that which cannot yet be explained is outside our current wherewithal and is thus inherently unexplainable without the injection of a supernatural designer. If we followed this type of logic throughout all scientific thought we would still believe that the sun went around the earth, that malaria (as its name suggests) is caused by "bad air", that tossing suspected witches in a river would prove their guilt or innocence, etc.

In any case, what I have always found rather ironical about creationist arguments is that while many people simply cannot fathom a universe arising out of nothing, they have no trouble imagining a deity arising out of nothing.

Jim62sch 10:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim, the 'circular reasoning' in question is quoted as being that "circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy". (This is also the common understanding of what the term means.) It has a very precise definition. It does not mean that the same reasoning re-occurs in an argument, and it does not include recursive arguments (arguments which apply to the subject addressed by their conclusion). It is an argument whose conclusion is taken as a premise in order to arrive at that conclusion.

For example, this is a circular argument:

Nature shows Irreducable Complexity (premise)

Irreducable Complexity is evidence of Nature

Therefore, Nature must show Irreducable Complexity (conclusion same as premise)

ID argues thus:

1.

Nature shows Irreducable Complexity

Irreducable Complexity is evidence of Design

Therefore, Nature is Designed

And in the suggested case of infinite regression, the counter-ID argument goes on to state:

2.

Design has a Designer

A Designer must be Irreducably more Complex than the Designed

Therefore, the Designer of Nature is Designed (not the same as conclusion or premise of 1. or 2.)

3.

Design has a Designer

A Designer must be Irreducably more Complex than the Designed

Therefore, the Designer of the 1st Designer is Designed (not the same as preceding conclusions/premises)

4. etc.

This is not using a circular argument. The Designer of the conclusion is not the Designer of the premise.

And BTW, we live in infinity. The 1st designer could be infinite - no regression.

PS. I'm starting a new topic for circular argument as my previous one's final refutation of its respondents' criticisms has not been refuted but overlooked.

ant 14:24, November 2005 (UTC)

In your examples given above, I will admit that you have found a way around the circular reasoning that is used by many proponents of ID. Therefore, I will cede the point that your specific arguments are not circular (to reiterate: they are not, however, the same arguments used by many ID enthusiasts).

However, neither are these arguments scientific, as there are too many presumptions based on belief and none based on absolute empirical knowledge. The argument that nature is irreducibly complex tends to avoid the question, "at what point is it irreducible?" Do we stop at the cellular level? DNA? Quarks? The farther back we go -- which is something we must do as the complex is made up of a collection of the simple -- the greater the uncertainty factor and thus the higher the level of randomness.

In addition, even were one to say that nature is irreducibly complex, there is nothing that inherently implies any sort of designer, in fact such an argument is essentially argumentum ad ignorantiam. The belief in a designer is essentially a rejection of random permutations -- permutations scientists see throughout nature. In fact, most of these permutations are unsuccessful, further casting doubt on the likelihood of an "intelligent" designer (unless one imagines a crazed white-haired man in a lab coat trying experiment after experiment until he finally gets one right).

Your second argument, aside from the presumptions noted above, and aside from the fact that "Design has a Designer" is a simple tautology, merely pushes the argument regarding how the universe was formed farther and farther into the past. At some point, there had to be a first (sorry, but I reject as spurious the argument that we live in infinity as a means of allowing for infinite designers with no starting point).

This brings us to the third statement: you note later that we live in infinity, and you specify a first designer (see above), and yet that first designer was designed by a designer who wasn't the first designer. Huh? Obviously, there are some significant logic problems with such a statement.

The bottom line is this: no matter how hard one tries to apply logic or philosophy to what is merely a product of an illogical belief system, one is doomed to fail. Even the great Aquinas was forced to abandon his work as the deeper he got into the process the more his arguments began to tie themselves up in knots.

Jim62sch 11:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, Jim, to your 1st para, these aren't my arguments, I don't think. I became interested in ID as a result of the current debate and started reading up on it on the web, both pro and anti pages, most of which were very fair as far as I could tell, and as a result as far as I can see para 1. above is the ID argument.

I can't comment much on your paras 2 or 3 as I don't know enough yet, but I think they are related debate.

Regarding infinity, I think I've been misunderstood. All I'm saying is, that if there were a designer (#1) and that designer had infinite existence (eg God) then the designer (#1) could not have been designed.

As mentioned above, FM et al may have overlooked my reply to him in the previous topic so I'm going to re-submit the suggestion, hopefully clarified and better supported, in a new topic. ant 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ant, The first argument is actually stated more clearly than most that I've read, so I assumed it to be your take on ID (hence my reason for ceding the point that argument 1 was not circular).

The designer of infinitive duration argument is problematic on a variety of levels, not least of which is that it is neither confirmable nor disconfirmable; i.e., it is just a matter of belief. Additionally, and not to belabor the point, but complexity contains no inherent requirement for a designer.

More later.

Jim62sch 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A new issue to deal with: systemic bias

You do realise that Australia is currently beginning to debate this issue also? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still hoping for someone with better French than I to do the Le Monde translations and see if we can get anything useable about that. *sigh* We're working on it, thanks. KillerChihuahua 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What Le Monde article?

If you supply the link, I'll supply the translation.

Jim62sch 00:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you! Lots of discussion and a tentative (but too long) entry from another translator is on this page at Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_19#Intelligent_Design_in_France_at_any_rate. IMHO pick here or there - your choice - and we'll stick with it. There keeps the old discussion, suggestions, etc, so that's a point in favor of there. We don't need a full translation, I'm thinkiing we just need a (brief) entry about what is going on to add to the article, perhaps as a new Section 5, something like Intelligent design in other countries, and moving the current 5, "See also" down to 6 and so on. We need something pithy, substantive and well documented. KillerChihuahua 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Essentially, the article refered to a television "documentary" on the origin of man which used "a bold new theory", i.e., Intelligent Design, to explain said origin. The alleged documentary was attacked by the French science community and French intellectuals as religious belief given another name. In the end, the TV network was impelled to add a segment at the end of the film which pointed out scientific objections to ID.

Bottom line is that as France (like most Western European countries) is far less driven by religious dogma than is the US, the idea of ID went over like a lead balloon. The average person in France is able to easily discern between religion and science and any attempt to repackage religion as science is met with disdain.

Jim62sch 10:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

PSA

as it seems a some people on this page are arguing the issue, rather than making relevent suggestions for improving the article, I provide the following links as a public service announcement. Please take your debate thoughts to these sites, and keep your article improvement thoughts here:

• Forum on Cleveland.com
• Forum at evc forums
• Forum for string theory discussions

I hope this helps! KillerChihuahua 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

...and in case anyone feels the need to point out that I am sometimes guilty of this, I will save you the time - I know I have been. The puppy is trying to do better. KillerChihuahua 13:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. I've tried to raise some concerns over accuracy and instead of staying on target the resultant discussions have digressed in many ways and wandered into debate with joiners-in.

May I suggest also that it'd help if when someone creates a topic and receives a disagreeing reply, that a 3rd party not counter immediately on their behalf, but give them a chance to take the lead on their view in the discussion, as it makes for clarity. Of course supplementary comments and own points are welcome, I'm just hoping that we can retain better focus and continuity, and avoid exploding a thread into multiple strands, let alone related debates. Complexity clouds any decision, and if we can raise and discuss closely one point at a time it'd help to make some progress.

ant 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ant, re your suggestion "if when someone creates a topic and receives a disagreeing reply, that a 3rd party not counter immediately on their behalf" is unworkable. Everyone can contribute to any discussion which is relevent (and even not relvent) to the page. If you wish to have a one-on-one discussion or debate, it might not be a good idea to try to use an article talk page for that purpose. Try messenger, user talk page, other solutions.

As regards your "3 concerns", this section (PSA) is about taking non-article improvement related debates to an outside forum. Set a good example about not cluttering the page with discussion posted under an inappropriate header. Instead post, or prefereably move (especially the "let me know here" part), your suggestions into the relevent sections of the talk page or start a new section. And fyi, I don't support any of your suggestions. KillerChihuahua 19:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Listen to KillerChihuahua, ant. He'sShe's a smart puppy. FeloniousMonk 21:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes she is ;) Dunc|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 21:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Dunc, you read the bio on my user page! I'm impressed. This is the first time I've been referred to as "she" on WP ever. KillerChihuahua 22:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. FeloniousMonk 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries, FM. Observe that the puppy has never shown any concern about that. Small soapbox of mine is that the English language is deficient for not having a third person non gender specific form. KillerChihuahua 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've been all over your user page and find no evidence of your alleged gender. Do you have an authoritative cite for that? WP:CITE. FeloniousMonk 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, try User:KillerChihuahua#About_KillerChihuahua. That's a bio. See how it uses She, her? and if you have issues with the POV of self-citing, there is a picture of me here (I won't load on WP it because its copyright to the puppy.) KillerChihuahua 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not authoritative. I'll only accept evidence from true Chihuahuas. FeloniousMonk 00:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My secret is out. I'm not really Mexican, and I'm not really a dog. FM, I hope you realize this is devastating to me. And now I think we've really wasted enough of this page on this nonsense. KillerChihuahua 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant contributions are welcome, as stated in the sentence after that. The key words are counter and "immediately". I suggest it is polite to give the one being replied to a short window period to counter what has just been said to them before stepping in to do it oneself, whereas of course if one wants to add something immediately that is not impolite.

ant 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just saying the KC is right on the points, that's all. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey antandcharmi, why don't setup a user account? It would be a lot easier then to just type four tildes after your posts. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I registered - is there something more? Anyway I forget to login!

BTW I did not mean to reply to you but to KC. ant 22:52, November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have to be logged in for the 4 tildes to work with your username. Try checking the "Keep me logged in" box on the login page next time you log in. FeloniousMonk 23:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the content. ant! KillerChihuahua 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem - I apologise - new here and was trying not to create too many topics. ant 22:52, November 2005 (UTC)

No need to apolgise, we were all newbies once! KillerChihuahua 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican issues a statement

Interesting news story here. Headline: THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally. Seems relevant. Should qualify as notable. someone want to find a place to put it in the article? (forgot to sign FuelWagon 23:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

A different take can be found at the [Catholic News Service. An article on Catholic.net is subtitled: "John Paul II reflects on creation and evolution - and the mass media distort his meaning"

Also see Christoph Cardinal Schönborn's First Catechetical Lecture

KillerChihuahua 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

moved to correct location KillerChihuahua 16:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You might wish to read this as well.

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/11/12/100wir_apope001.cfm

Jim62sch 22:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson lets the cat out of the bag

Clarence Page comments on Pat Robertson's recent comments:

Clarence Page's and Leonard Pitts' enthusiasm for the election outcome is matched only by their astonishment over the Rev. Pat Robertson's subsequent warning to Dover: "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God -- you just rejected him from your city."

In the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Page seizes on the irony that "Mr. Robertson's outburst actually refutes the claims that leading advocates of intelligent design, or ID, have been presenting. To get around constitutional concerns, they have insisted that the intelligent designer is absolutely not necessarily God." Obviously, the columnist writes, Mr. Robertson "sees ID as precisely what its concerned critics say it is, a thin camouflage for creationism."

