Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Only ID adherents fit to judge acceptability of this presentation of ID. 2 Believe/Assert 3 ID Proponent 4 Pseudoscience 5 FeloniousMonk, why did you answer my post then clear it without charging me with any breaking of debate decorum? 6 Dealing with Raspor's continued objections 7 Continuing discussions moved 8 Public opinion on ID 9 Another section moved to subpage 10 varthold, 31 December 2006 11 Reduntant repetitiveness 12 Bias / Censorship is justified under certain circumstances! 13 My view 13.1 Strategy 13.2 Unfairness Here 13.3 What bias and misrepresentation 14 Intelligent Design Mathematics 15 closed minds 16 closed minds 17 raspor's vandalism 18 false accusations 19 Inaccuracies and misrepresentaions 20 read the guidelines:: 21 Lies, damned lies and statistics (or polls) 22 Sources as to who is behind ID 23 Included section on why supernatural should not be part of science 23.1 This is getting theological 24 NPOV = "it suffices to present views in a way that is acceptable to their adherents" 25 which state was it that was considering ID or creation science and backed down 26 No ID proponent collaborated on this article. 27 Raspor claims this is unbiased 27.1 From Raspor's talk page 27.2 Encyclopedia entry on ID 28 User conduct RFC: Raspor 28.1 Encyclopedia entry on ID 29 Raspor's first draft proposed article lead 30 Fill, Felon moved my response to my page 31 i dont know who wrote this, but i like it 32 Dealing with Raspor's continued objections 33 Continuing discussions moved 34 Another section moved to subpage 35 varthold, 31 December 2006 35.1 Unfairness Here 35.2 What bias and misrepresentation 36 closed minds 37 raspor's vandalism 38 false accusations 39 Inaccuracies and misrepresentaions 40 read the guidelines:: 41 NPOV = "it suffices to present views in a way that is acceptable to their adherents" 42 No ID proponent collaborated on this article. 43 Raspor claims this is unbiased 43.1 From Raspor's talk page 44 How is removing Meyer's comments or presentation supposed to make it better? 45 then change the name of the article 46 proposed change 47 Fill can you help me 48 interesting comment on reality:::: 49 Frustrated 50 Does Wikipedia:What is a troll describe the behaviour demonstrated above? 51 raspor's distraction 52 God would not be considerd an 'intelligent designer'? 53 potter has a point 54 proposed change to start paragraph 55 proposed change to start paragraph 56 better definition of ID. clearly seperates it from creationism 57 another proposed change 58 wikiwow what gives you the right and authority to move my proposed changes to this article 59 Doesn't this warrant a ban? 60 plethora of intermediary whale fossils 61 Where can IDs side be explained 62 wiki has failed here 63 DI quote 64 Bias / Censorship is justified under certain circumstances! 65 ID IS science... 66 Now we are getting somewhere 67 why dont you people write on your own talk pages? 68 personal attack are unnecesary and against wiki policy. why do you feel you have the right to move my comments?? 69 i have proposed a change to the wording of the article 70 Lead suggestion 71 why is most everyone who is pro-ID blocked or banned?

[edit] Only ID adherents fit to judge acceptability of this presentation of ID.

Critics can write all they want about ID in this article as long as they preface it with an indication that it is a critic's perspective and not the proponent's perspective. However, in the main article section that purports to accurately represent the view there is a different standard for the content... I assume that all agree on this point (this is the 3rd time I have referenced it, so far without response), but I would like to make sure we are at the same table here. Will all of you affirm this policy? Once we can all agree on this we can move forward:

Wikipedia's NPOV policy states,

To write from a neutral point of view...it generally suffices to present^A competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable^B to their adherents^C.

This policy as applied to the ID article:

In the section presenting^A ID, only ID adherents^C are fit to judge the presentation's^A acceptability^B.

adlac 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Only Democrats can write about Democrats. Republicans about Republicans. Oh wait a minute, only physicians can write about medical issues. And only computer engineers can write about computers. Dog owners can only write about the breed of dog they own. I wonder that I, as a Jew, can only write about the holocaust. Well, since I'm alive and an SS officer probably burned my uncle's personal belongings which means I cannot prove that he was actually killed by that officer, I might be excluded from writing about the holocaust. If my sarcasm isn't completely off-base, your form of censorship has no place on Wikipedia. However, you can go to the Creation Wiki [[1]] where you can join your fellow Creationists--we promise not to edit your comments therein. Orangemarlin 04:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why attack me? I am quoting from Wikipedia policy. What do you think the Wiki policy quote means?

Adlac 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As a creationist, i agree with orangemarilin for critics need to be noted in this article. To not do so, however, is not objective in the least but a lenient dislike between ID is noticeable in this article. Though, i believe they wouldn't feel the same about creationists and/or Iders editing their evolution page because it's a strong fact. --Macguysoft 07:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand all you said here. I agree that critics should write criticisms of a viewpoint as long as it is marked as such. I agree that critics can write the content presentation portion as long as adherents have full control of editing that content for bias as the policy states. We are here to clearly represent a viewpoint (ID) not misrepresent it, right?

Adlac 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the NPOV policy statement is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one; thus the "generally suffices" terminology. However, your conclusion incorrectly restates the policy as necessary. -- Cat Whisperer 04:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I take the word "suffices" to mean: (it is enough / it is a minimum requirement) to make the presentation of content acceptable to adherents. Thanks for helping me clairify.

Adlac 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been trying to decipher coded messages a while here on the talk page recently. I think many people might be a little tired. Rather than we try and guess and respond to whatever conclusion you're wanting us to come to based on the limited evidence and the unclear "question" (I assume you are asking a question) you have presented, how about just saying what's on your mind in human terms and we can go from there? Something like "I think X and here's why...What do you folks think about it?" would be a great way to start. Mr Christopher 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr Christopher - I'd be happy to repeat this specific example (that I had put forward recently and also prior) for your comment. BTW thanks for quick reply:This article states,

[ID] Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs.

First, if the DI is to speak for ID supporters, they do not say that they are fighting for "religious neutrality".

Second, they do not push for schools to "require" the teaching of ID, rather they are actively discouraging that stance.

Third, they do not state that their "creationist beliefs" are being discriminated against.

This is a misrepresentation of ID supporter’s views that has been reinterpreted through the lense of a detractor's own POV.

Adlac 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The current definition is word for word the Discovery Institute's definition of ID. JPotter 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The DI does not "speak for ID proponents"; ID is wholly a product of the DI. Read intelligent design movement and the neutral sources discussing the genesis of the DI/ID provided there.
2. That's not exactly accurate: The DI has indeed pushed for schools to "require" the teaching of ID; only recently have they abandoned that stance in favor of Teach the Controversy using their Critical Analysis of Evolution curiculum, which has been shown to push ID textbooks. Read the sources provided at the above articles and again intelligent design movement.
3. "'they do not state that their "creationist beliefs" are being discriminated against." No they say their "scientific beliefs" are being discriminated against; and only because portraying their movement as a scientific one while denying that it has religious goal (stated in the wedge document) is part of their campaign. We already have the Dover trial ruling laying bare their religious motive and goal, so it's a little late to be pretending the cat is still in the bag with that claim. You're on the wrong page; the DI has moved on to the next stage of their campaign: Attacking the credibility of Judge Jones.

No, you're objections and reasoning here are wholly one-sided, rendering your claim that the article violates NPOV is baseless. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not talking about the first sentence of a ten page exposition. It takes more than a single quote to describe ID. Besides any statement that is not marked as the perspective of critics should undergo the scrutiny of Adherents according to the Wiki policy not just that one quote. Thank you for weighing in though.

Adlac 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a ^Bpres^Cent^A for me? It must be a belated Xmas present I guess. Oh and I guess only scientists should be able to write about science? So since intelligent design purports to be a science, but isn't then can I exclude intelligent design supporters from editing the intelligent design article? And us scientists will be glad to write it for them. Thanks. Sounds like a great idea.--Filll 05:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL :) Do you have any reaction to the Wiki policy quote?

Adlac 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Believe/Assert

Regarding the change by Macguysoft (talk • contribs) from "assert" to "believe" - assert is more accurate than believe, since it's impossible to determine what people actually believe. That someone asserts something is verifiable, what they believe is not. When a moderately intelligent person with training in science says that "intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life", it's rather far-fetched to think that they actually believe something which is so demonstrably false. They might believe that it's a good thing to assert this, since it achieves some greater goal, but it's difficult to see how they would believe that. Replacing "assert" with "believe" reduces the verifiability and factual accuracy of the statement (and is thus a bad thing). Guettarda 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thought it was better for them to "believe" because it's pseudoscience right? Though i get your point and sorry for this obvious bluff. I hadn't intended to offend anyone by making this change. By the way, i made a similar change in the created kinds concerning the evolutionist's remarks because it seemed to imply that it was a fact. Of course, this may be the case for most evolutionist but perhaps you could correct anything. Thanks :D--Macguysoft 07:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"I generally always assume good faith, but there is no policy that states I or others must be suckers. I am not attacking him but I am on to him." by christopher!

wow!!

Definition of disruptive editing and editors This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:No original research: fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators. In addition, such editors may:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

and Felonious says I am a disruptive editor! I have never edited.

I have read thru the archives and there are 2 groups here obviously the IDers and anti-IDers.

I WANT COMPROMISE! Felonious seem to always get his way. He wouldnt let psych even a little edit.

now ID was around before DI. this article is too dependent on DI.

why cannot the bashing be pushed down.

oh never mind just let it be a biased article. what do i care. why do i bother. any one with half a brain can see it has an agenda. it just builds the case for the DI. it shows that the evolutionists are trying to stomp out opposing views. i wouldnt even be here if the article was fair. i saw read flag right away.

seems like someone feels they own this article. like the big baby. who owns the bats and balls and gloves so you can have 5 strikes each inning.

but when you have won the game everyone in the stands know that it was fixed.

like i said i just stumbled into all of this. i thought wiki was a real encyclopedia. i used it often. most of the article are excellent. and that i saw this one and thought 'what the f'

it REEKS of BIAS. it reminds me of the animal house movie: cough:fixed, cough:fixed.

the emperor has no clothes. the elephant in the living room.

the bias is so obvious it is laffable.

i am sorry in my opinion this article makes a joke out of wiki.

i give up

raspor 13:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second there, Raspor. The reason I "let Felonious get away with it" was that he could point to policy which supports his position in a convincing way. As I told you repeatedly, you need to read policy. All Wikipedia editors must abide by policy and, frankly, if that is too onerous for you then, yes, you quitting is a good idea.-Psychohistorian 13:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

read it. i read it. it is up to interpretation. jeez he wanted to ban me cuz i was a bad editor and i never edited.

look you guys have fun

this is a playland

raspor 13:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are not an editor, raspor, then what are you? -- Ec5618 13:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

""" Definition of disruptive editing and editors This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:No original research: fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators. In addition, such editors may:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

and Felonious says I am a disruptive editor! I have never edited.

"""

felonious said i was a disruptive editor. i have never edited this article. read the def of disrup editor.

i am a commentor at this point and i am constantly requesting comments as is the approved method.

look i know psych tried. he showed good faith. this article need COMPROMISE.

frankly, my dear, i dont give a damn

the only way i will continue in this article is with a lot of support. look thru my comments. i made a suggestion for a change and was called a troll. now i am called a disruptive editor.

READ THE DESCRIPTION. DID I DO ANY OF THAT??

this is just a way to discredit me in unfair way

this is stupid

look take your bats and balls and gloves and have fun

raspor 14:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Raspor, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies" is not a matter of interpretation. It is spelled out very clearly. The notable controversies with ID need to be described in the introduction. One of the big notable controversies is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not consider ID as science. I am still showing good faith, but I must insist that you abide by policy. If you intend to abide by policy, then stay. The article can use editors on "the other side" to provide balance. If you intend to not abide by policy, then stop saying that you are going to leave and leave already.-Psychohistorian 14:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

was i a disruptive editor?

raspor 14:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC) f

Raspor, I called you "abrasive" and told you why I thought you were abrasive. FM called you a "disruptive editor". Its up to him to tell you why. But I'm tired of having the discussion page be hijacked. You two need to work that out in your user pages. The discussion page here needs to focus on writing a better article, not on editors.-Psychohistorian 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

so you are unable to read the description of 'disruptive editor' and apply to my 'editing'?

then how in the world would you be able to interpret the 'lead text' rule??

was i a disruptive editor?

raspor 14:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am unwilling (that's unwilling, not unable) to get into a personal dispute between two other editors. Because it is a personal dispute, you two need to discuss it in your user pages. Now, I will be ignoring any further comments from you here in this discussion page unless you intend to abide by policy (which includes restricting this discussion page's focus to "how to write a better article").-Psychohistorian 14:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

""The discussion page here needs to focus on writing a better article, not on editors.""

then why do you keep posting those types of comments about me here? just stop

you are the ones that keep posting criticisms of me here.

like i said i want COMPROMISE

this is all silly

raspor 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies"

exactly: a controvery. that would mean explaining both sides issues with equal weight. not just having one side bash the other without a chance for rebuttle.

did it say' although many people think ID is a creation of the ID others believe that it is a viable concept that has been around a long time and is independent of the DI'

did it say' although most scientists believe it is unscientific there is a small amount who feel it has merit and the public in general accepts it.

did it?

raspor 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good, now you are focusing on the article. It states in the first paragraph, "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life." and only in the second paragraph does it discuss the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers it to not be science. Personally, I feel that that's biased towards the DI. Others disagree. In any event, your question, "although most scientists believe it is unscientific there is a small amount who feel it has merit and the public in general accepts it" is mute because it effectively does do exactly that. As for your question, "did it say' although many people think ID is a creation of the DI others believe that it is a viable concept that has been around a long time and is independent of the DI'" doesn't even make sense - it conflates several different points into some kind of muddled mess (those points are 1.) "did the DI create ID?" the article doesn't say anything about that 2.) "are all the leading proponents of ID affiliated with the DI" - there are sources provided which say "yes", you've been repeatedly asked to provide sources to the contrary and have failed to do so and 3.)"Has ID been around for a long time?" - the article discusses the history of the concept and the term).-Psychohistorian 14:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

look i have always been focussing on the article. its other people that should put their comments to me on my user page and not gunk this area up.

ok, if you look thru the archives there have been numerious examples of non-DI proponents. but so what. if is changed Felonious will revert it

i still think it is not balance. again it is a CONTROVERSY. how is the other side represented in the first paragraph. it's a bash of ID right off the top. you dont see that. where are the quotes for the ID side. Behe has said some very astute stuff. where is that.

yes i wish people would keep their nasty comments about me off this page. i agree with you there

raspor 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As I already told you, neutrality does not take a back seat to verifiability. In other words, if you don't think its balanced, find a reliable source to provide a balancing perspective. As for examples of proponents who are not members of the DI, the only example I remember you presenting as a "leading proponent who is not a member of the DI" is someone who, in fact, is quite hostile towards ID. "I agree with you there" - I am tired of you misrepresenting my position to garner support for your "innocent victim" routine. I told you that I'm staying out of that dispute.-Psychohistorian 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, as someone who is a strong proponent of evolution, that I do not understand WHY ID has not spread beyond DI. Is it because it is being driven mainly through the money funneled through the DI?--Filll 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID Proponent

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524442,00.html

"" Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID), a theory being promoted by the religious right in America.