Bill Jefferys 12:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I had heard Robertson's fire and brimstone warning, but I had failed to realize the implication that said warning indicates that the "designer" is actually the christian god. Good catch. That the Chicago Tribune reports this gives a notable source to put it in the article. FuelWagon 17:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It means nothing beyond Robertson's opinion of ID. — goethean ॐ 17:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Robertson's opinion of ID happens to be what almost everyone thinks about it. So it means a lot more than Robertson's opinion. Bill Jefferys 17:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't every religious person consider the designer implied by ID to be 'their' God? Did Pat say that ID states that the designer is God? Or is it just that Pat's (and all the Christians, Jews and Moslems's) God would be their only intellectually honest option for the designer? I think the Religious Creationists love ID because it lends credibility to their views, but does it dictate their views, or do they colour it with their views? ant 18:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionists accuse the Christian Right of using ID as a cover for creationism. Pat's warning fits this view. Fundamentalist christians support ID because it supports their view of creationism, and if you oppose ID then you are turning your back on their Christian God, and that god will rain fire and brimstone down on you. FuelWagon 18:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ant, the original strategy of those promoting ID was to present it as a "Big Tent" [4] under which people of faith of all stripes could unite against their common foe, materialism and secularism. FeloniousMonk 19:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... read it, and am inclined to think it is quite open and direct, not a cover. They like ID because it offers a scientific field in which theistic views have a say. Nevertheless in all this, surely the point is that ID itself is a defined position. How it is used by creationists is not a reflection of ID's statements itself but of the creationist and/or ID movement(s). ant 23:13, 16 November, 2005

That would be plausible were it not for the fact that ID arose out efforts of a particular creationist group, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, to skirt Edwards v. Aguillard, and has since been driven almost single-handedly by the Discovery Institute, a Christian think tank, and the entire ID effort funded almost wholly by wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," Philip F. Anschutz, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the MacLellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." [5] FeloniousMonk 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how Robertson's comments are really relevant to this article. They don't shed light on the tenets of ID and they don't offer a critism of it, either. True, people could use them to show the apparent hypocrisy of those promoting Intelligent Design as science rather than religion, but I think there is already enough good information of that kind in the article. I think, perhaps, that the Robertson thing should stay at Intelligent design movement under the Dover, PA subsection, where it currently resides. -Parallel or Together? 10:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think it belongs in the ID movement article, where it currently can be found. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree. FM, I can see that clearly, but my point is that ID itself is a defined position. An analogy, diamonds can arise from coal. Not saying that ID is a diamond, but it's not necessarily coal either. ID is its statements, not who made it up or who believes it or who uses it. Imagine that the creationists got it right one day and discovered a theory that was accurate (assuming such a thing were possible) and used it just like they're using this one. Could Pat's statement about God to a town be taken as a reflection of that theory's position too?

I don't think so, and I think it muddies the water to do so. Let ID stand or fall on its own, and let the behaviour and beliefs of ID proponents shed light on what they're up to with ID, or how they interpret it. The positions stated are two separate things. To my mind, the newspaper article is confusing the posits of ID with that of one of its believers, and the article has no place here. ant 13:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

While you can no more write a complete article on the topic of ID while ignoring ID proponents intentions and positions than you write a complete article on Catholicism that ignores the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican, I agree that the Pat Robertson bit does not belong in this article. It belongs in the Intelligent design movement article, which is where I added it several days ago. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Original research and inaccurrate/inadequate representation of the minority View

In some cases this Wikipedia article seems to distort the minority view and in some cases (I suspect) there may be original research going on in light of the refusal to cite certain sources. One of the first things I discussed regarding this was the following segment of the entry:

By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex

When I first read this, I took it to mean that “ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex.” This is flatly contradicted by the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself (i.e. Michael Behe; see page 249 of Darwin’s Black Box) and thus this seemed to be an instance of distorting the minority view. I asked FeloniousMonk to provide citations, and for days FeloniousMonk refused. Recently, references were added to the sentence, “By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex.” The first one quotes William Dembski:

The implications of the complexity-specification criterion are profound, not just for science, but also for philosophy and theology. The power of this criterion resides in its generality. It would be one thing if the criterion only detected human agency. But as we've seen, it detects animal and extra-terrestrial agency as well. Nor is it limited to intelligent agents that belong to the physical world. The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

Okay, so Dembski says that the designer of the universe and life (because e.g. it requires fine-tuned physical constants of the universe) cannot be a purely physical entity. How does that (or anything else in the quote) show that “By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex”? The first reference does not appear to be relevant. What about the second reference? In this one, an ID website is quoted:

You can justifiably infer intelligent design without having to explain or know how the designer arose. The implication of this objection, however, is that somehow option (c) (i.e. that the designer existed eternally and has no cause) is not a viable option because many people cannot explain the origin of God, who many believe to be the Designer. This is a religious / theological objection to intelligent design because it deals with philosophical statements about the designer that have nothing to do with the empirical study of detecting design.

Okay, so an ID adherent claims that one can rationally infer design without explaining the origins of the designer. But how does that (or anything else in the quote) show that “By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex”? This reference does not appear relevant either.

Before this, and after much discussion on this issue FeloniousMonk eventually (on November 14, 2005) said, “it is a matter of simple logic that by ID's own reasoning a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity would also be irreducibly complex.” It seems I have perhaps misunderstood the statement. It is not that “ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex.” The claim now seems to be that there exists ID arguments unbeknownst to the ID adherents that imply the designer is irreducibly complex. I’d be interested to know what these alleged ID arguments are and how they imply this through the supposed “simple logic.” More importantly however, I’d like to see a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes this argument to ensure that this is not in violation of Wikipedia’s policy on original research (among other things, one is not allowed to put forth original arguments against a theory you don’t like in a Wikipedia entry on the subject, though one is allowed to add links).

Until a reference is added, perhaps it should be replaced with another. The claim, “A designer capable of creating complexity must also be complex” is however a common belief among ID proponents and is acceptable here. I will wait a week for a relevant citation before I begin my edits.

The “fundamental assumption of ID”

On another matter, the Wikipedia article has claimed, "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object." I suspect this is original research of the straw man kind. I have never seen this assumption in any ID literature, and the article provides no references (and despite my requests here, no references have been given to me). I have however seen ID statements that seem to point in the opposite direction.

Dembski himself claims that not every complex entity is designed; the added criterion of specification must be used before a design inference can be rationally made; hence the term complex specified information. See this web page where he admits that chance can generate complex (albeit unspecified) information.

I have found a creationist source that comes at least close to contradicting claim. Gary Parker's section in What is Creation Science? describes creation science applied to biology--which is apparently just intelligent design theory (as he describes it). In it he notes that creation does not argue from design per se, but the kind of design we observe. He notes that some things (e.g. a snowflake) can be brought about naturally (page 46), but other things (as airplanes) cannot. Snowflakes have some complexity, so this seems to be a counterexample this alleged ID claim. Another one might be this web page which also cites snowflakes for an example. So it seems, according to ID, that some kinds of complexity can be made naturally but others cannot. If so, the claim that the fundamental assumption of ID is that “every complex object requires a designer” is false. Unless an authoritative citation is made of an ID adherent saying or implying this “fundamental assumption” it seems prudent to remove it.

Fine-tuned universe

A rebuttal is offered saying, "a different sort of life might exist in its place." It should be recognized however, that the ID argument isn't just that our kind life would not exist, but that fine-tuned physical constants are necessary for any kind of physical life to be possible (see Mere Creation page 372 and and this ID article), not just life as we know it. For instance, it is argued that if the electron to proton mass ratio were different, there could not even exist sufficient chemical bonding. Now I agree that rebuttals to the ID argument should be given, but the ID views should at least be accurately represented before they are criticized.

Complex Specified Information

The article does not really explain what is meant by the term, which unfortunately allows for some misrepresentation in the criticisms (more later). Allow me to provide an explanation of complex specified information:

The definition of information being referred to here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary 2b. Information is an inherent attribute communicated by sequences of units (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computers) with each unit consisting of two or more variants. Complex information is simply a high information content. For instance, the following sequence PLMGQEIXZVITQAGUSAQPECNZA is more complex than ZP. For a complex set of information, it is unlikely that any particular sequence is chosen. For instance, the odds of getting the sequence of 143 characters exactly right via random chance (once we take into account spaces, commas and periods) is 29^158 or approximately 1 in 10^231. But to make a design inference Dembski says, it is not enough for information to be complex, it must also be specified. Specification, in short, implies the existence of a non-ad-hoc pattern that can be used to eliminate chance and be grounds to rationally make a design inference. Suppose the complex sequence was this:

THERE WAS ONCE A MAN WHO HAD A DAUGHTER WHO WAS CALLED CLEVER ELSIE. AND WHEN SHE HAD GROWN UP HER FATHER SAID, WE WILL GET HER MARRIED. YES, SAID THE MOTHER, IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD COME WHO WOULD HAVE HER. AT LENGTH A MAN CAME FROM A DISTANCE AND WOOED HER, WHO WAS CALLED HANS, BUT HE STIPULATED THAT CLEVER ELSIE SHOULD BE REALLY SMART. OH, SAID THE FATHER, SHE HAS PLENTY OF GOOD SENSE. AND THE MOTHER SAID, OH, SHE CAN SEE THE WIND COMING UP THE STREET, AND HEAR THE FLIES COUGHING. WELL, SAID HANS, IF SHE IS NOT REALLY SMART, I WON'T HAVE HER. WHEN THEY WERE SITTING AT DINNER AND HAD EATEN, THE MOTHER SAID, ELSIE, GO INTO THE CELLAR AND FETCH SOME BEER. THEN CLEVER ELSIE TOOK THE PITCHER FROM THE WALL, WENT INTO THE CELLAR, AND TAPPED THE LID BRISKLY AS SHE WENT, SO THAT THE TIME MIGHT NOT APPEAR LONG.

The sequence of letters above (taken from "Clever Elsie", one of Grimm's fairy tales) has 143 units, with each unit having 29 varieties (29^143 possibilities for a sequence of this size). Under Dembski's definition, if the information has a 1 in 10^150 chance plus the specification criterion it can be considered CSI (because anything less than 1 in 10^150 goes past the "universal probability bound"--so called because 10^150 is an upper limit on the total number of possible physical events since the big bang). Thus, we would have rational grounds for making a design inference here because the sequence above is both complex and specified (following a non-ad-hoc pattern; in this case a meaningful set of words).

In light of this accurate description, some of the criticisms seem to misrepresent the concept. For instance, "CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus" does not quite accurately represent the ID position. Dembski argues from probability considerations (e.g. it would probably not be rational to infer the above CSI the result of chance considering the total number of physical events in the universe since the big bang). It is not through mere definition that Dembski argues his case. Additionally, the "arbitrary but specific outcomes" criticism seems to ignore the existence/nature of the specification criterion (when referring to the example of the lottery); not surprising since specification is not really described in the Wikipedia article.

Regarding this segment of the Wikipedia article:

The theory also ignores the actual relative chance in terms of the universe, for example there is an estimated 125 billion or more galaxies in the universe with roughly 100 billion stars in each. Stars then have a chance for the presence of terrestrial planets and given the scope of a planet and the various elements existent in the universe, multiplied by the previous statement concerning the amount of stars, it is easy to assume that, the chance of a set of circumstances leading to life is perceivable. One must also take into account all the possible and by-chance chemical reactions that have occurred over the history of the universe.

The claim that Dembski's theory ignores this is false due to Dembski's universal probability bound, which explicitly takes into account all the possible number of physical events in the universe. Perhaps Dembski's bound is wrong somehow, but to claim that Dembski ignores the issue is a false representation.

Additionally, the article says, "Dembski does not attempt to demonstrate this [that CSI actually exists in nature]" but he and other ID adherents do attempt this (e.g. this web page). Perhaps such attempts do not quite work, but claiming they do not exist is simply a false representation.

This is not to say that criticisms should not be included, only that the actual ID position not be distorted. Other criticisms do not misrepresent the concept (or at least not as badly) and so it is still perhaps fitting that they be included (particularly the one with a citation, as it proves it is not original research).

Irreducible complexity

It's unclear if Ludwig von Bertalanffy actually came up with the term irreducible complexity (at least, the term as Behe uses it). No reference is given regarding this, and the Wikipedia article does not mention it (though it does mention general systems theory). A citation may be appropriate to verify the claim's accuracy.

The claim, "Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new" seems questionable. No reference or quote is given. The idea that he "gives the impression" of something "new" is not justified, and almost seems like an attempt to insinuate deception on Behe's part. Moreover, it is demonstrably false. On page 212 Behe credits Paley for using the concept of irreducible complexity.

Behe's position could be briefly described as follows:

Irreducibly complex refers to a system composed of various interconnecting parts that contribute to some basic function, whereby the removal of any of these components causes the system to stop functioning. Behe claims that, for irreducibly complex biochemical systems that are highly intricate, this poses a serious obstacle for Darwinian evolution, since the system cannot evolve via a direct route (i.e. by continual improving the initial function, since all parts are needed for that to occur). Behe admits the possibility of an indirect route, but claims that for biochemical systems that possess a high degree of complex interaction this is unlikely (pp. 39-40 of Darwin's Black Box). Nonetheless, most scientists disagree with Behe's claim that indirect routes are unlikely.

On the criticisms section some questions arise. It was mentioned, "of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales." What is this clotting factor? It would perhaps be good to mention (at least in the endnote) what this component is. The abstract mentions "Hageman factor" was not produced, but that component is not listed in the clotting system Behe refers to (see p. 82 in Darwin's Black Box). And is it the case that the whale could clot normally without the factor? It is not mentioned in the abstract. Also, weren't some of these references in the criticisms section refuted earlier? I seem to recall it being claimed that the reference for "it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally" is invalid because the computer simulation does not refer to irreducible complexity (as the abstract seems to confirm). The claim, "potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems" might be a bit misleading, since these proposed pathways ignore critical details. That is, it is not the case that there exists (yet) a rigorously developed explanation of how these systems could have evolved. Should this fact be added so as to not give readers a false impression?

Bottom line, some clean-up work needs to be done to accurately represent intelligent design theory and (in some cases) certain facts surrounding it. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, you've offered quite a bit of original research. Your unique "understandings" of ID and it's proponents is not definitive nor is it justification for rewriting the article or even taking up half the talk with your objections. We've been over these issues with you many times, and each and every time you were shown to be mistaken. There's been zero support and even less consensus for each of your constant, specious, War and Peace-length objections. How about trying to not be disruptive for once? FeloniousMonk 02:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My "understandings" of ID are not original research, I have given clear citations to justify my claims. And how is trying to remove distortions disruptive? Wouldn't be more accurate to say that maintaining these distortions is disruptive? We have indeed been over this issue many times, but you have failed to provide any relevant citations to support your claims and thus have not yet shown me to be mistaken. If my claims of original research are mistaken, by all means provide relevant citations to show they are not original research. Otherwise, I don't think you can claim that I've been "shown" to be mistaken. (Remember, distorting the minority view before criticizing it is original research of the straw man kind.) Wade A. Tisthammer 19:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I did a very cursory scan of these objections, the following stood out:

"Nonetheless, most scientists disagree with Behe's claim that indirect routes are unlikely."

It's my understanding most scientists (who discuss these issues) can demonstrate with specific examples how indirect routes are likely. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really, at least not yet when it comes to the specific biochemical systems Behe refers to. There have been as I said proposed mechanisms, but these ignore critical details. There is no rigorously developed explanation as of yet on how naturalistic evolution could have evolved those irreducibly complex biochemical systems. This is not to say an explanation can't be made sometime in the future, only that we don't have it yet. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box (Touchstone, New York, 1996) by Michael Behe, ISBN 0-684-83493-6 (Pbk). p39.

BEGIN QUOTE

What type of biological system could not be formed by "numerous successive, slight modifications?"

Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

END QUOTE

Behe uses this concept as a plank in his argument for conscious design in nature.

It should be evident from the above that:

(1) Behe states that an irreducibly complex system cannot be created by "numerous successive, slight modifications".

(2) Behe then tries to hedge his statement by playing with the definition of the word functional (functional as what? evolution is rife with examples of systems developed for one purpose and coopted for another).

(3) Behe's statement is incorrect. The Krebs Cycle (*) is a system that developed largely by opportunism, without a hint of design--Behe may technically be correct that it didn't evolve by small enough steps, but it's a rather thin complaint since the steps were evidently small enough to form biochemical systems. The essential parts were already available in the cell, and were simply coopted for the purposes of aerobic respiration. But it fits Behe's definition of an irreducibly complex system, though he may wish to deny it. It's "a single system compose of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning", using Behe's own definition of the term "functioning".

(*) See Melendez (1996) for a detailed description of the role of opportunism in the evolution of the Krebs Cycle.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec99.html

- RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That'd be great if Behe claimed the Kreb's cycle can't be formed via slight, successive modifications, but he doesn't. Behe doesn't claim the Kreb's cycle to be irreducibly complex, and even talk.origins (via Keith Robison of Harvard University) claims it is not. It's noteworthy that Behe only claims that the unlikeliness of an indirect route of an irreducibly complex system comes when the interacting complexity becomes increasingly high (see page 40 of Darwin’s Black Box). Behe obviously thinks that to be the case with the blood-clotting cascade and the like, but he doesn't claim the same to be true for every biochemical system. That should be kept in mind before attacking the ID position. (Of course, if one had a rigorously developed explanation showing a way how the irreducible complexity "obstacle" could be overcome in e.g. blood-cascading, that would be an entirely different matter). Again, the minority view should be accurately represented before it is criticized. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry on intelligent design often breaks that rule. (Note: it seems we may be at risk for getting sidetracked away from the issue of accurately presenting the ID position in the Wikipedia entry.) Wade A. Tisthammer 19:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, on the contrary, I must say that Wade's objections here are clearly focussed and extremely well justified. He has obviously put a lot of time into explaining very well why the items in the article need to be changed. He is contributing zero original research. I've spent no more than an hour or two reading the web about ID for the first time ever and all I've found are exactly the concepts Wade is quoting as ID. When I first read this article a few days ago I could hardly relate it to ID.

Furthermore, it is written from the majority point of view. Even pseudo-science (over which attribution there appears to be some legitimate controversy) deserves to have the minority view presented, even in an article which is at the level of comparing views. How much more then in an article which is dedicated to the minority view!

His arguments are difficult to refute, unless one goes about it by clouding the issue.

In fact, going back over the talk page, I would say that if anyone was being disruptive, it is with all due respect yourself, primarily by ignoring main and clear points and taking up small and side-issues, some of which have no basis such as your accusation here of Wade doing original research, and in the end finally simply going silent or making emoitonal 'disruption' accusations. I would ask you to justify them if it would not create yet another digression in which Wade's excellent points would be drowned yet again.

Wade, I have no disgreement with your proposals and see no rational objection to them presented above, so suggest either that you make the changes or, considering FM's rather autocratic guard on this article, that you make a request for arbitration over the entire article, with your suggested contributions above and the respinses as an example just for starters.

Sorry, FM, but I believe an encyclopedia should be accurate. ant 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy somebody agrees with Tisthammerw, even if it is someone who's depth on the subject comprises "an hour or two reading the web about ID for the first time ever." I'm alarmed that you would even think that this would justify your sweeping proclamation that tisthammerw's never advocated original research here. You may want to consider gaining more knowledge on the topic before contributing in that manner to this discussion. We'll have to weigh your opinion accordingly, since others have dedicated far more effort and time on the topic, myself over decade. That you "could hardly relate it [the article] to ID" is likely due to your lack of exposure to the complete topic. And yes, the article is written from the majority viewpoint. This is not just allowed, but specifically called for in the NPOV policy. Like the message at the top of this page says, please read the policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, and to which I add Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving "equal validity".

To knowledgeable readers on the topic, the majority of tisthammerw's long-winded objections he's raised, if not all, it has been obvious that they are either materially incorrect, logically flawed, original research, or otherwise problematic. Your support doesn't change that, and those are material issues he'll need to overcome before objective knowledgeable readers will find his complaints compelling. If any one point is ignored by myself or other editors, it is because some recognize it as incorrect or irrelevant and that tisthammerw has been unwilling to even consider the possibility that is the case before, so there's little point in going over it yet one more time with him. And most of his objections arise from his insistence on ignoring Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources WP:RS and accepting only one side of the debate's literature as authoritative and definitive.

As far as this article being accurate, it largely is. It is one of Wikipedia's most well-cited, supported articles, and though a bit long, its information is largely complete and of a high quality, as was recognized on an NPR radio with Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales [6]. It only got this way because dedicated editors, well-versed on the topic, have been willing to uphold Wikipedia's goals and policies. Call that disruption if you must, but I call it enforcing the policies and guidelines and improving Wikipedia's quality.

Everyone is always free to edit the article. Wikipedia policy prohibits original research, one-sided or incomplete representations, and deleting content that is relevant and necessary for a complete and accurate article. Established, credible editors will always continue to enforce those policies and guidelines. Scholarly robust content will always pass muster. That which isn't, won't make it. FeloniousMonk 16:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If I have ever done original research here, I apologize. But given Wikipedia's description of original research it seems that by citing authoritative sources (suggesting that the ID position is indeed what I claim it to be) I have effectively avoided violations (at least in those instances). With my citations, I gave clear and specific evidence that the minority view has apparently been distorted. Remember, presenting a distorted version of the minority view is original research of the straw man kind. Hence I charge that, if anyone, it is you who are guilty of original research by continuously refusing to provide authoritative citations despite my repeated requests. I have, as before, mentioned how my accusations could be falsified. If my objections regarding original research are false, simply provide relevant citations to show they are not. Otherwise, I don't think you can claim that "it has been obvious" that my objections are wrong. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, sorry if I've misunderstood. At least with your point-by-point approach we should be able to sort it out, thanks. And if I have, thanks for not flying off the handle!!