Until now the government has not approved the teaching of the controversial theory, which contradicts Darwinian evolutionary theory, the basis of modern biology.

Adonis said in a parliamentary answer: “Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.”

He announced that the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is to hold discussions with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the assessment regulator, and said local advisory councils would decide whether particular schools should teach the theory. ""

OK now tell me why Adonis is not a leading proponent of ID

raspor 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So, you are arguing that someone can be a proponent of ID even when they say that it should be in religiuos education and do not assert that it is scientific?-Psychohistorian 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

he said 'can be' OK here is another

Richard Buggs, a member of Truth in Science, an organization in the U.K. which supports teaching intelligent design in schools, recently published an editorial in the Liverpool Daily Post. Truth In Science reports that the headline above the original editorial originally read: “Should religion be part of science teaching? YES: Dr Richard Buggs is on the Scientific Panel of Truth in Science.” Yet Truth in Science does not advocate putting religion into science teaching, and in fact the question which Dr. Buggs was asked to answer by the newspaper was actually “Should Intelligent Design be taught in school science lessons?”

It should be obvious that Buggs, a botanist with a special interest in the ecology and evolution of plants, firmly does not believe intelligent design is religion, as he writes, “Because intelligent design is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, it is firmly in the realm of science. That's where it should be taught.” Thankfully, the Liverpool Daily Post has done a good job of correcting their mistake, as they fixed the heading so that it now reads more accurately: "Should Intelligent Design be part of science teaching?" If only more newspapers in both the United Kingdom and United States would correct non-neutral characterizations of this debate

OK shoot this one down.

raspor 17:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See Andrew Adonis. AvB ÷ talk 17:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Better yet read the archives! We've already discussed this issue to death. Guettarda 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Andrew Adonis nor Dr. Buggs are leading ID proponents. For what constitutes a leading ID proponent Guettarda is right, please see the many previous discussions in the archives. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both sides -are- expressed. As FM says, what the public has to say about it is irrelevant to whether it is science.-Psychohistorian 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

People editing this article would do well to recognize intelligent design is pseudoscience by mainstream science. That is not a point to argue, it's a point to stress. We're not talking about comparing democrats and republicans. We're talking about pseudoscience. With that in mind a wise contributor here would make themselves very familiar with WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Mr Christopher 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

what is 'pseudoscience' should be determined by the qualities of the theory not what people think

at one time mainstream science thought the world was flat

""Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.""

what statistical measures have been applied to the theory that humans came from reptiles?

raspor 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This "controversy" is just a fake controversy, driven by donor dollars.--Filll 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

and how much money really goes to this fake controversy vs the money that supports darwinism

raspor 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution makes useful predictions so it merits the money spent on it. It does useful things and provides a return on the investment. This is something ID cannot claim.--Filll 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How does knowing we came from reptiles do anything useful?

It is interesting just as studying the planets is. But where is the practicality? raspor 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how does is this discussion going to improve the article? These pages are provided for discussions on specific improvements to the articles, not for debating the relative merits of ID; this sort of activity is why these are now taking place on a subpage. Please read and abide by WP:TALK and WP:NOT. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FeloniousMonk, why did you answer my post then clear it without charging me with any breaking of debate decorum?

I see that you object to Raspor's debating methods. I agree with you that he needs to bring specific facts to the table and not just complain in generalities. Mr. Christopher, you have been very civil to me and others you disagree with. I am sure you did not agree that FM should have deep sixed my posts along with Raspor's. FeloniousMonk, my points stand and we will have a civil debate about them unless you forfeit (no offence). I don't know why you don't want an open debate. Surely you are not here just to have discussions with people who agree with you.

The former Post highlights:

Critics can write all they want about ID in this article as long as they preface it with an indication that it is a critic's perspective and not the proponent's perspective. However, in the main article section that purports to accurately represent the view there is a different standard for the content... I assume that all agree on this point (this is the 3rd time I have referenced it, so far without response), but I would like to make sure we are at the same table here. Will all of you affirm this policy? Once we can all agree on this we can move forward: Wikipedia's NPOV policy states, To write from a neutral point of view...it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents. This policy as applied to the ID article: In the section presenting ID, only ID adherents are fit to judge the presentation's acceptability. adlac 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr Christopher - I'd be happy to repeat this specific example (that I had put forward recently and also prior) for your comment. BTW thanks for quick reply:This article states, [ID] Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. First, if the DI is to speak for ID supporters, they do not say that they are fighting for "religious neutrality". Second, they do not push for schools to "require" the teaching of ID, rather they are actively discouraging that stance. Third, they do not state that their "creationist beliefs" are being discriminated against. This is a misrepresentation of ID supporter’s views that has been reinterpreted through the lense of a detractor's own POV. Adlac 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The DI does not "speak for ID proponents"; ID is wholly a product of the DI. Read intelligent design movement and the neutral sources discussing the genesis of the DI/ID provided there. That's not exactly accurate: The DI has indeed pushed for schools to "require" the teaching of ID; only recently have they abandoned that stance in favor of Teach the Controversy using their Critical Analysis of Evolution curiculum, which has been shown to push ID textbooks. Read the sources provided at the above articles and again intelligent design movement. "'they do not state that their "creationist beliefs" are being discriminated against." No they say their "scientific beliefs" are being discriminated against; and only because portraying their movement as a scientific one while denying that it has religious goal (stated in the wedge document) is part of their campaign. We already have the Dover trial ruling laying bare their religious motive and goal, so it's a little late to be pretending the cat is still in the bag with that claim. You're on the wrong page; the DI has moved on to the next stage of their campaign: Attacking the credibility of Judge Jones. No, you're objections and reasoning here are wholly one-sided, rendering your claim that the article violates NPOV is baseless. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, some quick responses:

1. I am a proponent of ID, and the DI speaks for me (I don't get your point). You did not object to the substance of my claim - you agree then? 2. You have no source for the idea that they made up this policy recently because it is false. Do you know how long the DI has been in existence, as if way back they pushed mandating ID and more recently they've changed policy. 3. You admit that IDers wouldn't say this. I guess that is two agreements out of three then? It is irrelevant whether you think this ID claim is true or not because your POV is not the issue here. BTW they are not trying to smuggle religion into the classroom - which religion would that be? I quote the DI,

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish.

Finally, why are you trying to tell me (an ID adherer) what my views are? FeloniousMonk, let me explain my point one more time. You have never addressed this point though I have made it already twice. If I say that you, FeloniousMonk are a flat earther would you object? Of course, because only you are qualified to be the final judge of your own view, I am not. In the same way I am a proponent of ID so you are not the final judge of what I and my fellow IDers hold. See? We can clairify OUR views but you cannot modify what we say we believe because this is a presentation of our views. If you could cite a specific place where leaders of ID were saying the opposite of what I am saying then I would need to admit that adherers do have that view. But until that happens then we will be free to clairify our own views and will not need your interpretation (no offence) of our views. Of course if someone wants to change the laws of fairness and Explicit Wiki Policy, BTW, then say so and we can all have fun making up characatures of what each other believes. Does anyone out there get this? A person doesn't have to agree with my views on origins to agree with this simple, self-evident point.Adlac 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I see where your confusion is coming from. Look up Emic and etic. I think it will give you a better framework in which to describe your issue. I think you are saying that only the emic perspecitve is able to describe a social group. Am I right? Because, if I am, I can tell you that you are wrong. Social scientists have long said that a complete view requires both perspectives.-Psychohistorian 21:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil response. I am familier with the terms emic and etic, as my graduate degree is in intercultural studies. I agree, Anthropology is great stuff. By all means please take a stab at intrepreting the policy in the light of this point. You can give us your rendition so to speak - I already gave mine. The Wiki Policy: "To write from a neutral point of view...it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents."Adlac 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Adlac, this is a pseudoscience subject and the DI and their affiliates would never support this article portraying intelligent design as pseudoscience. In fact we have specific policies regarding article about pseudoscience. There is no way in heck we could write anything that their adherents would support without making a mockery of Wikipedia. Rest assured they will NEVER find this article or any related ones "more or less" acceptable. So you continue to promote this one line from a NPOV policy but you're leaving out the most vital piece of all. Intelligent design is pseudoscience, a fact that their proponents and affiliates deny. Please step back and see the whole picture and not the tiny frayed edge of one corner. And also keep in mind, as it has already been pointed out, the definition used in the article is the DI's and the DI's positions are well documented in this article. Mr Christopher 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ad, i think felony is going to put you in time out. he doesnt think you should post here.

actually our private quarters is quite nice. there has been some good discussion here. felony wants to own this area. let the baby have his way. come visit your private room. its actually very nice

raspor 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that we have a policy against personal attacks and name calling: WP:NPA In addition to disruption you'll find that the community has very little patience for petty name calling, personal attacks, and misrepresentations of events and you'd be wise to avoid them and focus on finding ways to contribute positively if you intend stay and participate. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me more about that. I have been personally attacked many times. What are the sanctions? What is the procedure. I feel that you are stifling this article for your own reasons. I dont think you are helping here and you are disruptive. Many people think so. So what is the procedure to stop you from you behavior?

raspor 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page for discussing changes to the article. If you whinge pathetic really transparent petty arguments, which have been whinged about pathetically before, don't be surprised if you get ignored. If you want to debate with someone take it to talk.origins. Humps 17:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

well my whole motivation is too change the biased article and the oppostion is using the many unfair tactics here to divert me from my intentions. and i object to it. if that bothers you cry on some else's shoulder not mine. and please, please ignore me. you have nothing to add.

raspor 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
• NPOV: Undue weight
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

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

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

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time. |- |Notes to editors:

1. This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
2. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
3. Please use edit summaries.

|} {{GA}} {{facfailed}} {{oldpeerreview}} {{WikiProject intelligent design}}

[edit] Dealing with Raspor's continued objections

Since at least the 27th Raspor has been repeatedly raising the same set of objections here, all of which have been previously dealt with in the past and all of which favor an implicitly pro-ID viewpoint to the exclusion of the majority's viewpoint.

As pointed out by a number of long term contributors above his objections and proposals fly in the face of both our core policy, WP:NPOV, and substantial credible evidence which stands in contrary to his claims and interpretation of events. Raspor continues raising the same objections and proposals in pursuit of certain points for an extended time despite opposition from almost all credible long term editors. He has refused to abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, failing to cite sources, citing unencyclopedic sources, misrepresenting reliable sources, and insisting on evidence that is strictly partisan and original research. Lastly he has resisted requests for moderation and continues to argue in pursuit of the same certain points despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators.

Considering his participation here has been marked by all three points defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, tendentious, fails to acknowledge policy, and rejects community input, in the interest of freeing up the talk page for other discussions I'm asking Raspor to moderate his participation here and not continue to dominate this page with endless and fruitless objections. His talk page is a more appropriate venue for the laundry list of personal gripes unacquainted with policy that we have seen.

I move that any additional incessant and fruitless discussions that become disruptive be userfied or moved to a subpage here in order to allow other, more fruitful discussions to take place. FeloniousMonk 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement Mr Christopher 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing discussions moved

Per comments above the ongoing fruitless discussions have been moved to this subpage: Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections. This was done in order to clear the way for more productive discussion here. Any further discussions on these lines need to be made there; those left here will be moved to the subpage moving forward. FeloniousMonk 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

youre the boss!

raspor 17:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

well i would like mr. felonious to explain who i did 'disruptive editing' and show the incident. i believe he is in error and is using that to stifle and commentary which is not in his complete acceptance. this it not the wiki way

raspor 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The only people that were being stifled were those that tried to discuss anything other than your objections and proposals. Take a look at the sections above. There you will see that over the period of four days you started at least 5 long sections (not to mention the one I moved and the discussions on other topics that you hijacked) that only resulted in a number of regular, established contributors (prior to me) explaining how WP policy and guideline have shaped the article's content. All of which you've rejected or ignored as evidenced in your continuing objections. In so doing you've wasted a lot of the time, effort and patience of the established contributors here and met all three requirements defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: tendentious, fails to acknowledge policy, and rejects community input. And this is just on the talk page; the only thing that has prevented this from spreading to the article is that it is protected. So, in fact you're not stifled, discussion can continue on the subpage, Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections, and other more productive discussions will be free to take place here. And keep in mind your identical activity at Talk:Evoltion is no more acceptable than it is here. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

wrong! i never edited this article so could hardly be guilty of 'disruptive editing' jeez read it!

and your activity is no more acceptable now than it has been in the past

raspor 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior is not only limited to actions when editing articles, but can include actions on talk pages as well. I should know, I helped write that guideline. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Many editors do nothing productive but cruise around on the talk pages to try to engage editors in unproductive arguments. I have plenty of battle scars from these engagements.--Filll 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public opinion on ID

FM moved info on US public opinion out of the intro although - so far - at least two other editors seem to think it belongs there. The reason (given in the edit summary): "move out of the intro. Intro structure is 1) what ID is, 2) what ID proponents claim it is, 3) how the scientific community receives it, 4) what the courts say"

I do not think that explains the need for FM's edit and propose that the information be returned to the lead (and, if necessary, improved). Please discuss. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed structure of the intro is:

1. what ID is
2. what ID proponents claim it is
3. how the public receives it
4. how the scientific community receives it
5. what the courts say