In addition, I've not claimed knowledge I didn't have. It is quite possible that I don't understand the subtleties. However, from a great distance, the main issues seem rather clear. Moreover, the article has some definitely misleading and illogical statements, and consistently quotes ID proponents as the minority but speaks authoritatively as the commonly-held view, rather than presenting it as the majority view, all of which has encouraged my perception of bias and hence my possibly premature interest. ("The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct." The majority view would not lose any power when presented as such, rather than being presented as just so. Perhaps I need more understanding of this policy with regard to pseudoscience, but essentially I believe that it should be allowed a fair shot against the hard cold facts of the majority view. Moreover in my opinion any argument presented should be understood to be at least potentially tenable and accurate. An encyclopedia should not present a flawed view no matter how commonly-held it is without mentioning the flaw. For example, the "circular reasoning" bit. But let's not digress.) ant 21:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right, from a distance, the main issues seem rather clear. But they are not. ID is not just those arguments for the concept. Scratch its surface and you find it's also a veneer over a conservative social agenda. Peek behind that curtain you find those driving it are pushing particular form of theism. And none of which is separable from the others because those making ID's "scientific" arguments are also the same ones making it's social argument. Often in the same book. And they've published documents stating explicitly that obfuscating their agenda under the pretense of "science" is absolutely necessary... that from the founder of modern ID. All of this is extremely well-documented and supported.

So as you can see, it's far more complicated than you think. Considering you admit your only exposure to the topic is an hour or two of web reading, before proclaiming what is and isn't original research, what is and isn't pov in the article, I suggest taking some time to actually read some objective reporting on the topic: [7] [8] [9] [10] FeloniousMonk 03:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks FM, but note also that in the time I browsed I gained more knowledge than what's in this article, so while I'll continue to read up on it I'll continue to discuss article issues too. ant 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy, you are confusing the discussion of the article with a discussion of its topic ID, and entering into the ID debate rather than discussing the artice issues raised by Wade.

Everyone, please can we stick to the issues and answer them directly rather than add confusion.

Wade, I recommend you do not get drawn into the emotional debate that is encouraged when people challenge a full stop or comma in what you said, and stick to the top-level main points.

ant 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll stand corrected, sort of. While my second post does indeed segway into discussing ID itself; it was meant as a supplement to my original point... which is and remains (despite Tisthammer's robust rebuttal) that IC isn't simply a matter of disagreement (which was a word in his proposed change to the article content); scientists can (for the most part) show how IC can form through evolutionary paths. For those they currently cannot; there is no reason to believe Behe's designer-of-the-gaps position is tenable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The following statement introduces paranormal pseudo-science into the discussion:

"Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."

With statements such as that, no one who has the intellectual capacity to understand legitimate science will ever see ID as anything other than poorly repackaged religious piffle.

Jim62sch 22:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time

Since Tisthammerw raised many points here, let's settle them for good once and for all the Wikipedia way: by discussion and consensus. We'll address them one-at-time, starting with number 1. Please do not add comments to later points until we've settled the previous point and keep your comments brief and to the point. If you can't state your case in less than ten sentences or so, you'd be better off rethinking it than posting it. Also, all comments and responses should focus on addressing whether a passage descibing a particular viewpoint in the article is notable and fairly represented, and whether it is so controversial it needs to be cited, not whether or not its reasoning is right. When addressing declarative statements made in the article, one issue to address is whethr it needs to be attributed because it represents a controversial viewpoint not a broadly agreed upon as a factual statement. The applicable policies as NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". FeloniousMonk 20:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should add that the applicable Wikipedia policies also include No Original Research and Cite Your Sources, since some of my objections (including the first one below) are specifically about the violation of those policies. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's start with this one:

1. Tisthammerw claims the passage "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." is inaccurate. He cites page 249 of Behe's Darwin’s Black Box as evidence.

The passage in question is found in the "What (or who) designed the designer?" section of the article.

Comments/responses:

• There is an article on the Go, sorry "intelligent designer" in which this point should be elaborated on. WP:NPOV is to attribute POVs, and it is a indeed a question asked of IDists, though a proper citation would be good. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Dembski has replied to it as being non sequitur and change the subject. That too should be mentioned, but it is more of a theological question as anything else, and is very similar to an argument against first cause. Sorry somebody mention this was science? — Dunc|☺ 21:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• As mentioned earlier, when I first read this I took it to mean that “ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex.” This is demonstrably false, as it is flatly contradicted by the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself (i.e. Michael Behe; see page 249 of Darwin’s Black Box) and thus this seemed to be an instance of distorting the minority view. Due to FeloniousMonk's later comments on the issue, it appears the quote might not mean “ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex,” but rather that there exists ID arguments unbeknownst to the ID adherents that imply the designer is irreducibly complex. I’d be interested to know what these alleged ID arguments are and how they imply this through the supposed “simple logic” as FM claimed earlier. More importantly however, I’d like to see a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes this argument to ensure that this is not in violation of Wikipedia’s policy on original research (among other things, you are not allowed to put forth original arguments against a theory you don’t like in a Wikipedia entry on the subject). Wade A. Tisthammer 21:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (P.S. while I may be getting ahead of myself, I feel I should note that point #5 described here does not accurately represent my objection; my objection was that a criticism falsely represented the ID position; see above for more details regarding Complex Specified Information.) 21:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (P.P.S. a similar thing goes for point #3 in Fine-tuned universe and possibly other points, but I'll cross those bridges when I come to them.) Wade A. Tisthammer 21:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You've already had an opportunity to elaborate on your points in the section directly above this one, and indeed you do so. I'm not going to deny you one more bite at the apple this time, but please try to keep it brief and to the point. FeloniousMonk 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• All ID proponents agree that complexity implies design, and that a certain type of complexity, what they call irreducible complexity, is incapable of arising naturally. In other words, irreducible complexity requires design. Using the same reasoning, any designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. Any designer that is not irreducibly complex contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object. This is a matter of simple logic. I've read page 249 Darwin's Black Box today, and I can find nothing that applies to this passage, much less contradicts it. The only possibly relevant statement Behe makes is this:

"Perhaps, then, biochemists in the future will send back cells to the early earth that contain the information for the irreducibly complex structures we observe today. In this scenario humans can be their own aliens, their own advanced civilization. Of course, time travel leads to apparent paradoxes (things like grandsons shooting grandfathers before their offspring are born), but at least some physicists are ready to accept them. Most people, like me, will find these scenarios entirely unsatisfactory, but they are vailable [sic] for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications." --Behe, pg. 249-250, Darwin's Black Box

The passage is factually accurate as it stands, despite what Behe thinks about time-traveling biochemists. FeloniousMonk 21:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note also that Behe mentions the possibility of the designers not being irreducibly complex on page 249. Additionally, suppose ID claims that an IC system requires design. That does not imply that the designer must also possess irreducible complexity. Furthermore, is this argument original research? Or can you provide a citation of a leading ID opponent making this argument? Additionally, you have appealed to "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object". Is this "fundamental assumption" original research of the straw man kind? Or can you provide an authoritative citation of a prominent ID saying or implying this “fundamental assumption”? Wade A. Tisthammer 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a specific Behe quote in mind here? Because I'm not seeing anything relevant. As I've stated before, the passage is a declarative statement on a matter of logic, not a pov. FeloniousMonk 21:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Page 249 from Darwin's Black Box

This scenario still leaves open the question of who designed the designer--how did life originally originate? Is a philosophical naturalist now trapped? Again, no. The question of the design of the designer can be put off in several ways. It could be deflected by invoking unobserved entities: perhaps the original life is totally unlike ourselves, consisting of fluctuating electrical fields or gases; perhaps it does not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain it. [Emphasis mine]

Felonious, this appeared right before your quote on time travel. How did you miss it? In any case, since the claim no longer seems to be "ID argues that the designer of irreducibly complexity must itself be irreducibly complex" (which was the reason why I referenced Behe in the first place) we now have a different issue to worry about: is the argument you presented original research? Or can you cite a leading ID opponent who makes this argument? Are there any authoritative citations of ID's alleged "fundamental assumption" that the argument is based upon? Or is this "fundamental assumption" original research of the straw man kind? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Felonious, in the quote: "but they are vailable [sic] for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications." Is this [sic] really appropriate? The book I have does not have the missing "a" for "available." That is, it reads "but they are available for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications." Wade A. Tisthammer 07:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That quote doesn't "disprove" anything. It's Behe speculating. You said Behe disproved the passage in question. You claimed that "ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex.' is demonstrably false, as it is flatly contradicted by the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself (i.e. Michael Behe; see page 249 of Darwin’s Black Box) and thus this seemed to be an instance of distorting the minority view." Yet in the quote you offer as proof, Behe is merely speculating that a designer may not have to be irreducibly complex: "It could be deflected by invoking unobserved entities: perhaps the original life is totally unlike ourselves, consisting of fluctuating electrical fields or gases; perhaps it does not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain it." This hardly "demonstrates" that the article's passage "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." is "demonstrably false." What the quote does prove is that Behe recognizes the issue, and that he thinks the designer may not need be irreducibly complex. That he recognizes the issue enough to address it there is validation the issue and hence the statement is not original research. FeloniousMonk 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of the quote. The claim that "ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex" is false. ID does not argue that. ID does not claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex. Instead it argues--correctly or incorrectly--that it is possible for the designer to not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain itself. Now, going by the new wording, new interpretation and the new explanation of the argument, the fact that ID does not make the claim is no longer relevant. As such, we have a different concern now. The concern is now whether the argument you proposed is original research. That Behe mentions the possibility of the designer not being irreducibly complex does not imply that your particular argument (which Behe does not address) is original research. Can you cite a leading ID opponent who makes this argument you presented? Are there any authoritative citations of ID's alleged "fundamental assumption" that the argument is based upon? Or is this "fundamental assumption" original research of the straw man kind? You haven't really addressed this issue, despite the fact that this issue is what this section is supposed to be about. So can you cite your sources or can’t you? Wade A. Tisthammer 18:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Now you're changing the issue. The article doesn't say "ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex." The article says "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." The fact that Behe's quote confirms that ID proponents are aware of this point proves the passage was not derived from original research. That is all that is relevant here. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I only "changed" the issue because the argument changed, i.e. that the article (as you yourself mentioned) doesn't say "ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex." The position I was trying to justify was that ID does not claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex. But that issue is no longer relevant. By your own admission, the article says "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." How does Behe's quote confirm the existence of your argument? Behe's quote does not even mention the argument that there exists ID arguments that imply the designer must also be irreducibly complex. You are still obligated to provide a citation showing that your argument is not original research. And you still haven't provided a citation regarding the "fundamental assumption" your argument is based upon (I doubt original research of the straw man kind is any more acceptable). Wade A. Tisthammer 18:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Are these the main sub-points of contention under this point:

- FM says that it is logically apparent from ID reasoning that the designer must be irreducibly complex;

- Behe says on p249 that it is possible that the designer is not irreducibly complex

These are opposing views. The first is presented, NOT as the majority view, but as an obvious truth. The second is a minority view that is NOT presented by the article.

Questions:

• 1.1 Is the view put forward original research? Can it be quoted?
• 1.2 If it can be quoted, it is in disagreement with Behe's view and therefore cannot be presented purely as arising from ID logic, but rather must be presented as a majority opinion (of its arising from ID logic) not shared by leading ID proponent(s) (the minority opinion).
• 1.3 If it is so clearly an application of ID reasoning it should be quite simple to show the logic without going into original research, which would help people to understand the majority view. However, if a designer evolved, that designer would not be irreducibly complex, yet could produce irreducably compex objects, no? I'm not suggesting this - just offering it as a logical counter example.

(BTW Wade the quote "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object" belongs to next item.) ant 01:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, uh, Behe does not say on pg. 249 that it is possible that the designer is not irreducibly complex. I've read the page and there's nothing specific to that effect. I provided the only quote above that is even close. I've asked Tisthammerw to provide the specific quote that says this, and we're still waiting. Without a specific quote from Wade, you cannot assume that Behe says anything. Furthermore, even if Behe did and I'm just missing it, it does not in any way invalidate the statement in question; it only proves that ID proponents 1) believe that to be the case, 2) are not above using faulty logic. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I quoted page 249 above where Behe explicitly mentions the possibility of the designer not requiring the use of irreducibly complex structures to sustain itself. Second, I realize that the alleged "fundamental assumption" is discussed later, but Felonious brought it up to support his argument on irreducible complexity. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that FM's argument is non sequitur. More relevant now to the Wikipedia entry (in light of the new interpretation of the quote) is this: is this argument original research? Are there authoritative citations of a prominent ID opponent making this argument? Particularly, are there any authoritative citations of ID's alleged "fundamental assumption" that the argument is based upon? Or is this "fundamental assumption" original research of the straw man kind (as I suspect it is in light of my citations to the contrary)? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• I love self-defeating logic:

As mentioned earlier, when I first read this I took it to mean that “ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex.” This is demonstrably false, as it is flatly contradicted by the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself (i.e. Michael Behe; see page 249 of Darwin’s Black Box) and thus this seemed to be an instance of distorting the minority view.

Essentially, (the silly transcendent argument aside) this means that a simple being could create a complex universe. Uh, OK...if Behe says so. How one can argue that life is too complex to have occurred spontaneously while at the same time holding that the designer need not be complex is beyond me (and, yes, that really is the argument: the tripe regarding transcendence and non-physicality is an argument raised by one backed into a corner and searching for straws).

Additionally, attempting to use as proof of one's position the fact that one of the leading proponents of ID argues against the need for an irreducibly complex designer to create an irreducibly complex design is a violation of the laws of logic. One simply cannot quote person A to prove that person A's position is accurate and tenable.

Look at it this way: Plato would be highly, highly disappointed. Jim62sch 00:36, 18 November 2005

Jim, I think you're debating ID? This page and esp this section are to iron out specific disputes over the article statements enumerated here, i.e. to focus on whether Wiki policy is being applied here. Also, gloating doesn't help for consensus or brevity. ant 01:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim, there's something else you need to consider. Remember I first interpreted (the original wording; the current wording is now slightly different) it as "ID argues that the designer of irreducible complexity must itself be irreducibly complex." This is demonstrably false and would be a distortion of the ID position. That's why I made the reference. (Note: it is not the designer isn't complex, it's that the designer doesn't need to have a specific type of complexity known as IC; something can be complex without having IC). However, the correct interpretation now appears to be “there exists ID arguments unbeknownst to the ID adherents that imply the designer is irreducibly complex.” My criticism now is that the argument FeloniousMonk described seems like original research, which is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. Hence my request of an authoritative citation of a leading ID opponent who makes this argument. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is so blindingly obvious that I don't understand how anyone can make the argument that Tisth... makes.

Look, Behe argues that IC cannot arise spontaneously in the universe. It doesn't matter whether the "designer" is IC or not, if the "designer" arises in the universe spontaneously and then creates IC, then IC has arisen spontaneously in the universe through the agent of the "designer", whatever its characteristics may be. This contradicts Behe's assertion. Bill Jefferys 03:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence that this contradicts Behe's assertion. Would you care to quote this assertion of Behe and explain how what you said contradicts it? Does Behe claim that the ultimate origin of IC cannot be natural causes? Or does he merely claim that some IC structures requiring intelligent design, regardless of the origin of the designer?

In any case this is beside the point. The current criticism I made was about my concerns regarding original research (among other things, you are not allowed to put forth an original argument against a theory you don't like in a Wikipedia entry). Can FeloniousMonk give an authoritative citation for his argument? Can he give a reference of a leading ID opponent explaining this argument? Or is this argument original research? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. So is this the question that still stands?

• 1.1 Is the view put forward original research? Or can it be quoted as a majority view? ant 13:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's neither. The majority here have spoken in agreement that the passage is not a "view" but a descriptive statement of a readily apparent matter of logic. Wade's Behe quote proves that Behe recognizes the issue, and that Behe thinks the designer may not need be irreducibly complex. The quote does not render the passage "demonstrably false" as Wade claimed. Behe's quote is a viewpoint; the point his statement addresses is a descriptiion of a matter of logic, which in itself need not be attributed. The fact the Behe brings it up is sufficient proof of the issue's existence and hence the passage is not original research. FeloniousMonk 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion, I would like to endorse FM's point. I think this sums it up the argument quite well. Guettarda 18:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First, it is not a "readily apparent matter of logic". Suppose ID claims that an IC system requires design. It doesn't logically follow that the designer must therefore possess irreducible complexity. It is logically possible for the designer to have a different kind of complexity. In any case, FM's argument is a non sequitur. More applicably, is FM's “logical” argument against ID original research? I doubt that we are permitted to allow original research "if it is against a theory we don't like" (at least, I didn't see that quote when I read the Wikipedia policy on original research). Additionally, what about the "fundamental assumption" that FM's argument is based upon? Is this really a fundamental assumption of ID? Are there any authoritative citations of ID's alleged "fundamental assumption" that the argument is based upon? Or is this "fundamental assumption" original research of the straw man kind?

Behe's quote does not prove that Behe recognizes the issue, for Behe doesn't even mention the argument FeloniousMonk is using (that there exists ID arguments that imply the designer must also be irreducibly complex), it discusses a different matter (which is why the quote, as I said, is no longer applicable in light of the new wording, interpretation and explanation of FM's argument). Wade A. Tisthammer 18:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the majority here haven't "spoken" regarding the issue here. Most people in this section didn't even address the issue of original research. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, this was supposed to a place where each contributor here can concisely state their opinion on the question so we can guage consensus. You racing around responding with long-winded rebuttals to every statement is becoming disruptive and frankly is making you appear a crank. You've stated your case here already. Abundantly. Other than ant, no one agrees with you. You need to accept that your claim on this point has not gained consensus.

I think we can put this one to rest: The fact the Behe responds specifically to the issue in his book is sufficient proof of the issue's existence and hence the passage is not original research, despite that Wade disagrees. Everyone (accept Wade of course) agrees on this. Ready to move on to the next item everyone (accept again Wade of course)? FeloniousMonk 19:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, please give me a quote to where Behe mentions your argument. Note that (once we subtract the “fundamental assumption”) your argument is, "If irreducible complexity requires a designer, then this designer must also be irreducibly complex." Not only does this not logically follow (it is logically possible for the designer to not possess irreducible complexity) this argument is not mentioned in Behe's book. On page 249, Behe claims that intelligent design need not violate naturalism (i.e. the belief that the supernatural does not exist), and to support his point he mentions the possibility of the designer not being irreducibly complex. How does that show that yours is not an original argument? Furthermore, to justify your conclusion you say, "Any designer that is not irreducibly complex contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object. This is a matter of simple logic." Not quite. You first have to justify that this "fundamental assumption" exists. Is this "fundamental assumption" original research of the straw man kind? Or can you provide an authoritative citation of a prominent ID saying or implying this “fundamental assumption”? (Note: you cannot appeal to Behe here either, since he does not mention this "fundamental assumption.")

BTW Felonious, I am not the only one "racing around" providing rebuttals, you have done so yourself. Indeed, most of my rebuttals here are in response to your rebuttals. Let's refrain from the tu quoque attacks shall we? Additionally, let's also not pretend there's a consensus where none (yet) exists. Most people in this section have not even addressed the matter of original research that seems to plague your argument. You can keep this section “concise” yourself: cite authoritative sources showing that your claims are not original research. If you yourself are not a crank, why have you continuously refused to do this? Wade A. Tisthammer 21:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Behe: "This scenario still leaves open the question of who designed the designer--how did life originally originate? Is a philosophical naturalist now trapped? Again, no. The question of the design of the designer can be put off in several ways. It could be deflected by invoking unobserved entities: perhaps the original life is totally unlike ourselves, consisting of fluctuating electrical fields or gases; perhaps it does not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain it."(Darwin's Black Box, pg. 249) It's clear to any objective observer that Behe is anticipating the argument that a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity would also by necessity be irreducibly complex.

I'm merely cautioning you to be concise and not disruptive. You turn it around and point the finger back at me; the only one who's made a tu quoque argument here is you. FeloniousMonk 21:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Really? Who made the charge that someone was making many rebuttals? In any case, regarding Behe: it almost seems that you assume that Behe is anticipating your argument...why? (Remember, your argument is that "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning...") In context of the quote, we see that Behe was trying to show how a philosophical naturalist can accept intelligent design. He says nothing whatsoever of any argument against ID here. On what grounds do you believe that Behe is thinking of your argument? Particularly when the argument is never mentioned? And can you provide an authoritative citation to prove that your argument against ID is not original research? (Note: I do not want assumptions regarding what you believe a person is thinking, I want the person's actual words.) Wade A. Tisthammer 00:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast. The remaining problem is that the statement purports to be a summary of the ID position, when the ID author in question specifically addressed the issue by putting it out of scope for now. Within the ID camp, there is ambiguity, precisely where FM puts forward a decisive position, and that ambiguity needs to be communicated clearly.

By way of analogy, it's like separating discussion of (1) whether the big bang happened and (2) what was before the big bang. Most scientists agree the definitive answer to the latter question is up in the air now; but consensus doesn't deny the big bang just because it's a challenge to figure out where it all came from. The consensus issue among ID researchers is whether ID demonstrably exists, with the recognition that the nature of the designer(s) is a separate question -- one that must be considered, but is secondary to the first issue under investigation.Gandalf2000 19:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The statement "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." does not summarize any position within ID. The statement takes the reasoning used by ID, that complexity implies design, and extends it to ID's own conclusion.

Your analogy has no bearing on the issue before us. All that we're determining here is whether the passage is original research. Considering the logical consistency of any inference like ID is a natural place to start when considering its validity, regardless of whether ID proponents think it should be considered or not. The fact that they don't is not surprising, and has no bearing on whether it should be done (which it clearly is, since Behe deemed worthy of response). FeloniousMonk 20:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

God is magical. He can design complex things without being complex himself. He has magic powers. He is simple and eternal and magical. Argument over. Take the entire section out. --Ben 21:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious is correct. Due to the new wording, interpretation and explanation of the claim, the issue now is whether or not FeloniousMonk's argument is original research (you are not allowed to make an original argument against a theory you don't like in a Wikipedia entry about the subject). I have asked him repeatedly to cite authoritative sources, but he (so far) has refused. What do you think Gandalf2000? Should FeloniousMonk cite his sources before we can toss out the charge of original research? Wade A. Tisthammer 21:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is not logically obvious that "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex": for one example, a designer who arose out of an evolutionary process would by definition not be irreducibly complex.