AvB ÷ talk 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current introduction/lead. The public is not near as important as what the ID proponents claim and the evaluation of the scientists. The court opinions are based on these two, but a useful summary, balance and review of these facts. The public opinion is difficult to gauge and more complicated. As to what it is, it is a rewarned piece of pseudoscience which is scarcely different from the Paley argument presented 200 years ago.--Filll 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro is long enough already and the result of long standing consensus and compromise. ID proponents very pointedly claim that ID is a scientific theory. How the public receives it (based on polls which are open to interpretation) is neither relevant nor necessary to understanding whether it is an actual theory or not, but how the scientific community receives it is. So how the public receives it is not necessary for the intro, and why I moved it down further in the article where is it more relevant. FeloniousMonk 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If ID is science, Wikipedia has to deal with it as science and scholarly sources are what we need to report on, with possibly some info regarding lay opinion. However, if it is religion, and it is, according to me (and, coincidentally, mainstream science and US law), Wikipedia has to deal with it as religion, with some info regarding scientific evidence. The poll results are a relevant example illustrating the established fact that an incredible number of Americans have fallen for ID. These polls are not quoted here in order to say anything about the question whether or not ID is an "actual [scientific] theory". AvB ÷ talk 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I agree with FM's moving that piece of content to where he did (and I find "it's that way because that's the way it's always been" to be the weakest argument on Wikipedia), your proposed format is even worse. Its bad enough that both sides of whether ID is science are in two different paragraphs, but now you want to seperate them even further?-Psychohistorian 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not particularly wedded to a format. I just think that Raspor, between voluminously verbose opinion, has flagged up a minor problem with the article which can be solved by adding the few words I proposed. Also, this is not about whether or not ID is science but about its broad acceptance in the USA. AvB ÷ talk 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the change you proposed is that it introduces a non sequitur into the intro, muddling the issue. There is no shortage of sources from both sides of the fence I can provide showing that ID proponents primary thrust has been to present ID as a scientific theory (exclusively), and one superior to evolution. The only relevant viewpoint in relation to their primary claim then would be the scientific community's; how widely ID is received by the public has absolutely no bearing on the validity of ID proponents claims (though they would no doubt argue differently since they're reduced to the 'grasping at straws' stage since ID has found no traction within academia). FeloniousMonk 03:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You say: "non sequitur". That's a fact, not a reason to revert my edit. (A "non sequitur" is something that does not follow from what has been mentioned before - this applies to some 99.9% of all info in Wikipedia intros - not a reason to remove). You say: "muddling the issue" but you do not say how mentioning information regarding slightly under 50% of all Americans muddles the issue. You say that only scientific information is relevant since ID claims to be scientific - yet you do not consider the complementary view that only religious information is relevant since science claims ID to be religious, or acknowledge the fact that the article body addresses both views. Finally, once again, this is not about the validity of ID proponents claims - just about the acceptance in the US. Hiding this from our readers is, I think, not very encyclopedic. AvB ÷ talk 03:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

thats why it is a *** controversy *** both sides should be expressed in a controversy. if there was one side it wouldnt be a *** controversy ***

raspor 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both sides -are- expressed. As FM says, what the public has to say about it is irrelevant to whether it is science.-Psychohistorian 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what I said to give you the idea that this is about whether or not ID is science. This is about the encyclopedic fact that ID has broad acceptance amongst the (inevitably lay) public in the US. AvB ÷ talk 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

People editing this article would do well to recognize intelligent design is pseudoscience by mainstream science. That is not a point to argue, it's a point to stress. We're not talking about comparing democrats and republicans. We're talking about pseudoscience. With that in mind a wise contributor here would make themselves very familiar with WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Mr Christopher 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Undue Weight has important exceptions, notably this one: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper." This is the article on Intelligent Design. Even if we were talking about a tiny minority view, we should give it as much attention as we can give it in this article. Let alone where it is a significant minority, in this case almost a majority in the US. AvB ÷ talk 03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No one clause of WP:NPOV trumps the others. WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience tell us unambiguously how articles on pseudoscience are to be covered: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." That's exactly what this article does, and it done in this way as a very conscious choice in light of the policy. As a topic, and one that is widely considered pseudoscience, ID gets more than its due weight in this article; if anything, it is given undue weight. FeloniousMonk 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The majority view is described in articles such as Evolution. This is the article on a minority view (which is not exactly a small minority either). And it is not as if I am about to rewrite the article. Thisd is just about informing our readers of the FACT that an enormous number of US citizens like ID. Finally, you say: "No one clause of WP:NPOV trumps the others" - this is not a matter of contradictory clauses. Info on minority views (especially on views held by many millions of people), pseudoscience or not, "should not obfuscate the description of the main views" - but they can and should be detailed in articles dedicated to them. (Off to bed: it's already morning here. Happy New Year to you and All!! AvB ÷ talk 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You won't find the scientific community's response to ID at Evolution, and again, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience says "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Also, this article does not go into the arguments for evolution, hence my point about ID getting more than a fair shake here. Bear in mind that WP:NPOV describes the "the neutral point of view" as "a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." And you'll find the article does just this: It presents a definition of what ID is, followed what ID proponents claim it is and how the scientific community receives it, and what the courts say about it. FeloniousMonk 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the article; since I find it, for the most part, satisfactory, I am not trying to make major changes. I think the following summarizes my view: "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." - you may recognize it - we should tell our readers who believe what, and I think 100,000,000+ Americans believing in ID is pretty basic encyclopedic info belonging in the lead, however preposterous the rest of the world may think their beliefs may be. AvB ÷ talk 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No is arguing that the level of public acceptance of ID has no place in the article, just not the intro. Also, any polls will need to be vetted for any notable controversies over their methods and results prior to numbers being presented. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get the figure of 100,000,000 Americans believing in ID? Believing in what, anyway? ID is more than just belief in creation, it's a narrow view of creation which constrains God to the role of a tinkerer, but also makes him intentionally responsible for evil. Many people are sympathetic to the general ideas of Paley, but not the specific ideas of modern DI-ID. Guettarda 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a rough estimate of the upper figure of the ranges found in numerous ID claims (the source I quoted gave 46% if I remember correctly). FWIW, I've already agreed with edits by FM and Kenosis, polishing the resulting para a bit in the process. I was not particularly interested in a specific figure, just in giving a sourced estimate of the number of adherents/proponents/believers/whatever one wants to call it. I still think that para should be in the lead but I'm the only one so the current version is supported by consensus. AvB ÷ talk 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

psych i have an response for you in my private quarters

raspor 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This "controversy" is just a fake controversy, driven by donor dollars.--Filll 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a response in my private quarters

raspor 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should we hide the fact that some 50-100 million Americans have fallen for ID? AvB ÷ talk 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think one should hide it. However, this does not mean it needs to be in the lead either. The lead is already pretty larded up with detail.--Filll 03:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not mention that Avb here is taking the poll's numbers at face value; a number of polls that purport to show a huge ground swelling of support for ID have been shown to be biased, skewed to favor ID and ID proponents have an interest in and a history of making inflated claims (as the Dover trial showed). I'm not saying that is the case with this poll, I haven't reviewed it, but it has happened before and for that reason we need to be circumspect here about is presented as fact in the article. FeloniousMonk 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking any polls at face value, nor am I saying the numbers are on the rise. In fact I am quoting a source explicitly explaining the problems with such polls. And I am quite sure you are NOT questioning my actual edit, the one whose location in the article you are disputing: "Although the concept has substantially influenced public opinion in the USA, it has little support in other parts of the world.Polling for ID" AvB ÷ talk 04:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Zogby poll. [2] Yes, that was one of those shown to be skewed, as your source (Chris Mooney) describes. If numbers are to be given or characterized, a more up to date poll may be available. Let me see what I can find. You are correct, I thought your prose was fine. FeloniousMonk 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2005 Harris poll is a reasonably decent source. According to it, "10 percent [of U.S. adults] subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design)." [3] FeloniousMonk 04:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage in further expanding the lead, especially since this is a relatively minor and hopelessly fuzzy point. Guettarda 21:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another section moved to subpage

To here: Talk:Intelligent_design/Raspor's_and_adlac's_objections#FeloniousMonk.2C_why_did_you_answer_my_post_then_clear_it_without_charging_me_with_any_breaking_of_debate_decorum.3F FeloniousMonk 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] varthold, 31 December 2006

In the secular world, the beginning of wisdom is the phrase "I don't know." Nobody knows how we got here. The constant references to ID being "unscientific" in this article are bizarre, at the very least. In order for a thing to be scientific, it must have two characteristics: it must be observable, and it must be repeatable in an experimental setting. Nothing else is "scientific." So, while ID fails in this regard, so does evolution. Indeed, when anyone points out that evolution is not observable, the usual response is to simply throw a few more million years into the equation, making it ever more unobservable.

Secondly, Michael Crichton has writeen a series of speeches (available at his web site) starkly illustrating the silliness of predicating science on an ethos-based argument. In other words, the early assertions in the article concerning the beliefs of a "majority" of scientists is patently absurd. For example, a majority of people didn't agree with the polemic version of the solar system, but that did not make it invalid. The invocation of a majority opinion argument dramatically shows both the intellectual vacuousness of the evolution crowd, as well as their desperation.

If there is a sincere desire to improve the article, remove all references to who, and how many, approve or disapprove of the concept, and roll it out for what it is. If you insist on tagging it as "unscientific," then have the intellectual honesty to say the same for evolution, for that is the truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.210.215.86 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing so would violate our core policy, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which describes the "the neutral point of view" as "a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." FeloniousMonk 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Take it to the judge. .. dave souza, talk 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They already have: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. They lost. FeloniousMonk 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The chant about ID being a science and evolution not being a science is incessant. It does not seem to matter how many times this is explained. It never seems to stop. And the ID advocates never seem to get it. It does not matter how many times they lose in court, or what the judge says when they lose (like ID is "breathtaking inanity"). This is ludicrous. ID is in no way shape or form comparable to evolution. I guess I will have to make sure I make this very clear in the other articles I am writing. But I have to say, in summary, this is a ridiculous argument. Evolution has been observed over and over. It makes predictions that can be verified...dozens and dozens in my list so far. ID has not. ID is a rewarmed theory from 200 years ago that has been shown to be false over and over and over. In test after test. So this is just pure nonsense.--Filll 22:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"

show me how the above has been test and shown to be true.

raspor 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not understanding what science is. You do not prove anything in science. You do not show anything to be "true" in science. All you have is data, and an explanation which fits the data. Period. No truth. No proof. And so on. Evolution is a theory that fits the data. Is that hard to understand?--Filll 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

we dont have to predict anything? pulleeze.

"All you have is data, and an explanation which fits the data. Period."

well ID can do that.

you cant be serious.

raspor 23:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It cannot. You need a supernatural being at the basis of ID, and you cannot prove his existence. Your sarcasm, persistence and rudeness are not going far in making your points. Orangemarlin 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to ask you: How do your comments here relate to improving the article? You seem to be using this page to discuss the relative merits of ID, not improving the article. If you want to discuss ID, please go to one of the many online fora dedicated to that. Please read WP:NOT and WP:TALK. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That is how you fit the explanation to the data. You use the theory/explanation to make predictions. Then you compare the predictions to the data. And if the predictions are close to the data, then you have a good fit. If not, you have a poor fit.

This is the basics in science. Of course there are other requirements, like no supernatural causes, falsifiability, repeatability, verifiability, publication, peer-review, error analyses, controls, statistics, etc. But the basic idea is you have data, and an explanation that fits them. The rest is just ancillary.

How does ID fail?

• The predictions ID makes fail over and over
• A supernatural cause in most forms
• No falsifiability; true by definition
• no publication in peer-reviewed publications

And so on and so forth. ID is not science. And the courts agree with me. And most scientists agree with me. And the dictionaries and encyclopedias agree with me. And most scientific societies agree with me. You think all these people and organizations are fooled or lying or evil or satanists ? Pullleeeeze...I wasnt born yesterday. So...ID is pseudoscience, not science. Sorry.--Filll 23:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the first to respond to this post but my contribution was deleted. Another 2 posts I made were moved to a subpage without explanation. Is this standard practice for the Darwinists on here?Adlac 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reduntant repetitiveness

I wonder how many times these discussions have been repeated. I've looked through the Talk:evolution archives and the same discussions were repeated 20 or 30 times with the same resolution. Honestly, the repetitiveness here is the exact same and it comes down to one point. Evolution as a fact is science, verifiable and repeatable. ID is based on religious faith that is accepted by few people who are very passionate. Religious faith cannot be proven, so therefore is POV, pseudoscience and religion. To repeat the argument 400 times, subtly changing the words, is not going to change anyone's mind. Wikipedia does not espouse any religion, just encyclopedic fact that is verifiable. Orangemarlin 23:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias / Censorship is justified under certain circumstances!

We must insist that, under the circumstances, bias and censorship are a necessary feature of the ID article. Justification: ID = Pseudoscience. Is this what is said here? You be the judge...

"...this is a pseudoscience subject and the DI and their affiliates would never support this article portraying intelligent design as pseudoscience. In fact we have specific policies regarding article about pseudoscience. There is no way in heck we could write anything that their adherents would support without making a mockery of Wikipedia. Rest assured they will NEVER find this article or any related ones "more or less" acceptable. So you continue to promote this one line from a NPOV policy but you're leaving out the most vital piece of all. Intelligent design is pseudoscience, a fact that their proponents and affiliates deny. Please step back and see the whole picture and not the tiny frayed edge of one corner. And also keep in mind, as it has already been pointed out, the definition used in the article is the DI's and the DI's positions are well documented in this article." Mr Christopher 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

...will the "pseudoscience" justification save Mr Christopher? Feel free to weigh in on his points here. Happy New Year everyone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adlac (talk • contribs).

"Save" is a rather interesting word choice. Save in what way? The world awaits your definition of save.

What is the bias of which you write, that ID is labled as pseudoscience? Were it not that ID is pseudoscience, you might have a point. What has ID to offer to scientific discussion? Nothing. It offers "tuths" predicated on the acceptance of supernatural beliefs, yet surely you must know that mere belief does not a truth make. Oh sure, ID tries to cloak its belief in a shroud of scientific sounding drivel, but so did alchemy, so does astrology. Of course, the early manifestation of both had a scientific value in the end as they gae rise to legitimate sciences: chemistry and astronomy. There is no such future for ID. It is merely another attemp in the long line of Christian apologetics attempting to show itself in a philosophical/scientific light. Alas, that great minds such as Aquinas, Pascal and Newton could not do so hardly bodes well for the far lesser minds of the Dembskis and Behes of the movement.