Since the article's argument is clearly erroneous it ought to be quoted and the logically obvious error noted. ant 21:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Under these circumstances, FeloniousMonk should cite his sources as I have requested. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• The judgement as to whether something is valid or not is not your call to make. Views are attributed. Removing them because they don't fit into your narrow theological view is not on. It is not original research as it has been around in one form or another atleast since Russell and probably before. — Dunc|☺ 22:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, here is the ID rebuttal to it, so it shouldn't be hard to cite sources where ID opponents are making the argument. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147 --JPotter 22:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let's get it straight what argument we are discussing here. Particularly if we take out the uncited “fundamental assumption” ID supposedly has, FeloniousMonk's argument is "If irreducible complexity requires a designer, then this designer must also be irreducibly complex." If a charge of non sequitur is not my call to make, then it is not FeloniousMonk's call to make either. Remember, it is not my position to remove the argument because it doesn't fit my "narrow theological view" (I have no theological objections to the argument), it has to do with original research (not just the argument itself, but also the ID's "fundamental assumption" that the argument is based upon, which appears to be original research of the straw man kind). If FeloniousMonk's argument is not original research, would you care to cite some sources to demonstrate this? Perhaps at least regarding the "fundamental assumption" used to support the argument? Wade A. Tisthammer 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You're changing the argument again. You need to stop doing that and stick to the point. The only question is whether the passage "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." is original research and whether it is a declarative statement that needs no attribution, or whether it is a viewpoint that needs to be attributed.

My position has always been that the reasoning is not original research and that the passage is a declarative statement that needs no attribution. Tisthammer insists it's original research and has demanded a cite to prove it's not.

OK, Tisthammer, if I give evidence of the argument being raised elsewhere, thereby settling your WP:NOR objection, are you going to abide by your own term and drop the matter?

Last time we tried this you changed your terms after the fact, claiming you'd only accept evidence from pro-ID literature, so I'm a little reluctant to play your game. I'll provide a significant and credible cite per WP:NOR/WP:CITE, and I expect you then abide by WP:CON. Here's the argument being used by Dawkins and Coyne:

"If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot." --Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. 1 September 2005. The Guardian [11]

FeloniousMonk 22:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

How am I changing the argument? That I am asking you to cite your sources for your argument is hardly anything new here. Richard Dawkins is talking about the "who designed the designer" objection (note: I did not say that this objection was original research), but he is not referring to the argument we are talking about (the one regarding irreducible complexity and "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning...). So you still haven't cited a relevant source. And I am very interested on why you think your argument against ID is somehow immune to Wikipedia policy regarding citation. What do you mean by "declarative statement"? Is it that it is "simple logic"? It is not, as I have illustrated, in part because you have not cited your source regarding the "fundamental assumption" the argument is based upon. You said "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning..." well, let's see if ID really has this reasoning you attribute it. In other words, cite your source! Wade A. Tisthammer 23:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If you recall Felonious, the only reason I wanted a reference to a pro-ID source was in regards to what the ID position actually is. I find that when it comes to what the ID position actually is, hearsay is unacceptable here; and I've seen enough misconstruals of the opposition in debates like these to know that it's best to get it straight from the horse's mouth. Wade A. Tisthammer 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Like we didn't see this coming... The cite is relevant and credible per WP:RS. And it settles the issue of original research definitively. I have literally dozens of other similar cites, equally relevant, from a range of povs and individuals, including pro-ID. Are you going to dismiss out of hand each of those too?

Now you can choose to ignore this cite and continue to raise the issue with tendentious objections. But you do so at your own risk: You'll likely soon be judged a crank and disruptive malcontent and find that none of the responsible, long-term contributors here will consider any of your arguments. Or, you can graciously concede that the cite is sufficient to establish that the passage is not original research and we can move on to your next objection. And if that is beyond your ability, lastly, you just agree to disagree about the passage, drop it, and we can move on to your next objection. Which is it going to be Wade? You can't keep going on like this forever. FeloniousMonk 00:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The reference is not relevant because Dawkin's quote was about a different objection than what you brought forth. To reiterate, I am not talking about the "who designed the designer" objection (which I pointed out was not original research). I am talking about your argument; the one regarding irreducible complexity and "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning..." Let's recap your argument below:

• All ID proponents agree that complexity implies design, and that a certain type of complexity, what they call irreducible complexity, is incapable of arising naturally. In other words, irreducible complexity requires design. Using the same reasoning, any designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. Any designer that is not irreducibly complex contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object. This is a matter of simple logic.

Although there are some similarities, there are also some very crucial differences. Dawkins mentioned that the creator is itself complex. Perhaps so, but note that Dawkins didn't even mention irreducible complexity (a very specific type of complexity your argument focuses on), nor did he appeal to any ID reasoning regarding that, nor did he even appeal to the "fundamental assumption" you based your argument upon. Can you cite your source regarding your argument against irreducible complexity? Can you cite your source regarding this "fundamental assumption" you based your argument upon? Again, you said "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning..." well, let's see if ID really has this reasoning you attribute it. In other words, cite your source!

The idea of "simple logic" is naive, espescially in this case. Felonius might be interested to know that objections have been made to otherwise "obvious" principles, such as Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason, that in fact undermine certain types of natural theology. Professional logicians and analytic philosophers write dissertations on no less "simple" notions than what he is putting forth here as demonstrative and patently obvious. I have raised this objection before, that there is too much ad hoc philosophizing in this article that is beyond the competance of the editors, and this is just one more case in point. Wade's argument that this constitutes original research is a valid one. If Felonius can quote a competant, reasonably well-known critic of ID that has contributed this objection, then it certainly belongs in the critcism section, or even in the same spot with appropriate citations of Coyne, Dawkins, Sober, or whoever he can bring to bear. But are we now going to say that WP editors are competant to declare the difference between "obvious" logic and "non-obvious" logic? This is a dangerous precedent to set. Nothing in this debate is simple and obvious enough for declarations like this. Felonius' argument is a philosophical one, no matter how "obvious" it seems to him. It appears to me to definitely constitute original research. SanchoPanza 23:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The argument has already been attributed to Dawkins and Coyne in the article, so it's pretty much a dead issue for everyone except Wade and other ID proponents [12]. What determines which statements are obvious and which one's aren't is determined by consensus here, not any one individual, including me. Keep in mind WP:CON does not trump WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 00:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Then the question of the objection being "logically obvious" is and always was irrelevant. The only question is whether you've summarized Coyne's objection accurately. SanchoPanza 03:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

An argument has indeed been attributed to Dawkins and Coyne, the problem is that this argument is not the same one FeloniousMonk put forth (the one regarding irreducible complexity). BTW Felonious, please don't appeal to consensus in this section prematurely. And remember that consensus isn't grounds to violate Wikipedia policy regarding original research and citing sources. Wade A. Tisthammer 00:27, 19 November 2005

(UTC)

Richard Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher. --Ben 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

And Behe's not a philosopher. FeloniousMonk 00:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this the main issue: that the phrase "By Intelligent Design's own reasoning" is not backed up by any source or 'obviousness'?

For example, would we have consensus if it said "By ID opponents' own reasoning" ?ant 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It would perhaps be better, though methinks we'd still need a reference showing that a prominent ID opponent actually reasons this way, due to Wikipedia's ban on original research. Finding an opponent who puts forth the "who designed the designer" objection is easy enough, but FM's argument on irreducible complexity so far hasn't been seen. Wade A. Tisthammer 00:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has, despite your vigorous denials of the obvious. The passage is sufficiently cited. Dawkins and Coyne state: "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer." The article states " By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." The two statements are completely consistant, regardless of Wade's frantic arm-waving here. FeloniousMonk 00:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

They may be completely consistent, but one does not imply the other. I can easily agree with, "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer" without agreeing with your irreducible complexity argument (which seems to be based on a straw man). Wade A. Tisthammer 01:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

complex = irreducibly complex? ant 00:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there are many complex things that are not irreducibly complex (some evolutionists say the blood-cascade is not irreducibly complex, contrary to Behe's claims). Wade A. Tisthammer 01:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rhetorical - this issue can't perhaps get clearer than that ant 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

ID holds that complexity implies design, while "irreducibly complexity" requires design. The two terms are often used interchangably by ID critics because "irreducibly complex" is a ID-only neologism and generally not accepted as a valid distinction within science. FeloniousMonk 01:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, recall that even under ID complexity per se doesn't imply design (confer the snowflake example I gave earlier and my cited sources) but rather the kind of complexity dictates whether or not it is rational to make a design inference (e.g. if law/chance is known to produce it, then by Dembksi's own explanatory filter we would not make a design inference). Wade A. Tisthammer 02:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether that is or isn't the case is not relevant here. The only thing that is relevant is that critics of ID often use the term complexity interchangably with irreducible complexity. Stop trying to redirect the issue. FeloniousMonk 03:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is whether it can be cited or is patently obvious that by ID's own reasoning, the designer must be irreducibly complex. Certainly IC as opposed to complexity is a core concept of ID. Quote or prove please. ant 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Additional cites are now in the article that make the same claim and distinction. What Dawkins and Coyne are saying is clear; complexity as it is meant and used by ID proponents - irreducible complexity. Claims that Dawkins and Coyne mean some other form of complexity are trying to split hairs to deny the argument is ever made, something not many are going to buy here. FeloniousMonk 01:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There is all the difference in the world when dealing with the subleties of critical debate. Saying that by ID's own reasoning the designer must be irreducibly complex is criminally negligent since it a) leads to the infinite regress argument via the designer having to be designed, which implies the ID position is self-defined as absurd and b) it improperly narrows the ID statement about the designer; whereas in actual fact as per ID the complex designer need not be IC nor designed, but could have evolved, making rather the criticism of infinite regress absurd.

In fact it is a major key point of ID's that IC is not ordinary complexity. This is not hair-splitting at all. It's just being accurate and using common sense and fairness. An encyclopedia cannot afford to indulge in casual misuse of terms even if they are used casually by individuals. I don't see how you can justify calling it ID's own reasoning, especially in the light of its vital effect upon the argument.

I think a quote would have avoided all this shallow thinking. ant 02:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Criminally negligent..." Wow. OK. FeloniousMonk 02:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Criminally negligent" may have been too strong a term Felonious, but ant is right about not getting careless. Dawkins did imply that the designer is complex, but he didn't say the designer had to be irreducibly complex (a specific kind of complexity). Nor did he say that by intelligent design's own reasoning the designer would have to possess this specific kind of complexity, nor did he even use the "fundamental assumption" that you based your argument upon ("Any designer that is not irreducibly complex contradicts the fundamental assumption..."). There are some serious differences between your argument and what Dawkins claimed; calling it "hair-splitting" is not, I think, quite accurate or appropriate. Wade A. Tisthammer 03:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry! Thanks again for not reacting. The phrase has become a cliche, and I meant it only in the context of policy here and the trust the reader places in the author(s). Calling the issue hair-splitting and failing to give it proper attention after it has been highlighted as important betrays all that. ant 03:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The article is about Behe's beliefs, not Dawkins'. Dawkins, having no credentials in philosophy does not qualify as an authoritative source. I'd have no problem with you citing someone arguing this who has a PhD in philosophy. However, I doubt that you'll find any PhD philosopher claim that an uncaused causer argument is necessarily circular, and further doubt that you'll find anyone claiming that with respect to "Intelligent Design."--Ben 01:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Kant's antithesis to the fourth antinomy does take that seriously, even though granted he doesn't use the word "circular". --CSTAR 03:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the section is about a philosophical criticism of ID, "Who designed the designer?" so it's Behe, a bio-chemist, who is irrelevant if you want to be technical about it. FeloniousMonk 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no problem with having Dawkin's quote in there as representative of criticism. It is quite different to treat it as authoritative fact (as in "Thus, either attempt to patch the Intelligent Design hypothesis appears to either result in logical contradiction, or reduces it to a belief in religious creationism. Intelligent Design then ceases to be a falsifiable theory and loses its ability to claim to be a scientific theory.") --Ben 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If I'm missing your point in your above post, by all means, let me know. I'm not sure I understand it. ID has a philosophical position, it should be stated^†. Criticism of that position should be stated. Refutations should be stated--but only by an authoritative source. Dawkins is not an authoritative source, yet the section treats his criticism as an authoritative refutation. It is not authoritative. From what I know, I think an authoritative source would deem it a rather naive refutation. See uncaused causer.--Ben 02:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

^†Note, however, that ID's position is "Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer--it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry" but still adds "Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer." [13] --Ben 02:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I think you need to be aware of what this section is about. It is about the following argument put forth by FeloniousMonk:

• All ID proponents agree that complexity implies design, and that a certain type of complexity, what they call irreducible complexity, is incapable of arising naturally. In other words, irreducible complexity requires design. Using the same reasoning, any designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. Any designer that is not irreducibly complex contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object. This is a matter of simple logic.