Finally, what is the censorship of which you write? Can you provide concrete examples? Are you saddened that this article does not mirror the ravings found on the webpages of the Discovery Institute? Do tell. •Jim62sch• 13:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment under such an idiotic titled header. I'm not playing your game, adlac. Mr Christopher 16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wise decisionOrangemarlin 16:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My view

What the discovery institute has done, with an infusion of money, is revive William Paley's arguments from 2 centuries ago with slightly more modern language. These arguments can be even more solidly rejected now than they were 200 years ago. Science's accomplishments are far greater than they were 200 years ago, and the definition of science is more precise, at least among scientists. The public still has very little understanding of what science is, so the expenditure of large sums of money by the DI and the publicity with having a high profile court case or two has confused the issue. In the public's mind, DI might as well have won the Dover court case. Most of them probably do not know that DI lost in court, they only know they have heard of ID now. Most of the public do not know what science is; just look at how many believe in alien abduction and telekinesis and ghosts and various conspiracy theories (JFK, 9/11) or whatever. So in some ways, the stink DI has made has served the purpose intended; it has given this issue a very high profile in the public's mind. This, coupled with an almost complete lack of understanding of what evolution is in the public's mind, has created a dangerous situation. After all, what politician or decision make could object to the very reasonable sounding "Teach both sides and let people decide for themselves" or "Teach the controversy", or "Mainstream science is unfairly supressing us". It would take very little for the fundamentalists to gain the upper hand on some future supreme court, or in some future congress. Just look at the anti-Michael J. Fox advertisements in the last congressional election. I suspect these ads would have been far more successful if Rush Limbaugh had not stuck his foot in his mouth and made such ludicrous statements. --Filll 13:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy

As successful as the Discovery Institute's strategy was with the public, it is really caught in a difficult position legally and scientifically etc. To raise money and get support from churches, they must someplace make a connection to God or the divine or theology. If they do not, they will not get any money. However, they have to keep this agenda "secret" to have any chance in the US court system, or in the scientific establishment. Of course, this means that a huge volume of fairly extremist religious types will be exposed to the secret real motivation behind their books, lobbying, strategies, research, etc. And some will proudly brag about it, as religious people like to do, to the filthy heathens and infidels. For example, take a look at this story about the Biologic institute: [4] --Filll 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfairness Here

I am new and feel treated unfairly. It seems to me that many here the article is the way we want it and we are not going to change it. Any arguement one brings up they retort with 'we have been over that 100 times and you are wrong' I see little good faith in a lot of editors. It seems fixed.

I have tried to present my case and been told that I am a troll, stupid, ignorant, rude, etc. Most attempts to state a POV that is slightly pro-ID is attacked unreasonably. My comments are moved.

The some of the anti-IDers will not listen to reason. Presenting logic and data to them is futile.

But I still the minority view should be represented. It is useless talking to most anti-IDers because the have closed their minds to new ideas.

I would like to invite any pro-IDers to work with me and make this a fair article. Is there anywhere to go for help against bullies here. Those who want to suppress alternate views.

raspor 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Insults will not get you very far here. You adopt most of the standard creationist tactics. You want to debate, but you will not answer any question you do not like. YOu just dodge and weave, and bring up the same old tired issues over and over, blindly and brainlessly. You could be a bot, by all appearances. It gets tiresome after a while, you know?--Filll 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? You didn't sign your posts. Orangemarlin 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What bias and misrepresentation

Felony has state in the article that 10% surveyed believe in ID. Yet he says that belief that God created life is ID. He biasedly forgot to add that 64% belive humans were creaed by God.

And the title of the article is 2/3 of US believe humans were created by God. If you ought there do not think that is bias you need a course in logic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 January 2007.

Glad to see that you fully accept that ID is creationism rebranded as science. As the article shows. However your biases clearly have nothing helpful to contribute to this article, so kindly desist from trolling. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Try to read more carefully. Of course creationism is ID but ID is not creationism. Creationism is a subset of ID.

So I cannot crticise an obviously biased quote? Quit attacking me personally.

raspor 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to revise something, put the before and after text here and let people discuss it.--Filll 17:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

raspor's problem is using a definition that differs from that used by the rest of the world. Like other IDers, the aim is to redefine logic. Wikipedia is not here to give undue weight to such odd perceptions. .. dave souza, talk 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. ID is creationism, but creationism is more than ID. As creationist ideas go, it is neither intellectually stimulating nor artistically beautiful. It's a narrow argument which is, according to Johnson, based on a lack of faith and imagination (since he said that he could not believe in God if the Bible weren't literally true, hence his need to make God conform to Johnson's need for "proof"). Equating belief in intelligent design with belief in God is an insult to most believers. Guettarda 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

dave you called me a troll and there is a guideline here about trolls: dont feed them. if you do not want to go by the guidelines here you should not post. so please try to follow the rules

raspor 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design Mathematics

Evolution = atheism
Evolution= religion
ID=science
Creationism=science
evolution=Big Bang+cosmochemistry+Hertzsprung-Russell Stellar theory+abiogenesis+biological evolution+speciation
scientists=atheists
ID>creationism
Christians=biblical literalists
Catholics != Christians
scientists!= Christians
Religion=Christianity
Religious Creation accounts=Genesis

And so on and so forth.--Filll 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you posting this on here? You're not proving anything, it's only your own opinions; and we both know it's not for the sake of the article itself, only to offend or provoke someone. Please keep this kind of nonsense away from Wikipedia. --Wikiwøw 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] closed minds

adlac,

email me. would like to talk to you. the darwinists here are not following wiki guidelines and are not posting in good faith. continually attempted to inform closed minds will not work.

raspor 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

moved advice on capitalization to my user page. it had nothing to do with improving and article

raspor 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And precisely what comments have you heretofore made with an eye toward improving the article? None that I can see. Rather your vituperative spleen-venting serves as nothing more than a disruption of what is intended to be an intelligent discussion about an article that is among the best on Wikipedia.

Your above charge regarding good faith is as risable as your comment regarding saving Mr Christopher. •Jim62sch• 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] closed minds

adlac,

email me. would like to talk to you. the darwinists here are not following wiki guidelines and are not posting in good faith. continually attempted to inform closed minds will not work.

raspor 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, I'm sure we will talk at some point. Thanks for your support. Right now I am still hoping that the opposition will have a straight discussion with me about how we can agree on the Wiki policy that views must be presented as acceptable to proponents by involving mediation. Saying that since the ID article is "pseudoscience" we don't deserve to judge how our own view is represented doesn't sound right to me. I have also experienced two cases of moving my threads without explanation when I want to discuss the issues with the main contributers and one case of wholesale deletion of my posts. I still hold out hope that somehow or another they will come to the table. I'm not here to have a fun chat in a subforum; I am here to make this presentation of ID reflect the actual stated beliefs of it's adherents. I'm not going to surrender to bias but see to the proper representation of our views as defined by us the actual view holders (according to Wiki policy). Why don't you guys e-mail me and maybe you'll find out I'm not such a bad guy after all.--Adlac 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As you'll have noted, policies particularly relevant to changes to this article are linked from a box at the top of this page. The actual stated beliefs of ID's adherents have to be properly shown by verifiable evidence without giving undue weight to minority or non-notable positions. What you call "the proper representation of our views as defined by us the actual view holders" sounds awfully like original research which you'll appreciate is against policy. ,,, dave souza, talk 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave, on the Encyclopedia page on ID you can't believe that giving "undo weight" to ID applies do you? That rule is clearly talking about general topics such as "Life Origins" where the competing theories should be given weight according to their current prominence. Are you saying we should minimise an explanation of ID on its own page because it is a minority view? Next, "Verifiable evidence" is talking about sourcing edits not about scientific verification!!! Hello, how are you going to get scientific verification of every view represented on Wikipedia. Most views that you or anyone else holds are not based on scientific laboratory findings. Enough of these red herrings.Adlac 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight might not be the most relevant piece of policy, but it is relevant. Verifiability means we cannot state what people believe without a source. Please don't dismiss policy. -- Ec5618 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't dismiss the policy, I embrace the policy. But as you said it is irrelevant!Adlac 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

would it be OK to say God or aliens designed the first living entity equiped with the DNA code and then evolution took over from there?

raspor 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you say God, it is not science. But sure you can say that. As I have tried to get you to understand, evolution has nothing to say about where life first came from, and a whole bunch of other stuff that fundamentalists want to claim is part of evolution. --Filll 20:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

you were the one that stated that evolution did not conflict with the believe in God. i didnt bring it up you did

raspor 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

These word games are pointless, stupid and boring. Read the articles please and dont keep posting nonsense.--Filll 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should try to read more carefully. Yes I agree the games you are playing are pointless, stupid and boring. You bring God up then say we should not.

raspor 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

God is not part of evolution. Period. Do you get it? God might have created the rules by which evolution operates (theistic evolution) or the laws by which the universe operates (scientific law) or have created the first life form on earth (abiogenesis). Evolution is silent about ALL of that. However, any theory that includes God is not science, by definition.--Filll 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] raspor's vandalism

raspor is now deleting properly cited and appropriate information in the article. The question is how do we deal with this new development now that he is vandalising the article and not just wasting the other editors time here on the talk page. Mr Christopher 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

it was biasedly quoted

raspor 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record I just put the three revert rule link on raspor's talk page with the warning that his continued vandalism may result in banning from this article. Mr Christopher 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

you have accused me of vandalism. please justify your frivilous accusation. and you are not being truthful about 'banishment' is this your technique to bully and threaten newcomers?

very unkind

raspor 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On your latest vandalism, the percentage of americans who believe in god is not relevant to this article, raspor. The article is about intelligent design and not how many americans believe in god. Mr Christopher 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to stay neutral in this. I have suggested that Raspor get a mediator/advocate who is willing to work with him and explain policy to him. Instead, he has chosen to continue ignoring policy. There are right ways to get things done and wrong ways to get things done. Even if the goal is to get something of merit done, doing it the wrong way is unproductive and can be disruptive.

At this point, I feel I have no choice but to reluctantly agree that Raspor is being a disruptive editor and follow official channels to get discipline restored to this article. If one of you wishes to run this up the channels (which may result in getting Respor blocked), I will lend my support. Further, I really really wish you will do so ASAP so that we can bring focus in the discussion page back to "how to write a better article".-Psychohistorian 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. AvB ÷ talk 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Humps just submitted a 3rr notice on raspor but I fear it may not be formatted correctly. Mr Christopher 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor has been blocked for 24 hours. AvB ÷ talk

Raspor, the article is not about how many college kids believe in ID compared to left handed mothers, or high schoolers or pre-schoolers. The entry Felonious Monk made regarding the Harris poll is sufficient to let the reader know how widespread the acceptance of ID is. There is no reason to add poll numbers for college kids, high school, mothers of twins, people of color, handymen for jesus, etc. Mr Christopher 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] false accusations

The justification for the recent vandalism concerned Felonious Monk's addition on a Harris poll. First of all Harris is considered a reliable and credible source. Second, the Harris article cited stated At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design)[5]. Felonious Monk's entry reads "According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design". The justification put forth by raspor include:

• this addition takes a study and cherry picks stats that support a personal point of view without giving an accurate picture of what the whole study is saying
• the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info
• cite was biased quoted
• the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info

Felonious Monk's edit seems completely within policy and he quoted the portion relevant to the article on intelligent design. In view of this I find raspor's reverts baseless. Mr Christopher 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

you have unjustly accused me of vandalism. this is a bullyism. technique. stop libeling me by saying i committed vandalism.

raspor 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, you should read each of these links carefully before making your false accusations: WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:LAWYER, and WP:CHILLOUT. Orangemarlin 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU read the article on vandalims and show me the clause that says i committed it

raspor 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies and misrepresentaions

'Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[10]'

I read the citation and nowhere did it say that the leading proponents of DI assert ID is on equal footing or superior to evolution.

'Although the concept has substantially influenced public opinion in the United States, it has little support in other parts of the world.[22]"

And i read the above citation and saw no mention of that assertion

lets discuss. i want to make these sentences more accurate

raspor 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss. Not only is this well known, it has been found in court that the Discover Institute attempted to put religion on an equal footing with evolution. Read the case in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents Orangemarlin 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

the info is not in the citations.

raspor 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A further citation is needed: I've amended the article accordingly. .. dave souza, talk 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] read the guidelines::

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

If it is relevant what % of US accepts ID then it is also relevant that 3 times as many college grads accept it.

Why are you afraid people will know that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're beginning to appreciate the requirement to discuss points and not repeatedly revert. The statement "10 percent subscribe to the theory that 'human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them' (intelligent design)." is highlighted at the top of the report as one of the main results of the survey, the claim "that 3 times as many college grads accept it" is nowhere in the report that I can see. Please read things carefully. .. dave souza, talk 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be an interesting fact, if you could document it. It is contrary to everything I have ever heard, read, or experienced personally.--Filll 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor now has 24 hours to reflect on the importance of 3RR, but I think he was referring to the table "SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION– BY EDUCATION" which shows ID support rising from 6% at HS or less to 15% College Grad and 17% Post Grad. Unfortunately enthusiasm for making a point seems to have overcome care with arithmetic or balanced description. Oddly enough, considering the much touted claim that ID includes creationism, Belief in creationism is shown as declining from 73% to 42% as educational attainment increases. .. dave souza, talk 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

varthold 1 January 2007

Evolution is not scientific. As stated earlier, in order for a thing to be scientific, it must be (1) observable, and (2) repeatable in an experimental setting. No person has ever witnessed the creation (sorry) of a new species. The creation of a new species from mutated members of an existing population of a known species has never occurred in an experimental setting.

Despite FeloniousMonk's assertions, no new discovery in biology has been uncovered based on a projection of what should happen in the future given the core beliefs of evolutionary past. Indeed, in the microbiological world, the more we learn about certain structures, such as mitochondria, the less likely the evolutionary theory becomes.

Y'all want to insist that Intelligent Design is un-scientific? Fine. But to insist that ID is unscientific, while failing to tag evolution in like manner, is illogical. 71.210.215.86 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're having this problem with logic. Please read the Kitzmiller judgement carefully, with an open mind. .. dave souza, talk 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Get an ID and log in.
• We have a huge list of evolutionary predictions that have been born out in the data
• over 99% of all biologists, and 72 US Nobel Prize winners, and over 100 international scientific societies with hundreds of thousands of members and the US supreme court and several other US courts all support evolution, and claim evolution is a science but ID is not. So are they all stupid?
• We have a huge list of speciation events that have been observed in the laboratory. These are repeatable as well. (Sorry)
• If we are illogical, but what does that say for the US court system and the overwhelming majority of scientists?--Filll 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By saying that Intelligent Design is "in opposition to biological science," or an "alternative theory," are we disregarding the fact that proponents of ID accept a lot of (even controversial) biological facts. Most proponents of ID accept the age of the earth and even that we evolved from apes.

I understand the reasoning for putting the overview in this way; it is a different way of explaining our origins. However, this article does give the impression that ID and biological science are constantly opposed and irreconcilable in regards to everything.

If someone could clarify that ID does accept our evolution from our ape relatives, and other such concepts, it might help with the general understanding of the concept. I feel like although all of this is implied, it is worth being stated.

Being new to Wikipedia and unintelligent, I wouldn't do this myself. Atheist-Expat 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There already exist various syntheses of creationism and evolution as theological or religious views, e.g., theistic evolution, old earth creationism, etc, which may easily and peacefully coexist with scientific inquiry in various ways, depending on whose views one consults (see, e.g. "relationship between religion and science"). The synthesized concept called intelligent design is opposed to methodological naturalism, i.e., the foundational requirement of scientific method to limit itself to empirically testable phenomena. What ID requires, in order to be termed science or scientific, is a fundamental expansion of scientific method into areas that go beyond the natural world and into the realm of philosophy, theology and religion. The statement in the article "stands in opposition to..." is a reflection of this reality and also a reflection of explicit statements by ID proponents such as Phillip Johnson that can be found in the WP article text and footnotes. ... Kenosis 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The supposed process of speciation that led to man or any other animal can never be emperically verified. If there was one laboratory event that produced a new step in actual genetic complexity resulting in a new species, which has never happened BTW (sorry FILL) then it would only prove that the conditions provided in that lab produced something new - only by analogy would it indicate that other millions of conditions did or even could have produced the diversity we have today(because we don't know what each of those conditions actually were). The reason true speciation has never been seen in a lab is that it would be like adding a whole new subroutine to a computer program only without a programmer. Like trying to explain the information contained in this sentence by studying the properties of the components of my computer. The information content is not produced by the computer it is imposed on it by intelligence. Imagine if there was some piece of literature somewhere, that was best explained by appealing to the properties of ink and paper rather than an author. Imagine if it was psudoscience to posit an author. Ah, but we don't have to imagine do we. Welcome to the twilite zone.Adlac 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And this specious argument has what to do with the article? •Jim62sch• 18:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well off topic, I'd say. However, Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? Read and enjoy..... dave souza, talk 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lies, damned lies and statistics (or polls)

I'm not sure that throwing polling data back and forth between the Evolution side and the Creation myth side does any good. Facts aren't proven by polls, they just show how uneducated and silly people can be. I forgot the exact numbers, but a substantial number of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens. So, in the UFO article (and I'm going to check if that's considered pseudoscience, because if I'm going to stand on principle with Noah's Ark and ID, I'm going to do the same with Divining Rods and UFO's), does it qualify as NPOV information to state that in some Gallup Poll or something, 60% of Americans believe in Aliens? That just shows that 60% of Americans need to have their heads examined by a qualified psychotherapist. I don't care how many people believe in ID, it is pseudoscience, it is myth, and it is religion, but it is not factual and it is not science. If Raspor or whatever Mr. 3RR added to the revert war, I don't think Polling data belongs in an encylopedic article. Unless you're going to state how gullible some number of people are to mythology. I might buy that. Orangemarlin 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting 4 out of 5 dentists don't recommend Trident to their patients who chew gum? Seriously, I'm kind of ambivalent on the subject yet I can see how it could get nutty The Harris poll numbers that Felonious Monk added don't move me one way or another but he must have felt they were relevant. I'd like to hear his comments for including them. Mr Christopher 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally like them so I can gauge how effective certain campaigns have been for example, and what the mood of the society is. Polls and surveys can tell a lot about:

• the threat from extremist views
• the effectiveness of science teaching
• the mix of extremist views in the community, in each country, society, class, educational level etc

If I know that only 5 % of the public in country X subscribe to ID, that is very different than knowing that 65% or 95% of the public in country X subscribe to ID. Knowing that 95% of the people in country X are creationists and that every other nearby country has about 10% tells me something interesting. Knowing that the belief in God is dropping or rising, or that the belief in biblical literalism is dropping or rising etc is all useful information. It should not necessarily be in the lead, but there is no problem with it being lower down in the article. For example, creationists are very surprised to find out that the vast majority of scientists and other Christians do not agree with them. In their own restricted circles they might not notice this. Also, in my circles, I know very few people who would deny evolution. None of my relatives. None of my friends. No one I work with. No one at any church I have ever attended. No one at any school I have ever been to. So obviously, when 30 or 40 percent or whatever of the public states that they believe in biblical literalism, that tells me something. I live on the outskirts of Washington DC. Now everyone I know is educated, with masters at least and PhDs and MDs and LLDs. But the average adult reading level in Washington DC is about grade 3 level (recently reported). That tells me that I have a very VERY biased sample of acquaintances. The average public school teacher in several states is functionally illiterate (that is, unable to read a newspaper). That information tells me something. Here is another example: In the areas close to where I live, the population is maybe 70% African American. Most of these people have never travelled much or had much education. When I talk to them, they believe (based on their own experience) that the whole United States is like this area, and even the whole world. When I talk to them about China or India, they immediately want to know about the black vs. white situation in China or India or Japan. They cannot imagine it as any different than it is where they live. That is their world. They believe that the reason television shows do not have at least 50% black actors and stories is that because television is racist. They believe that the reason the Congress of the US is not more than half black is because of racism. When I point out that having 42 of 435 representatives in the lower house is about what one would expect based on demographics, they do not believe me since that is not what they see around them (granted the Senate is not near as representative of demographic distributions, for obvious reasons). So statistics and polls and surveys are definitely flawed, but they are indicative. I personally cannot imagine that an educated adult would not know that the earth orbits the sun, but a good 1/3 or so of the US does not know this. Many do not know how many states there are in the US. Many cannot find the US on a map of the world. But statistics reveal my personal biases and misconceptions. And help me make better judgements and decisions in trying to understand the world. Which is what an encyclopedia should do.--Filll 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of polling data. What bothers me is when the Creationists come out and say, "see X% of Americans believe in little green men were responsible for Noah's Ark and the Loch Ness Monster and also believe in Intelligent Design" (please note my sarcasm), put it in these articles as their source that their ideas merit adding to an article, I am concerned. I don't think that facts are subject to polls--that's the arena of weasel politicians, not an encyclopedia. If you think of an encyclopedia as being something that is supposed to last a lifetime, what is next year's poll going to say? Besides all that, it's obvious what people really believe--didn't Santorum and the ID gang in Pennsylvania (including the Dover Board of Education) get tossed out of office? More than that, I'd rather see a worldwide poll of Creationism--I doubt that 1% of the world thinks these people know what they're talking about, but in the end, it doesn't matter. Facts and science don't require polls. That's my humble (well, maybe not so humble) opinion. Orangemarlin 17:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Indicating the number of a subject's believers/etc is explicitly mentioned in the NPOV policy (as argued by FM, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov#The_neutral_point_of_view). I too would prefer more objective measurements, but I guess in matters of belief polls, however evil they may be, are often all we have. AvB ÷ talk 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember one thing: truth is not driven by consensus. That no one in 1320 AD believed that the earth went round the sun did not make the simple fact that it did so any less true. Likewise, that over 90% of the population of the US believe in a deity or deities does not make the existence of a deity true. •Jim62sch• 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources as to who is behind ID

The revert of Kenosis' revert was done for two reasons. 1.) It brought back sources claiming that they say things which they do not say 2.) His argument that it was warranted on the grounds that the Federal Court stated the content as true fails because the only source which says cites the Federal Court is the one of the testimony of Barbara Forrest and that source was kept. -Psychohistorian 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out what you mean by this comment. Are you stating categorically that the Discover Institute is NOT behind ID in the US? I'm confused. Orangemarlin 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First, the point being made is whether all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI, not whether the DI is behind ID in the US. There is an important distinction there. Second, no, I am not categorically saying that the Discover Institute is NOT behind ID in the US (hey, think we can try for another negative or two in that?). As I recall, two of the sources which I removed did say that the DI is the leading organization behind ID, but did not say that all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI.

The core of my argument here is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We have to stick to what we have sources for. The only sources which we have citations for which state that all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI are the two sources which are in my edit.-Psychohistorian 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to see what is going on here: You've deleted six significant sources that all say all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, in favor of a single source (the ACLU) that allows for portraying the point as dubious opinion based on ideological slant. In other words, poisoning the well. FeloniousMonk 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the way it looks from here is that you're so afraid that evolution can't stand on its own that you feel like you need to be a guardian for it against anything that might possibly look like a threat. I, on the other hand, believe in the scientific method so much that I want ID to be given a fair chance so that when science knocks it down, noone can cry "foul play".-Psychohistorian 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I've restored the longstanding version which Kenosis reverted to. Your changes injected personal conclusions into the article by way of editiorializing characterizations. The content is supported by the sources, I suggest reading all of the Dover trial testimony and ruling; the judge relied almost exclusively on Forrest's testimony in his ruling on that point. And furthermore, it is not just Forrest who says this but Branch, Myers, Brayton and a host of others. Do we need to cite them all? All, please discuss significant changes to the article before making them, this a controversial topic and we have enough trouble here dealing with the cranks, kooks and partisans without having disputes from reputable editors such as yourself. FeloniousMonk 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Personal conclusions"? The sources you readded do not say what you claim they say. While the judge may have relied almost exclusvily on Forrest's testimony, you have not provided a citation to the judge's comments where he agrees with Forrest. While Branch, Myers, Brayton, and a host of others may have said that, there is no cite in the article to that affect. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You need to provide enough cites to establish that its more than just a handful of people who make the claim. There were five cites (cites which did -not- claim what they were being used as sources for) listed in the other version (the version I edited from). I think a total of five cites whiich actually -do- claim what the content says would be sufficient. With the ACLU, Forrest, Brach, Myers, and Brayton that's five right there. Now, because I do not want to get into an edit war, I'll leave the content as is for now so that you have a chance to respond.-Psychohistorian 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Barbara Forrest, a leading critic of ID and the DI, and the ACLU have both stated that all of ID's leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute."

This sort of characterization is called poisoning the well. The TMLC tried to paint Forrest with the same broad brush (atheist/raving liberal ACLU member) and her testimony as ideologically-driven personal opinion, and the judge denied them then. Why should we allow it here? There are six supporting cites that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. You just happened to choose the one to replace them with the same association and argument that the TMLC used in their attempt to poison the well in trial? Um, no. That will not fly as article content.

We have 6 supporting cites showing that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the DI: Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Jodi Wilgoren's The New York Times article, the American Civil Liberties Union position paper, Joseph Kahn's Boston Globe article, and the Science and Theology News article. If you want to change the article to say something other than this, the burden is on you to show how each of these sources is does not support the content. You'll also need to debunk the other dozen or so sources we can provide that all say the same thing.

Oh, and name one leading ID proponent who is not affilated with the DI, while your at it. FeloniousMonk 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Barbara Forrest. I'm not at all familiar with her work. However, I went to the Wiki article on her and that's the very first thing it says about her. I think its a mistake to say that being anti-ID makes you an atheist (I personally know a few creationists who would take objection to being called an atheist on those grounds). I also think its a mistake to confuse pointing out that she's anti-ID with whether or not she's a raving liberal (for example, I'm a die hard moderate and anti-ID). The sources which I deleted earlier do not..THEY DO NOT..say that all leading proponents of ID are affiliated with the DI (I know because I read every one of them this morning).

Frankly, your accusation that I'm doing this in order to push ID is out of line. I'm doing this because I'm against ID and believe that, when the tighter we present the evidence (accurately, precisely, and completely), the less wiggle room there is for ID. As for naming one leading proponent that is not a member of the DI, I can't, but then I never made the claim that not all leading proponents of ID aren't members of the DI.-Psychohistorian 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had two choices: Either you were not up to speed on the current state of literature about the ID movement or you are favoring one of ttheir arguments. I'll go with the former and ask that you read more about the movement before trying to change this important point in the article. As I've said, there are literally dozens of sources available that all point out that the leading ID proponents are all affiliated with the DI and if you read enough of the neutral literature on the movement it is clear that the notion of ID as is being promoted was struck upon by Johnson, Thaxton, Meyers and Chapman and those who called themselves the "Wedge" and went on form the CSRC (CSC now) at the DI, and the DI has been the hub of the movement (got lots of sources for that too, if we need them). FeloniousMonk 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that all the leading proponents of ID are affiliated with the DI. However, the sources I removed DO NOT SAY THAT. So, provide sources which DO. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. So provide that verifiability. Elsewise, you are in no position to cast stonss when the other side chooses to ignore the policies as well (and I want them to be held to the policies).-Psychohistorian 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Others do not argee with your opinion about the six existing sources, this was previously discussed, read the archives.

And we can also add this source to our article, Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action, from the Journal of Clinical Investigation which says "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute" which also supports the implication of the existing content. It's worth the read and may help you better understand the issue. FeloniousMonk 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the archives before I deleted the content, thanks. My point that they don't say what is claimed for them still stands.

Also, the statement "the engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute" goes to the point as to whether the DI is the leading institution behind ID. It does not go to the point as to whether all leading propopents of ID are members of the DI. There's a very important difference between those points.-Psychohistorian 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"that they don't say what is claimed" They don't? The New York Times article, Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive is wholly dedicated to exposing the DI as the root of the ID movement. Did you even bother to read it?