My criticism is that this argument seems to be original research for two reasons. One, Felonious has continued to refuse providing an authoritatie citaion of a leading ID opponent making this argument. Two, this argument is based upon a "fundamental assumption" of ID, a fundamental assumption that I do not believe ID actually contains (and I provided citations to verify my claim). Thus, this "fundamental assumption" appears to be original research of the straw man kind. So far, Felonious has refused to cite sources regarding this assumption as well. Hence, I think this claim/argument against ID ("by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex") should not be present in this Wikipedia entry, as it would seem to violate Wikipedia policy regarding original research and citing sources. What do you think? Should FeloniousMonk's argument be removed from the Wikipedia entry on intelligent design?

I think the section has many many issues. The easiest thing to do would be to rewrite to everyone's satisfaction. I think going through sentence by sentence identifying the problems would be a waste of time. To me it's clear there are problems with it, but then some people don't see any problems. I figure if it is just wholly rewritten, but to everyone's satisfaction (NPOV-wise, etc.), then there won't be any problems. The old version, whether you agree or not that there's problems, won't matter anymore. Everyone at least agrees that this is a common criticism. I think we should try to rewrite it (it's so short that probably best would be to just write your own and then post it here and see what other people think). I'm going to give it a try myself. --Ben 06:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If we need a philosopher, (which IMHO we don't), what's wrong with Dennett? "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", I think its in Chapter seven. KillerChihuahua 22:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Great sentiment, but a little unrealistic re: everyone's satisfaction. Some people are not satisfied with ID being tied to Creationism. The article does reflect the links (origins) of these movements; while you may agree with me on that point... others do not. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Roy, Roy, section, not article. ant 11:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so trying to get back to the point of this section - we are discussion whether the statement By Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex is accurate or not. This is a common argument, and it is discussed in the Teleological argument article, as well as hundreds of other places - Googling the phrases "reductio ad absurdum" and "intelligent design" yields 723 hits. Sure, you've got lots of blogs and other low-value hits, but the idea that this is somehow an original assertion is absurd. Truth or falsehood is irrelevant - it isn't for us to exclude material based on truthfulness.

As for the "by its own reasoning..." bit - I don't follow the opposition here. The conclusion follows logically from the definition of ID. Simple enough. Sure Behe denies that is does. But he hasn't redefined ID to make it so. Guettarda 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so simple enough. For one, Felonious basis his argument on a "fundamental assumption" of ID. This "fundamental assumption" does not appear to exist (given my citations), and Felonious has continued to refuse to cite sources regarding this alleged fundamental assumption.

The "who designed the designer" objection is a common one and I'll grant you that. But the idea that ID contains arguments which argue the designer must itself be irreducibly complex does not appear to be a common argument. I have repeatedly asked Felonious for a citation of a leading ID opponent making this argument, and he has not done so. (If this argument is "common" enough for you to provide an authoritative citation, please do so.)

Incidentally, how does "the designer must be irreducibly complex" logically follow from "life was artificially created" (the definition of ID)? It sounds a bit non sequitur. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted my objections here because unbeknownst to me the text in the article has changed since we started this issue. This, if nothing else, should at least mean that you need to acknowledge that Wade correctly identified an issue. ant 11:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ref. #1:

I see that you have a citation for "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning", but the source states that irreducible complexity indicates intelligence, not the opher way around that intelligence must be irreducibly complex. That's no use. Unless you can find an ID citation that shows such reasoning, better leave it out and let the critics' citations speak for the argument.

Better yet, the critics' argument is so incorrect on the ID position, I think it should be left out, as it is misleading. Or alternatively we should explain that the argument confuses complexity (which ID says can evolve, ie may cause intelligence), with irreducible complexity (which ID claims cannot arise except by design). This is patently obvious, but not apparent in the text.

Furthermore, because the argument is erroneous, we need to keep citing it ("they say") rather than presenting the statements as authoritative themselves. ant 12:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ref. #2: ant 17:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, you are confusing the ID reasoning with its critics' misunderstanding of its position in this 'who designed the designer' argument.

To anyone who doesn't understand this, here's an invitation:

But first, one has no basis to critique this section issue without this understanding of ID's position: that complexity does not imply a designer, only irreducible complexity does. This is basic to ID!

Now I invite you to follow through an example:

An alien evolution occurs. After reaching some very advanced stage they periodically seed our planet with various organisms they have manufactured in experimentation. The aliens themselves have a complex state without irreducable complexity as a result of their evolutionary history, but the organisms have both irreducible and specific complexity as a result of the manufacturing and design process. Who designed the designer? No-one. Does this contradict ID's tenet that irreducible complexity implies a designer? No, because the designer in this case is not irreducibly complex.

What does this mean? See points under Ref. #1 just above. ant 17:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade's conduct here & how to procede with his objections

Wade's back to misrepresenting what the actual issue causing his stubborn hold up here is once again. I have provided an citation of the "Who designed the designer leading to infinite regression" argument being made by Dawkins. In fact, I've provided two additional ones in the article .

But Wade's carried his specious objections to surreal absurd lengths because he refuses to accept any evidence as support, as per his usual MO. Wade's objections run the gamut of they're not talking about the same thing to they're not proper or significant ID critics. Wade conveniently leaves out the fact that his Behe quote supports the article's content more than it does his objection, much less his over-reaching claim that it "proves the argument demonstrably false, etc."

To placate Wade's apparently endless objections and arm waving, we've added 3 supporting references and attributed the statement "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." to it's critics in the article. These were exactly what Wade requested to settle his objections.

Yet Wade is still unsatisfied and continues his objections. Considering our recent concessions, Wade taking up 2 days and more than a half page over one sentence controversial only to militant ID proponents, his increasingly obvious tendentious and specious objections, and his established MO of rejecting any supporting evidence and never conceding he may be mistaken, I'm inclined to think that Ben is wasting our time here and I apologize to those responsible, long-term contributors who've weighed in on Wade's first and only point we've addressed. If this is how Wade intends to behave here moving forward, I see little benefit or point in addressing his remaining objections. FeloniousMonk 04:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, you are the one who is misrepresenting the issue. The issue, if you recall, was the argument "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." I am not, repeat, not saying that the "who designed the designer" objection is original research, I am saying that your argument appears to be original research (see below where I detail the argument I am referring to). Violating Wikipedia policy regarding no original research and citing your sources is not a "specious" objection. I have told you what evidence I would accept: an authoritative citation of a leading ID opponent who uses your argument. Why do you continue to ignore this?

You said the sentence is "controversial only to militant ID proponents". Well, I could say that the only people who think the sentence should be included are "militant ID opponents", particularly in light of the failure to adhere to Wikipedia policy regarding original research and citing your sources. But calling people "militant" isn't going to get us anywhere. A better strategy would be to cite a leading ID opponent who uses your argument and cite an authoritative source to demonstrate that the ID assumption you base your argument on actually exists.

Regarding your argument, "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" None of the sources you cited were relevant, because none of them even mentioned your argument. Dawkins quote is not relevant for reasons I stated above (reasons you have yet to address). The next citation, like Dawkins, does not even mention irreducible complexity, nor the designer requiring to be irreducibly complex. I asked a citation of a prominent ID opponent making the argument. The last citation quoted an anonymous comment on a web article. I'm not sure this is acceptable. Even then, the person who posted this comment did not say that by intelligent design's own arguments the designer would have to possess irreducible complexity. So you still have yet to cite your sources show that your particular argument is not original research. Wade A. Tisthammer 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point I've lost track at what Wade's latest objection is. This is a waste of time (of mine at least), particularly since identifying where the discussion is taking place on the page real estate is becoming extremely difficult.--CSTAR 04:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Wade, perhaps you could take your debate offsite as I have already suggested. Any points which I have seen that you have raised (and I may have missed some in the verbose essay like posts you've been posting lately) have been settled and resettled and on ad nauseum. KillerChihuahua 22:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the objection I've been bringing up. It is about the following argument put forth by FeloniousMonk:

• All ID proponents agree that complexity implies design, and that a certain type of complexity, what they call irreducible complexity, is incapable of arising naturally. In other words, irreducible complexity requires design. Using the same reasoning, any designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. Any designer that is not irreducibly complex contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object. This is a matter of simple logic.

The above is a great example of more ad hoc philosophizing by Felonius. "Simple" or not, it is not within WP's purview to make logical deductions, merely to report. Wade's objection still stands. SanchoPanza 20:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My criticism is that this argument seems to be original research for two reasons. One, Felonious has continued to refuse providing an authoritative citaion of a leading ID opponent making this argument. Two, this argument is based upon a "fundamental assumption" of ID, a fundamental assumption that I do not believe ID actually contains (and I provided citations to verify my claim). Thus, this "fundamental assumption" appears to be original research of the straw man kind. So far, Felonious has refused to cite sources regarding this assumption as well. Hence, I think this claim/argument against ID ("by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex") should not be present in this Wikipedia entry, as it would seem to violate Wikipedia policy regarding original research and citing sources. Wade A. Tisthammer 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seriously? Wade has asserted they aren't significant critics? At first glance that may seem like a minor thing; but to me its a solid reason, if true, (and well supported by the filibustering we've experienced) that Wade is not operating in good faith. If this continues a beeline to the ArbCom might be required. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not say they aren't significant critics. I said the quotes of the critics were not relevant because they did not address the issue at hand. None of the quotes of the critics claimed that "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." Wade A. Tisthammer 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, these do not seem to be good faith objections - he does not seem to be the least bit moved by evidence. Guettarda 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Asking Felonious to cite sources for his argument isn't a good faith objection? Why not? Wade A. Tisthammer 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Until I receive rational answers to Ref. #1 above backing Wade's objection (see also Ref. #2 which explains things more simply), and in the light of the bullying tactic of ignoring progressive points and repeating accusations against Wade rather than answering his eminently clear requests, perhaps we need to cancel this fruitless time-consuming exercise and seek arbitration? ant 17:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I suspect you're right. This has gone on longer than I (or perhaps anyone else) suspected, and my requests for citing sources relevant to FeloniousMonk’s argument have been denied. I think we should seek arbitration. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because you, Wade and a few other one-topic contributors (who I see have contributed very little else to the Wikipedia project) don't find evidence compelling does not mean you the right to endlessly tie up or drag into arbitration the article's other contributors who do. That is not how Wikipedia works.

You and Wade have become disruptive by ignoring evidence and consensus, and he has previously been warned. Wade's had two days for this one point, and he's no closer to being satisfied now than when we started despite our best efforts to accommodate him. The archives contain other examples of Wade wasting the time of others similarly with his notions (which I've pointed out before appear based on his original research, available on the web).

Now you may want consider actually contributing to some other articles on some other topics and at least make an effort to respect the project's goals and policies before rushing off to arbitration. But that's just my opinion: you do as you see fit. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Your objection might be valid Felonious if you had any relevant evidence to offer. I asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent who made the same argument you did. You did not provide it (though you did provide many citations, all of which did not mention your argument nor the "fundamental assumption" you base your argument on). How can I ignore evidence that doesn't exist? Are you yourself the disruptive one by distorting my claims and refusing to cite your sources despite your many rebuttals and attacks on my requests?

Additionally, please do not be premature in attributing consensus on your position here. Ant seems to agree with me, as does SanchoPanza. You need to cite your sources to show that your argument is not original research. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Wade A. Tisthammer objections. The sources have been cited. The assertion that there are no ID opponents who make this argument is willful ignorance. --JPotter 18:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That's news to me. Can you please provide me with a citation of a leading ID opponent who claims that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning? (Note: I think you may be confused. I am not claiming that the “who designed the designer” objection hasn’t been cited, I’m talking about the one regarding irreducible complexity.) Wade A. Tisthammer 19:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It's the same thing. ID's reasoning is that complexity indicates a designer. ID opponents argue that a designer of such complexity must also be complex and thus, by ID's reasoning, require a designer. Seems simple enough. --JPotter 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Wade A. Tisthammer objections per Jason Potter, above. This article is the best cited on WP, or darn close. Your objection that "ID" doesn't make a certain claim phrased a certain way does not hold water. If John Doe says "I hated my wife. She infuriated me! That's why I killed her" and an expert in whatever field related to murder states "John Doe murdered his wife in anger" then putting it that way in an article about the murder is perfectly acceptable. Not the best analogy, but hopefully you get the idea. A direct, word for word quote is uneccessary and absurd. We'd end up with a copyvio mess. KillerChihuahua 23:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think this argument is the best cited or darn close to it, please provide a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes the claim, "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex". You cannot just claim or vote this citation into existence; you have to actually provide it. So please do so. None of the citations Felonious provided claimed that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own arguments. I am not claiming that the argument must be present word for a word; a paraphrase would be sufficient. As such, many of Felonious citations do not even mention irreducible complexity, nor do they claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. If you have such a citation, please provide it. But please don't claim it exists without giving up the goods. Wade A. Tisthammer 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite so simple for a number of reasons. It's true that many ID opponents have claimed that the designer must itself be complex. And if FeloniousMonk had "Critics argue that the designer must itself be complex" I would have no objection, for clearly there are citations to support this. But FeloniousMonk has presented a different argument.

First, let's note that "complexity requires a designer" is an oversimplification of the ID position. Under ID, whether or not complexity indicates a designer depends on the kind of complexity we're talking about (for instance, complex specified information indicates design, but complex information doesn't). Second, Felonious appeals to a very specific type of complexity, irreducible complexity, and FeloniousMonk claims that the designer must have this specific type of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. Despite my requests, Felonious has not provided me with a citation of a leading ID opponent who claims that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Additionally, the last part of this argument/claim ("by intelligent design's own reasoning") is based upon a "fundamental assumption" of ID that does not appear to exist. I asked Felonious to cite his sources (in accordance to Wikipedia policy) to verify that this assumption does indeed exist in ID, but he has refused to do so. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources is not Wikipedia policy. It is a guideline. What is a policy is that one have a reference. Felonius has provided a reference. You have rejected it as a reference for very petty reasons having to do with specificity of the citation. This is unacceptable as wikipedia is not meant to be simply a repository for quotes. If you cannot see how the references provided support the sentence, perhaps you should tell us what the references do say. Joshuaschroeder 22:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the citation never mentions FeloniousMonk's argument is a petty reason? Let's recap FeloniousMonk's claim. FM claims that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Notice that, despite my requests, FM has failed to provide a reference for the latter part (by intelligent design's own reasoning), since he basis his argument upon a "fundamental assumption" of ID that apparently does not exist.

What do the references say? Well, let's take a look at the Dawkins and Coyne quote:

"If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot." --Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

What does this quote say? It suggests that the designer must be complex, and that the designer requires an explanation. Again, if FM had said, "Critics argue that a complex designer requires an explanation" I would have no objection. But this quote does not say that the designer must be irreducibly complex (a very specific type of complexity) nor does it say that the designer must possess this type of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. This quote is not an instance of a prominent ID opponent making FeloniousMonk's argument. In fact, none of the citations Felonious provided contain his argument (i.e. the claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning). Felonious has provided references, but unfortunately none of those references mention his argument, and none of those references confirm the existence of the alleged ID assumption that he basis his argument on. Wade A. Tisthammer 00:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Please do not add comments to anything below this line until the previous issue is settled by consensus

---

2. That the passage "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object." is inaccurate and original research. He offers [14] and [15] as evidence.

Comments/responses:

3. That the passage "a different sort of life might exist in its place." is inaccurate and not supported by pro-ID literature. He cites page 372 of Mere Creation and offers [16] as evidence.

Comments/responses:

4. That the article does not sufficiently define the Dembksi's theory "Complex Specified Information."

Comments/responses:

5. That the article wrongly states Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" theory is false. He offers [17] as evidence.

Comments/responses:

6. That the article wrongly states "Dembski does not attempt to demonstrate this [that CSI actually exists in nature]". He offers [18] as evidence.

Comments/responses:

7. That whether Ludwig von Bertalanffy came up with or used the term "irreducible complexity" in a relevant manner is unclear and not supported by a citation.

Comments/responses:

8. That the passage "Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not recount the history of his irreducible complexity argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new" is inaccurate. He cites page 212 of Behe's Darwin’s Black Box as evidence.

Comments/responses:

9. That in the Irreducible complexity criticisms section, in the passage "of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales.", that the clotting casade/factor should be stated and cited.

Comments/responses:

10. That in the Irreducible complexity criticisms section, the cited supporting document [19] for the criticism of Behe's "irreducibly complex clotting cascade" may not sufficiently rebut Behe's claims.

Tisthammerw's suggestions 1. That under "Irreducible complexity" Behe's position should be described thus: "Irreducibly complex refers to a system composed of various interconnecting parts that contribute to some basic function, whereby the removal of any of these components causes the system to stop functioning. Behe claims that, for irreducibly complex biochemical systems that are highly intricate, this poses a serious obstacle for Darwinian evolution, since the system cannot evolve via a direct route (i.e. by continual improving the initial function, since all parts are needed for that to occur). Behe admits the possibility of an indirect route, but claims that for biochemical systems that possess a high degree of complex interaction this is unlikely (pp. 39-40 of Darwin's Black Box). Nonetheless, most scientists disagree with Behe's claim that indirect routes are unlikely."

Comments/responses:

---

Issue with "by ID's own reasoning, designer must be IC"

To FM only: Please bear with me. Prior formats of discussion have't gotten us far. I'd like to try this one, it may be quicker. I ask you to answer these questions instead of ignoring them or fending them off on some excuse. You're welcome to interleave your answers in this case.

1. Is it ID's position that 'complexity' and 'irreducible complexity' are equivalent terms? Yes or No.

2. If Yes to 1, can you provide a reference? Yes or No.

3. If No to 1, is it logically obvious by ID's reasoning that the designer must be not just complex but irreducibly complex? Yes or No.

4. If Yes to 3, is it logically obvious that an evolved designer is impossible, which by ID definition could not be irreducibly complex? Yes or No. (If Yes, please spell out the reason for the obvious impossibility, simply.)

5. If No to 3, is it stated by ID proponents that by ID's reasoning the designer must be not just complex but irreducibly complex? Yes or No.

6. If Yes to 5, can you provide a quote to that effect (mentioning irreducible)? Yes or No.

7. If No to 5, why you do provide an ID proponent's reference at the phrase 'by ID's own reasoning'? and

8. If No to 5, is it stated by critics that by ID's reasoning the designer must be irreducibly complex? Yes or No.

9. If Yes to 8, can you provide a quote to that effect (mentioning irreducible)? Yes or No.

10. If No to 8, do you stand by the article's use of 'irreducible' on the basis you have already mentioned, that to the critics there is no difference between 'complex' and 'irreducibly complex'? Yes or No.

11. If Yes to 10, can you provide a reason to put the word 'irreducible' in their mouths when it is not there in the source and it elaborates nothing of their opinion, while adding a meaning to their opinion which was not meant?

12. If No to 10, can you provide any reference justifying the addition of the word 'irreducible' to the critics' opinion? ant 23:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. Before anyone says this is petty, if it was, the word irreducible could be removed no problem, with apologies to Wade. ant 23:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This has been adequately explained before above. Unfortunately both you and Wade have shown yourselves to either understand this issue so poorly that you do not get that the passage is accurate and well supported or you both are so motivated by personal POV to remove or alter the passage that you are completely resistant to any evidence. There's general agreement on that and that Wade conducted himself in bad faith in the first chance we gave him to discuss this. There's also consensus between the credible, established, long-term editors here that the passage is accurate and well-supported. Those who disagree have largely contributed to Wikipedia nothing other than tendentious objections here over this, which supports the contention that they, you and Wade and a few others, are only here to push a particular POV.

For this reason and others, you raising the issue again in this manner is disruptive and indicates continued bad faith attempts to resurrect the issue, so I'm not willing to waste my time and that of others over this anymore. Furthermore, by directing your questions to me only, trying to make this my issue and my content, indicates how little you've come to understand the project and it's spirit in your very short time here.

This matter is settled. Among the credible, responsible editors here, those respectful of the project's aims, we have a broad consensus that the passage is accurate and properly supported. Wade and you need to abide by WP:CON and stop being disruptive here. I suggest to you both edit some other articles on unrelated topics and contribute to the project a while to reestablish your credibility with the community before raising issues here again. FeloniousMonk 02:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, by constantly arguing for your position while failing to cite your sources (despite repeated requests) to show that your argument is not original research you have become disruptive and perhaps even guilty of bad faith (given your accusations against me). Furthermore, note that consensus does not trump Wikipedia policies like citing sources and original research; you cannot "vote" a citation into existence. You have to actually provide it. Despite repeated requests, you have failed to give any example of a leading ID opponent who claims that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. If you have come up with a citation since then, feel free to provide it. Otherwise this argument of yours appears to be original research, and inclusion of this argument in the article violates Wikipedia policy. Wade A. Tisthammer 00:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: you did not answer many of the questions ant asked (particularly #8 and #9, quite similar to what I've been bringing up), either in this section or the previous one. Why do you refuse to do so? Why do you choose to ignore the issue and in spite of this claim victory? Wade A. Tisthammer 00:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)