Let's look at the what the sources say about the DI and ID:

1. "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial states all of ID's leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
2. "Financed by some of the same Christian conservatives who helped Mr. Bush win the White House, the organization's intellectual core is a scattered group of scholars who for nearly a decade have explored the unorthodox explanation of life's origins known as intelligent design. Together, they have mounted a politically savvy challenge to evolution as the bedrock of modern biology, propelling a fringe academic movement onto the front pages and putting Darwin's defenders firmly on the defensive. Like a well-tooled electoral campaign, the Discovery Institute has a carefully crafted, poll-tested message, lively Web logs - and millions of dollars from foundations run by prominent conservatives like Howard and Roberta Ahmanson, Philip F. Anschutz and Richard Mellon Scaife. The institute opened an office in Washington last fall and in January hired the same Beltway public relations firm that promoted the Contract With America in 1994. ... From its nondescript office suites here, the institute has provided an institutional home for the dissident thinkers, pumping $3.6 million in fellowships of $5,000 to $60,000 per year to 50 researchers since the science center's founding in 1996. Among the fruits are 50 books on intelligent design, many published by religious presses like InterVarsity or Crossway, and two documentaries that were broadcast briefly on public television. But even as the institute spearheads the intellectual development of intelligent design, it has staked out safer turf in the public policy sphere, urging states and school boards simply to include criticism in evolution lessons rather than actually teach intelligent design. ... Discovery leaders have been at the heart of the highest-profile developments ... These successes follow a path laid in a 1999 Discovery manifesto known as the Wedge Document ... Detractors dismiss Discovery as a fundamentalist front and intelligent design as a clever rhetorical detour around the 1987 Supreme Court ruling banning creationism from curriculums. But the institute's approach is more nuanced, scholarly and politically adept than its Bible-based predecessors in the century-long battle over biology. A closer look shows a multidimensional organization, financed by missionary and mainstream groups - the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides $1 million a year, including $50,000 of Mr. Chapman's $141,000 annual salary - and asserting itself on questions on issues as varied as local transportation and foreign affairs. Many of the research fellows, employees and board members are, indeed, devout and determinedly conservative ... But even as intelligent design has helped raise Discovery's profile, the institute is starting to suffer from its success. Lately, it has tried to distance itself from lawsuits and legislation that seek to force schools to add intelligent design to curriculums, placing it in the awkward spot of trying to promote intelligent design as a robust frontier for scientists but not yet ripe for students." Jodi Wilgoren's New York Times article, Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive clearly supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
3. "Q: Who is behind the ID movement? A: The ID movement is led by a small group of activists based at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (formerly Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) in Seattle, WA." Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design" at the American Civil Liberties Union You've already stated above that this supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
4. "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe Clearly this supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
5. "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents" by the DI's own Science and Theology News (PDF) lists nothing but its own affilliates as the notable ID leaders, so even the DI clearly supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
6. "...the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (DI/CSC), the primary institutional advocate of ID." The American Association for the Advancement of Science's Intelligent Design and Peer Review is consonant with and supports the statement "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
7. ""The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute..." The American Society for Clinical Investigation's Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action which also is consonant with and supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."

"that they don't say what is claimed" I'm sorry, but they do and I think you are simply mistaken. FeloniousMonk 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While you point out that I already agreed that the ACLU cite points out that all of the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI, you failed to do the same for the Barbara Forrest quote. In case you missed it, I already agreed that the Barbara Forrest quote points out that allof the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI (its why I kept her quote in my edit).

Now, your other cites 2.) "Together..propelling a fringe academic movement onto the front pages" "the institute spearheads the intellectual development of intelligent design" Supports the claim that the DI is the leading institution, but not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI

"Discovery leaders have been at the heart of the highest profile developments" Supports the claim that members of the DI are leading proponents of ID, not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI

4.) "The institute..had occupied a lead role in the ID movement" Again, supports the claim that the DI is the leading institution, but not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI "boasts a number of leading ID proponents" Supports the claim that members of the DI are leading proponents of ID, not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI (note also, the use of "boasts a number" which means something quite different from "whose membership includes all the leading ID proponents")

5.) I never removed this - its a new source

6.) "the primary institutional advocate of ID" Again, supports the claim that the DI is the leading institution, but not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI

7.) "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute" Supports the claim that the DI is the leading institution, but not that all leading proponets of ID are members of the DI.-Psychohistorian 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement that "[i]ts leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." is an extremely legitimate and well sourced editorial decision arrived at by strong consensus and which has been discussed repeatedly at extreme length. Several times, offers were made on the talk page to cite any persons who are leading proponents who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute or its arms, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and/or the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID). No persons were cited who could reasonably be said to be leading proponents that were not directly affiliated with the DI or its arms. See, for just one of the more recent discussions about this, the long thread in the most recent archive, which began in what is now the second-most-recent archive, involving Bagginator and in which Psychohistorian was a participant. The participating editors of this article are thus already familiar with Psychohistorian's position on this issue as a result of those discussions. There is absolutely no need to rehash the detailed analysis of this issue, which is fully supported by the citations currently in the article, and also supported by numerous additional citations that are, as a matter of reasonable editorial decision, not currently included in the article. ... Kenosis 19:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Its that way because that's the way its always been" is not a valid reason not to edit content and, in fact, is a piss poor statement that no good scientist worth his salt would ever make in any context.-Psychohistorian 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychohistorian is at best deliberately misreading the following "Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." or else he is trying to make an implied argument that the terms "leaders" and "leading proponents" are not equivalent. Obviously, if the first possibility is true, there is nothing that can be done regarding his disingenuous arguments; if it is a matter of the latter, then psycho has failed to show how these terms fail the test of equivalency.

Additionally, Psychohistorian has noted that he knows nothing of Barbara Forrest's work. This is as irrelevant as as denying the existence of the warping of space because one does not know of Einstein's weork. Ignorance of facts is no excuse for dismissing those facts. •Jim62sch• 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you've posed that I'm "at best deliberately misreading" a quote which I already agreed (and have since the very beginning of this dispute) does support the claim that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI. In what way do you think I'm misreading it?-Psychohistorian 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Psychohistorian is neither disputing the assertion in the article nor arguing that the reverted cites invalidate the assertion. All I see is Ph's repeated claim that some of the cites do not support the assertion, plus the full intention to keep cites that do. A point that has not been addressed by those wishing to keep the cites. If it has been addressed in the past, a link to the relevant part of the archives would do. (Not having checked all of these sources recently I'm not defending or disputing them myself; I'm simply flagging up what to me looks like a simple misunderstanding.) AvB ÷ talk 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I myself do not dispute Psychohistorian's good faith in the least. I am, though, somewhat upset about his latest series of edits which (1) substantially rewrote the article lead, and (2) gutted four important citations in support of the previously consensused language relating to who the leading proponents of ID are. I thought that was taking on a bit much, considering how much work has gone into this article by many, many WP editors. ... Kenosis 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That PH may be editing in good faith speaks to intentions, but does not speak to the validity of the edits. •Jim62sch• 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see at the start of this section, Ph is only disputing the re-addition of deleted cites. Why not address that point? I'll make a start. I have just read the first cite once again, both the abstract and the entire NYT article. It's a good and rather neutral article, but it neither supports nor contradicts "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" and is therefore not a source for this specific assertion. AvB ÷ talk 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It did not appear to me to be the case that Psychohistorian was only disputing the four particular citations, as indicated by (a ) his repeated advocacy of removing from the lead implications that ID is a product of the DI, and (b ) by his rewrite of the article lead in a way that implied it was only critics associated with the political "left wing" in the US who've asserted and/or demonstrated with evidence that ID is a product of the DI and its arms, the CSC and ISCID, evidenced by the language of the lead after Psychohistorian's recent edits such as here. ... Kenosis 01:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry FM, I completely overlooked your earlier list. I don't agree with your verdict on "Politicized scholars" but I've now also read the FAQ at ACLU - which IMO qualifies as a source. AvB ÷ talk 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just in case this gets overlooked, I don't dispute the ACLU cite either. Its one of the cites I left in my edit.-Psychohistorian 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Next one. "The Evolution of George Gilder": "The institute... boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers.": that does not support the assertion; in fact it makes it sound as if there are other leading ID proponents who are NOT among the fellows and advisers. AvB ÷ talk 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent Design and Peer Review" neither supports nor contradicts "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" and is therefore not a source for this specific assertion. AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to avoid changing this as we discuss it. Raspor regretably is doing that now. Mr Christopher 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the AAAS peer-review article is not sufficiently central to the assertion about "all of whom are affiliated". What that article does is provide sourcing for the fact that both Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg are affiliated with the DI through two different arms, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID). This is relevant only insofar as it lays bare an important affiliation in the context of the Sternberg peer review controversy, and also lays bare in concise form one of the tactics employed by the Discovery Institute (attempting to set up its own "peer review" avenues for its affiliates to publish "peer reviewed" articles). So I'd support the removal of this citation from this positioning in the article. ... Kenosis 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Finished reading the last one - "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action". Not a source for this assertion. I now fully agree with Psychohistorian's deletion of these four cites. However, the logical next step is not to make changes to the intro. One could leave it at that, add better sources (as FM did), or come up with contradictory sources if they exist (unlikely). I fully support points made to that effect earlier. AvB ÷ talk 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment about one of the four citations in question just above. I am compelled to disagree with the conclusion that the other three are not relevant to the statement in the WP article that says "it's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...".

• "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive", By JODI WILGOREN, published August 21, 2005. This is highly relevant to the statement in the WP article by merit of the very first sentence, whether or not it makes the specific assertion "all of the leading proponents", which can be seen even without logging in with a NYTimes username and password. This introduction reads: "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." As a secondary benefit in giving readers insight into the subject, the article also closely relates to the politicization of the issue, a key insight into the nature of intelligent design.

• "The Evolution of George Gilder" by Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, published July 27, 2005, supports the WP article's statement in the following passage: "The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." This passage, far from contradicting the statement "all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute", makes clear to readers unfamiliar with ID that (a) it's politicized, (b) the DI occupies a lead role, and (c) the DI has an arm called the CSC that boasts a number of the leading proponents. Recall that many of the leading proponents are affiliated through one of its two arms rather than the DI proper. This is important information.

• The "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents" by the DI's publication Science and Theology News supports the assertion that the DI is behind ID, in the DI's own words. This too is highly important and relevant, because it also is a laundry list of many of the names that have occasionally been questioned by WP users unfamiliar with the fact that all of the leading proponents are affiliated with the DI.

I believe it would be prudent to leave these three citations in their current placement (which would be a total of six if the AAAS cite were removed) at least unless and until they can be replaced with citations that are agreed by the WP editors to be yet more pertinent. At this stage in the history of the article, I'd be more inclined to advocate increasing the number of citations with additional improved ones rather than replacing these three or four. Best, I think, to be put forward as many relevant citations as possible in the initial footnotes accessible to the reader directly from the article lead. ... Kenosis 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, "it should be that way because that's the way it's always been" is not..NOT.. a valid argument for not changing the article. Therefore, your comment "at this stage in the history of the article" is absolutely not relevant. Second, I don't think you see the distinction between "the DI is the leading institution" and "all the leading proponents are members of the DI". Those two statements are not equivalent. If you do understand this, please let me know that I'm confused on that point because if you aren't confused, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Third, I want to make clear that the "who's who of intelligent design proponents" article is not one I've examined (it was added after my disputed edit), so I'm not prepared to discuss it at this point in time and haven't discussed it in the past.-Psychohistorian 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Psychohistorian, you made your position on the basic issue clear, now as before. The language "leading institution", however, makes it sound like the affiliates of the DI and its arms are somehow one among many independent people and/or organizations, or that they rose to the top in what is otherwise a "grass roots" movement, when in fact the affiliates of the DI and its arms, are alone as a driving and organizing force behind the remarkable modern phenomenon of theological/ideological/socio-political advocacy that casts itself as as form of science, and which has been presented to us as "intelligent design".

As to the suggested equivalency of "it should be that way because that's the way it's always been" (Psychohistorian's statement) with "at this stage in the history of the article" (Kenosis' statement): Of course the history of this article does not merit casting it in stone, but it does raise the ante when presenting arguments for substantial rewrites that would require a re-consensus of issues that have involved 7000 namespace edits, over two megabytes of extremely detailed talk, and thousands of person-hours by many participating editors. My statement that "at this stage of the article's history" above, though, is even narrower in intent than that-- I'm suggesting only that at this stage of the article's history a bit more of the massive research effort that went into this article by numerous editors (many of whom now bother to check into this talk page only occasionally), more of that massive amount of research should be made available to the reader in footnotes accessible directly from the lead. ... Kenosis 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Included section on why supernatural should not be part of science

Merging two sections

A big part of this controversy is the definition of science that exlucdes the supernatural. When talking to laypeople I have noticed that this issue is completely confused in their minds. It sounds unfair not to include the supernatural right? So I just wrote this tiny bit to try to explain why it is not a good idea. And pure poison to science. This is the main reason why ID is not a good idea for science classes. --Filll 17:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Supernatural and science
It might be asked, why is there such resistance by scientists to include the supernatural in science? After all, as put by Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, "Science should be open to whatever cause ... can best explain the data". This might sound eminently reasonable and fair at first glance. However, as pointed out by the National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, opening science to supernatural causes like a god would be a "science stopper."

Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them" ^[1][2] Scott also stated in a CNN interview, "In science, you never really say, you know, this is a mystery that we can't explain and, you know, stop there. In science, you always keep looking for that natural explanation, which is why most of us consider intelligent design to be not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it."^[3]

I am moving the section here, from the article. The section provides argumentation, not facts, and reads like an editorial, not an encyclopedia article.

Perhaps we should write a section to explain why adding a supernatural dimension to science is an unneccessary complication. But this is not the way to do it, nor even necessarily the article in which to do it. Perhaps science could be expanded. -- Ec5618 17:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you've made a valid point. We should write a section in Science which builds upon the keeping Supernatural or myth out of science. Then every time pseudoscience attempts to bring the supernatural into the discussion, we can put in a wikilink to the original article, or we'll be writing the same argument over and over again. I like those quotes you found too. Orangemarlin 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The quotes were Filll's. They're not bad quotes, certainly, but quotes are hardly the stuff to explain the facts. -- Ec5618 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad addition, but duplicates much of what is already dealt with in the "Defining intelligent design as science" section. FeloniousMonk 17:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is another attempt, putting some stuff into footnotes:

Working scientists are loathe to include the supernatural as a cause in science because of its deleterious effects.^[4][5][6] This is a longstanding principle^[7], and in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."^[8] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."^[9]

1. ^ Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?, Linda Shaw, Seattle Times, Thursday, March 31, 2005.
2. ^ As an example, consider John who has physics homework to do. John knows the answer he is supposed to get from the back of the book. There are twenty steps to get from the initial assumptions to the answer, but John is stumped at step 5. Should John invoke the divine or a miracle or magic to get from step 5 to the answer at step 20, and expect to get a good grade for his work? Will John learn anything if he solves all his problems in science this way?
3. ^ CNN Newsroom, ID Featured on CNN: Transcript and Questions, May 2, 2001.
4. ^ The National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, opening science to supernatural causes would be a "science stopper." Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them" (Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?, Linda Shaw, Seattle Times, Thursday, March 31, 2005.)
5. ^ As an example, consider John who has physics homework to do. John knows the answer he is supposed to get from the back of the book. There are twenty steps to get from the initial assumptions to the answer, but John is stumped at step 5. It is contrary to scientific and educational principles for John invoke the divine or a miracle or magic to get from step 5 to the answer at step 20.
6. ^ Eugenie Scott also stated in a CNN interview, "In science, you never really say, you know, this is a mystery that we can't explain and, you know, stop there. In science, you always keep looking for that natural explanation, which is why most of us consider intelligent design to be not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it." (CNN Newsroom, ID Featured on CNN: Transcript and Questions, May 2, 2001.)
7. ^ The US National Academy of Sciences issued a statement at their 17 October 1972 business meeting stating clearly that supernatural causes must be excluded from science (American Biology Teacher, January 1973)
8. ^ The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." Nobel Laureates Initiative (PDF file)
9. ^ Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October 2005. Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out

I do not claim this is perfect, but I merged some of that information from my addition with the existing section. If we can find better ways to bring out the information describing why the supernatural is poisonous to science, then lets replace the quotes with that. Otherwise, I do not know how to explain it except with examples. Let's try to find more and better references. I am also interested in the history of the avoidance of the supernatural in science.--Filll 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Scott's opinion is bunk. You appeal to authority, but I don't accept your authority. You need to address ID's assertion that their ideas are made from POSSITIVE knowledge not the lack thereof (I assume you know the details of this argument - oh yeah maybe not, it is no where to be found on this thorogh Wiki article on ID). Unless you address this head on you have nothing but sound bites. Here is Scott standing on the vast foundation of modern science a foundation that before the 1800 was largely built by scientists who inferred Design (look no farther than the ID article itself to verify this). He perches on a branch while pruning it from the tree.Adlac 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the quotes constitute little more than an appeal to authority. Please note that your attitude is unhelpful. Please address points, instead of accusing other editors of bias. Insulting others is not the way to convince people. -- Ec5618 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to insult others. Honestly please forgive me if I have, I appologize. I am servierly outnumbered here. Thanks for cautioning me in my enthusiasm.Adlac 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Scott is notable. She has a PhD and was a tenured biology professor. She is the head of the NCSE. So her quotes are not pure junk, particularly when they are in accord with the NAS statements, and the statements of the US supreme court and other US courts like the Dover decision, and those of over 100 worldwide scientific societies and 72 nobel prize winners in one case, and 32 in another. What the Scott quotes do is explain PRECISELY why the supernatural is poison to science. If you can find other references which express the same thing, like other encyclopedias or NAS publications etc, then lets have them. The point is not whether you agree with the opinion or not, but it is a way to try to source this fact of how the science community feels and why they do not want the supernatural in science. If you look at the history of naturalism (exclusion of the supernatural), it has roots that go back to the Greeks or even earlier. By the 1500s it was even more solidly expressed by Galileo etc. Yes it is true that many people like Newton and Leibnitz spent huge amounts of energy trying to prove the scriptures etc. But those efforts were mostly a failure, like Newton's work in Alchemy, so this material did not become part of science. It was weeded out, which is the scientific method. Science moves on. ID did not. And I do not know the details of the positive argument, I am sorry. Put it here.--Filll 19:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said Design "poison" built the foundation of modern science. Calling it poison is sawing off the branch you are sitting on. It is certainly not detrimental to science. Do you know how many extremely productive things are learned by reverse engeneering living systems. We learn how to engeneer wings from studying birds. Accepting the fact that bird wings were engeneered leads to critical discoveries it does not distract from them. Scott is a committed phylosophical materialist - that is the source of her statements.

Dear unsigned, your breadth of understanding of theology seems to be rather limited. See below. .. dave souza, talk 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As does his knowledge of orthography. •Jim62sch• 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Accepting the fact that bird wings were engeneered..." I love facts and must admit I am now curious. Before I can accept this "fact" I'll need to know who engineered the wings of birds and also how he/she/they went about it. Mr Christopher 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is getting theological

I appreciate Filll's well-thought comment about the issue. One thing though: previous efforts centuries ago by such persons as Newton and Leibnitz were not termed "intelligent design". "Intelligent design" was attached to the particular theological slants being developed by the Discovery Institute affiliates starting in 1989 with the publication of Charles Thaxton's Of Pandas and People, with the Discovery Institute itself being formed in 1990 (though the thread can be traced back to the mid-1980s with the publication of Thaxton's Mystery of Life's Origin). Previous religious apologetics and speculations, including some by highly competent scientists, have generally been classified under the accepted philosophical/theological term teleological arguments. ... Kenosis 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Kenosis's pointer to the venerable teleological argument. However, what I was attempting to do (and perhaps you can help me), was to try to indicate why, after centuries of use, this sort of argument is no longer part of science, and why science is loathe to put it back in.--Filll 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course; understood. Ahh, for the good old days when there was a science consonant with theistic convictions, and the Church could weed out "scientists" who proposed that there was empirical evidence for ideas not thusly consonant. ... Kenosis 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is essentially a theological argument: to cite, trimmed for size:

"with regard to the material world,... we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws." W. WHEWELL: Bridgewater Treatise.

"let no man... think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." BACON: Advancement of Learning.

James Moore has an interesting take on it. Essentially, the creationist ID argument is as much against other versions of Christianity as it is against science. ... dave souza, talk 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV = "it suffices to present views in a way that is acceptable to their adherents"

Statement of the relevance of this NPOV policy to the content of this Wiki article:

I charge that the sections of this ID article that purport to present ID are...

1. Riddled with uncited assertions that the leading proponents of ID would never affirm. (Example): [ID] Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs.
2. Suffers from selective reporting that doesn't represent the perspective of ID.

   (Example): giving prominence to a decision of a judge in Dover, while there is no mention of relevant Supreme Court decisions, relevant Presidencial statements, relevant national laws (no child left behind", relevant documents such as the constition (did you know that I am a HS teacher and I can still under free speech rights step into a public HS classroom and mention that some hold ID as an explanation of origins?), relevant directives by congress (did you know that they just blasted Smithsonian scientists for demoting and harrassing a fellow scientist for promoting "pseudoscience ;)" while on the job.

3. Lacks key data about ID and omits their most robust arguements.

(Example): did you know that ID theory includes a central claim that it is based on Positive evidence not lack of evidence as widely reported?

There is a simple reason for all of this. It is plain that no ID proponent shared equal collaberation on the original development of the article. When did the idea start that the best way to find out about ID's views is to consult Darwinian activists?

Wikipedia's NPOV policy states, To write from a neutral point of view...it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents. I want to see this relevant issue out to the bitter end. Already some attempts to nulify Wiki policy have been made. These are...

1. ID proponents lie about their true views (No cigar; "good faith" still applies here)
2. The guidlines for "Pseudoscientific" articles allows misrepresentation of ID views (Not!)
3. "Undue weight" comes into play. (No; that only applies to ID being presented within another related article not its own article!)
4. Reported views are subject to "verifiability" therefore we cannot report certain ID views. (nah, "verifiablity" refers to sourcing edits not verifing in a science lab.)

Please send me some more pitches - I positively love batting practice. +++Adlac 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Adlac, calm down. The best way to fix this is to WORK. Not complain. I would love to see a list (with cites) of:

• incorrect assertions in the article and those you would replace them with (such as the one you mentioned). I am a supporter of evolution. Do not expect me to be able to know the correct position. If you know it and can find it and cite it, do it. Do not expect me to do your work for you.
• relevant supreme court decisions, presidential statements, laws, etc. Do not expect a Darwinian scientist to find these for you. You find them. Dont make me do your work for you, and then complain about the result !!!
• the positive argument that you say is their strongest argument. I dont know it, so I ask you for a second time produce it !!!

You are at least partially correct about verifiability, although I would say not completely. I wait for your lists of the relevant material so we can look at them and include them. Dont complain... WORK!--Filll 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes some fair points. I wanted to get some basis of credibility first - to meet objections first. And of course like you say I do need to bring this data to the table myself and not expect you or others who disagree with ID - this is my point precisely.Adlac 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We should describe intelligent design in a way that is acceptable to its adherents, true. But just as the article on homeopathy doesn't state that homeopathy works, this article should never state that intelligent design is not pseudoscience. Criticism is most certainly called for. -- Ec5618 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems there mate. The onus is on us to describe why leading supporters (600 and growing current scientists from an array of phylosophical backgrounds) believe that ID is just as valid as any other scientific inference about phenomena of a historical nature that can never stand the test of repeatablity. Just as free as you are to report criticisms of ID positions we are free to give our reasoning and happily let the readers decide.

Adlac 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first set of three personal opinions set forth above by Adlac:

1)It is not WP's job to write an article that ID proponents would agree is "fair and balanced". Nor is there any illusion within WP that an article on a controversial, socio-politically charged subject such as this will result in universal approval of its content. The position of ID is put forward in the article (in summary form, of course) in keeping with the statements of its primary proponents, as are the positions of its critics.

2)Relevant Supreme Court decisions are as follows: The Supreme Court and other court decisions are quite adequately analyzed in the Kitzmiller decision. I do not know why the respondents decided not to appeal; I would have thought the Abramson family, having provided some $10,000,000 US for the Discovery Institute, would have funded such a pursuit if it were thought to be potentially fruitful.

3)Intelligent design's emphasis on affirmation of itself and structure which prevents refutation by independent sources is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience, one of several reasons that the scientific community regards it as A)unscientific, B)pseudoscience, and/or C)junk science

Regarding the second set of four assertions by Adlac:

Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 plainly do not merit a response, and no justification should be needed in support of the assertion that they do not merit a response, because the response desired by Adlac was already in those statements. It should perhaps be said, though, that WP:Assume good faith does not apply to the whole world, particularly when the weight of verifiable commentary and reporting runs counter to the way a particular person or group of persons would like to be seen in a WP article written about them or their published views. Rather, WP:AGF applies merely to WP users, and there are even limits to the expectation that we assume good faith of fellow WP users. ... Kenosis 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Very true. I don't seek universal approval, I seek a report about ID that is just "more or less" acceptable to adherents. After all not all adherents agree on all the issues, so a balance must be reached from among adherent's views.

2. Quite adequately analysed? What kind of analysis do you think can come from a Judge who instead of coming up with his own resoning copied 90% of his decision verbatim from the documents of the politically radical ACLU. Excellent question about why it was not appealed to a higher court! It was because the question became moot sence the defendants lost there seats in an election. Also a good question as to why the DI did not continue the case. It was because the DI was not supportive of the school board's position which was to mandate the teaching of ID. This is yet another reason why Kitzmiller is of poor relevance to ID. I repeat, the DI discouraged the stance held by the school board but the board would not be dissuaded - thus the predicted setback (at least popularly) for ID science. School boards are have still been adopting language to ALLOW the teaching of compeating origins theories since the Kitzmiller decision (in my own state in fact)

3. Should we appologize for affirming ourselves? Also, if either nature or designer is responsible for the diversity of life then appologies may be in order as well. Neither position regarding historical phenomenon can be reproduced in a lab - can't be helped. What we can do is analyze these historical phenomena by the artifacts that have been produced. We can compare the artifacts with what we already know about cause and effect relationships to make an inference about how they were produced.

Adlac 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, you ol' softy. I knew you would extend the hand of friendship some time or another.>>>Adlac 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re the lack of appeal from Kitzmiller, that was effectively ruled out by the voters throwing out ID proponents. As for court decisions, perhaps the answer is a Lemon? .. dave souza, talk 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression, having heard some radio documentaries and interviews with DI members, from before, during and after the trial, is that they were more than slightly unhappy when Dover and other school districts jumped the gun to push the intelligent design policy in their own schools before the DI had completed more background work. I heard more than one DI representative say this was a bad idea and could only make DI and ID look bad by exposing this material to public and legal scrutiny prematurely. For example, they are working on building up a portfolio of science publications in peer-reviewed journals. They also want to fine tune their sales pitch and approach and teaching materials. They felt that Dover was also too heavy handed, in their enthusiasm and it was sure to meet with defeat. They were slightly optimistic that a right wing Republican judge would rule in their favor, but their initial misgivings were borne out, in fact. So I think that is why the DI did not appeal. This case was never part of their strategy and they were loathe to even support it or fight it in the first place. I think that some of their well-meaning supporters like the Dover school board just did not want to wait and wanted to kick butt. And instead, they had their heads handed to them. --Filll 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I said with out all the smear and editorialising. The DI and the 600 scientist and centuries of scientists of history believe that the inference to design is scientific and the DI wants to present the strongest possible case for their theory so that it will find more acceptance. The weasles then want people to learn about their theory - man you just can't trust these guys.>>>Adlac 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for info, the DI apparently started by encouraging the move, then once the action started they did their best to pull out, with the result that they have no standing to appeal the case. .. dave souza, talk 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes as I said the board insisted on contradicting DI policy. The real secret is... the DI is encouraging boards all over the country to include language that further protects the free speech rights of teachers to teach both the case for chemicals producing the diversity of life and the growing case against it in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Remember, you heard it here first from an inside source ;)Adlac 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that as discovery progressed, it was apparent to them that things were going very very badly and that the other side was prepared to throw a tremendous number of resources at this first real legal test of a new strategy, cooked up to slip in past the Supreme Court's firm stance. I think that the other side wanted to send a very strong message that they did not want to be tied up with endless ridiculous cases all over the US on this same issue over and over and over.--Filll 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess what, this was initiated locally as it is all over the country. That is why the DI has no control over the positions of the board. The DI has a consulting role. These steps to include the scientific debate on origins are initiated locally because the idea that everything comes from nothing is both illogical and repugnant to most of citizenry.Adlac 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is the 3rd or 4th time adlac has brought the same "issue" to the talk page. We have continued to point out his mistaken interpretation of policy and have continued to steer him to policy articles to help his understanding yet he appears to simply ignore those efforts while clinging to his mistaken notions. Adlac, it's time to give these issues a rest. Mr Christopher 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct, I'm not giving up. No one here has contested my view of NPOV policy yet on this thread as you'll notice. I did however rebut your argument(see #2) are you conceeding? You rest I'll take up the issues.Adlac 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

yes and according to MR you should just go home and go to sleep and let him and the mob run this part of town

raspor 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Raspor, try reading WP:CIVIL. There is no mob here. Orangemarlin 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been the most fruitful discussion to date. No secret though that I am an army of one here. But the discussion has been pleasantly civil.Adlac 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

so intimidation is OK. one of the mob called me a vandal. do you find that not-mob-like?

raspor 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] which state was it that was considering ID or creation science and backed down

when the corporations made it clear that they would pull out of the state if the state passed the law. I think it was someplace in the midwest in the last couple of years. I wanted to write something about it in my other article.--Filll 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kansas ^[10] Orangemarlin 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually called the NCSE and talked to them, and it is Kansas and Missouri and one other as well I think. They are sending the references.--Filll 22:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Encouragement to teach the controversy is the national law ("No child left behind") The states are weighing in but still under the jurisdiction of the national law. Thank goodness blackmail is still effective.Adlac 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No ID proponent collaborated on this article.

"There is a simple reason for all of this. It is plain that no ID proponent shared equal collaberation on the original development of the article. When did the idea start that the best way to find out about ID's views is to consult Darwinian activists? "

this is what i refer to as mob rule. the darwinists will not let anyone who is even neutral about ID add to this article. they own it. its no use talking to them

i have read in the archives where pro-IDers have pleading for the most minor changes to give this article a sliver of balance. nope they wont do it.

the only way to change it is by having enought numbers in the ID side. its mob rule here since the darwinists will not give IDers a crumb on their own article

raspor 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you titled this section using the term "ID proponent" and then later refer to such proponents as "neutral" about ID. Really now.

Why don't you come up with a specific example, and post it here on this talk page with a proposed change? I see you making complaints without ever saying anything specific. Take any sentence of the article and tell us how it should be changed, or why it's not neutral or not factual. -Amatulic 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made the same request 2 or 3 times already. I will do so again, PLEASE Raspor take a sentence or a section that you feel is biased or inaccurate, post it here, with your suggested neutral version. Fair enough?--Filll 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, this article is visited regularly by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Some of these are quite clever people, but most just repeat what they heard elsewhere. Concepts such as the second law of thermodynamics, natural selection, and peer-review are often misunderstood by people who are, quite frankly, ignorant of science. Often, new editors do nothing but accuse other editors of pushing a point of view. As such, it's possible that the article has been written mostly by people who have little respect for intelligent design. I put it to you, raspor, that this is not the fault of other editors.

There is ample reason to believe that this article has been written by intelligent people who have put forth intelligible arguments. Please don't suggest that viewpoints are being supressed. If someone presents useful suggestions, they are heard. It just doesn't happen often, so that even useful suggestions might initially be drowned out by the din. -- Ec5618 00:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raspor claims this is unbiased

Raspor claims that the Encyclopedia britannica article on ID is unbiased:

[edit] From Raspor's talk page

just read their def of 'intelligent design' very balanced, fair, informative.

not just a bashing of the idea by people who are against it

wiki in this case is a failure

i hope people will realize wiki is not a real encyclopedia. there should be a disclaimer somewhere

i thought it was serious for along time. people use this as a source.

compare brits to wiki's on ID

what a joke wikis is

should warn people that its just a bunch what seems to me to be college student with time on their hands spouting off.

nothing can be taken seriously here

[edit] Encyclopedia entry on ID

So here it is:

Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the Darwinian theory of biological evolution. Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God, proponents of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains; therefore, living organisms must have been created all at once by an intelligent designer. Proponents of intelligent design generally avoided identifying the designer with the God of Christianity or other monotheistic religions, in part because they wished the doctrine to be taught as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution in public schools in the United States, where the government is constitutionally prohibited from promoting religion. Critics of intelligent design argued that it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, that it ignores the existence of precursor systems in the evolutionary history of numerous organisms, and that it is ultimately untestable and therefore not scientific. See also creationism.

Dang, thats a nice piece of research Raspor. Thanks for showing this.Adlac 03:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone see problems with their style? How is it different than ours, except ours has many more references? Comments?--Filll 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

you really cannot see how much more professional, balanced, cool, unbiased it is?

if you cant there really is no hope

raspor 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the difference. This of course is just the free online version, not the full version. I have not seen that. They also are not sourcing anything. They also have given a large fraction of the space up to describing ID in great detail. It does not say who the criticizers are, or the depth of the criticism. It does not mention the court case. However, I think that for someone writing a report on ID, our version is far more potentially useful. It has references, it lets you know that there are not just a few anonymous critics of this policy. One more damning thing of the EB version is that it hints of what is basically perfidity on the part of the DI; to try to trick the court system of the US and the school systems into teaching religion in schools by disguising it. I personally find that far more damaging than just junk science. To me it smacks of intellectual dishonesty at best, and approaching fraud at worst. It makes them sound like a bunch of crooks and chislers, frankly. But if you like that characterization and insinuation, then fine.--Filll 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't mention THE COURT CASE" Oh man that's a good one! My how can ID be described with out mentioning THE CASE?! You know where the Supreme Court ruled that all 600 prophets of ID should be stoned.Adlac 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. However, from the point of view of the opposing side, that is the biggest event so far. I imagine that in a few years, the court case will fade into irrelevance. If things go as I suspect, it is just the first shot in a long struggle.--Filll 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fill, first you don't see a difference except for lack of references. Your next reading of the article reveals a clear conspiricy proving they are crooks and swindlers. Man, you have got let me in on some of that... who is your supplier? Just kidding. I'm just a bit confused about your analysis my friend.Adlac 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The part that rubs me the wrong way (which I suspect was necessary for fund raising by the DI, so I am not blaming DI completely here, only partially), is the image of trying to "sneak" creationism into the schools by renaming it. I would rather (although I think this is too idealistic) have them approach things in a completely different manner. If I was in charge, and money was no object, here is what I would advocate, if I were the director of the DI:

1. I would collect the widest possible range of research proposals on topics that might likely produce evidence of the supernatural, or a deity. Of course, people might accuse this of being a "god of the gaps" approach, but frankly, where else should one look, but in the gaps? You dont want to look in places that you can already rule out. That is just rational and good science.
2. I would engage in a patient process of nurturing research talent and research on several fronts that look fruitful for producing peer-reviewed results. I would make sure that there is no overt agenda that flavors this research, only that it is conducted in a reasonable scientific manner.
3. After publication of a good chunk of these in a number of fields, I would then go public in books and seminars etc.
4. I would probably start with advocating the teaching of this in religion classes or philosophy classes or similar classes. Of course, this runs the risk of "contaminating" these classes with science, but so what? It is far easier to get it in there than it is to go head to head with the science establishment.
5. I would encourage the writing of suitable textbooks, not that partially -rewritten creationist tract that got DI in so much trouble in the trial and in the media.
6. I would be very cautious about more nonpeer-reviewed statistical arguments like that form Dembski, which were shot down so stridently during the trial. Even if you have to have some sort of informal peer-review, like they do at a place like Bell Labs, and you have things torn up by a selected review team, DI can avoid embarassment by making sure that the stuff that comes out is of high quality, even the stuff in books that is not formally peer-reviewed.
7. I am a bit uncomfortable with the entire "change the culture of America and the world" agenda, which I realize is necessary for fundraising probably. I would downplay that, if it was not necessary for fundraising. It rubs people the wrong way. It sounds too much like the creationist agenda, or the lecturing Pope etc.
8. If I could in any way shape or form, I would strongly discourage (or prevent if possible) any of my supporters from making death threats to people like Judge Jones. That really turned my stomach and disgusted me, frankly. I am horrified by that sort of behavior. I have seen it over and over by creationist types, and it scares me to death to imagine hatemongers like that in control of the culture. --Filll 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, we were in charge of the culture!!! This culture was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Bible references are spread over Federal buildings from sea to shining sea. Look at the coins in your pocket, say the pledge of alegence, read the founding documents of almost every old prestigious university in this country. Is the country ruined because of us? Haven't you heard of the scopes trial? At that time they were fighting for free speech rights for Darwinists in the science classroom. You think "God and country" is going to ruin our land faster than moral reletivism and survival of the fitest (ie Hitler - the master race) phylosophy. Good God man it is the only thing holding our country together! Your personal sence of moral values about how to treat others that you just described did not derive from Darwin - it derives from your Judeo-christian culture filtering thorough to you. In the future anything could be justified and perpetrated on the minority. Our whole status of having unalianable rights just for being Human and therefor valuable is in jeparody.Adlac 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW your long post was very sensitive and perceptive to our perspective. An excelent contribution in my view.Adlac 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason you would lable me a conservative is because I am resisting harmful change. Funny that you would fear people from my camp because they want to "change the culture". Heavens, the Secular Progressive crowd is doing that well enough.Adlac 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as an nonAmerican, I see things slightly differently. Several founders were deists, or Unitarians. A lot were not that devout, frankly. There was a revulsion I see in many statements of the founders to religious extremism. The US is also well on the path to a more pluralistic tapestry. The statements about "In God we trust" did not get put on the currency for a good 90 years after the Declaration of Independence. The "one nation under God" part did not get added until the 1950s. The pledge of allegiance itself was meant to be a plea for equality of minorities and women and was changed under pressure. The author was a Baptist preacher who was hounded out of his church by the conservatives in his church. The US has always been a haven for religoius extremism of various stripes, either those thrown out of other places for being too crazy or just unwanted: Hugenots from France, Quakers, Puritans, English Catholics Jews, Anabaptists of various flavors (Dunkers, Hutterites, Amish, Mennonites, etc) mostly from Germany, Dukabors from Russia, Lubbavitchers, etc or else homegrown: Scientologists, Millerites, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Westboro Baptist Church, Theosophists, Spiritualists, Oneida Community, People's Temple (Jim Jones and the purple koolaid), Heaven's Gate cult, Followers of the Bagwan, Nation of Islam (A "Muslim" religion that is not really Muslim), Nation of Israel (A "Jewish" religion that is not really Jewish), Followers of the Kabala (Another "Jewish" religion that is not really Jewish), Society for Krishna Consciousness (a "Hindu" religion that is not really Hindu), Christian Scientists (a religion that appears to be neither very Christian or about science very much) and so on. I also think that it was ALWAYS part of the US culture to have "survival of the fittest", long before Darwin made any dent ("survival of the fittest" was a term from economics, before Darwin even published actually). The US has always been a rough and tumble environment with very little safety net and a lot of brutality in its dealings with minorities, and with its neighbors in the civil war, and in dealings with the natives, and other countries. The US has had a war on average every 2.5 years its entire existence (only 2 of those were formal declarations of war). Compare this to Canada for example....it is not even anywhere close to that. The US has plenty of not so shining virtues, and it can not be blamed on Darwinism. After all, the paper published last year showing a positive correlation between social ills and religious beliefs among western industrialized countries sort of makes that argument look silly, frankly (I put the reference on the education and creationism article page, if you havent read it yet). Coming from another country and another culture, I can tell you that the US has plenty of inherently nasty parts, and it has nothing to do with Darwin undermining Judeo-Christian values. Many of the nastiest people I have met are the "Christian extremists" of various types in the US, and the most fervent of them are frankly nothing like what I would expect a Christian to be.--Filll 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd be amazed how devote many of the founders were, there were a lot of founders BTW who signed the Dec. of Independance, formed the constitution etc. Of the most prominent founders there were a couple of Deists - Washington probably the most devote. Lesser know signers of the declaration were heavy of the devoted side I would say. Yes we do have a lot of religions and many extremes even. There are drawbacks to that but that is what freedom of speech and religion is all about. Besides hows a person supposed to seek truth in this world if their is only one expressed view that of the reigning despot. I'm truly sorry you had some bad run ins with christian kooks. Rememer that the obnoxious types tend to be the most vocal too, so their are many peaceful good ones too that don't mouth off and insult peoples inteligence. I attend regular gatherings of international students who don't agree with me religiously. We get along famously. Remember to when looking at societal correlations with Religion. Did you know that the religious element in this country are the most generous humanitarily in terms of financial giving? We are probably the most generous people in the world. You point out that America is always fighting wars. Well policemen are always associated with violence too. America has a history of putting their own blood on the line when facing tyrany. Pacifists will allow tyrany as long as it is not affecting them, they'll close their eyes and hope it goes away. America has some stains on its record - yes. But remember half of our country gave their blood to defend the right of slaves to be free. You do acknowege the sacrifice of these white, religious folks don't you?Adlac 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to the point of America being a warmongering country. Right now we have an all-voluntier military force, amercan civilians who leave their jobs and homes to face having their legs blown off, their faces disfigued there brains spread over the desert sand. Why because they like shooting people? No because these people, friends, neighbors and coworkers of mine want to see a seed of liberty planted in the middle east to halt the tide of insane violence. These are the bravest peacemakers on the planet. It is the countries that will not stand up that are to be scorned for their supposed "peacefulness".Adlac 04:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also comment that neither ours nor the EB version says what I would have said; Judge Jones summarized the ID approach as "breathtaking inanity" and that the creationist and ID supporters then promptly made numerous death threats against Jones and his family. I would have mentioned that. I think that shows the ID community in the correct light. Basically criminals and jerks and people who want to spread an agenda of hatred and intolerance. Would you prefer my summary, the current lead, or the EB article?--Filll 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i see most of the hate coming from your side

should not pro-IDers have some input into this article??

raspor 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a charge Fill. Can you source the death threats thing. I can tell you that I would condemn anything of the kind. Sometimes the anti-theistic media takes the actions of a few quacks and beats us over the head with it. Still do you really think IDers are by and large that kind of people? Keep in mind that Theists have a strong phylosophical reason to follow moral conventions regarding how to treat people. There are a lot of Materialists out there too who are very moral people, but on the other hand they don't have to be phylosophically speaking (don't have to be good that is; you know the whole might makes right... opps I mean survival of the fitest principle of the universe.)Adlac 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if I can find a reference for the death threats. I heard an interview on either NPR or CSPAN (I think it was one of those two) with someone that has written a book about the trial (at least I think so; maybe it was the defense lawyer, or one of the expert witnesses-my memory is a bit hazy on this and I wasnt taking notes) and he mentioned it in his interview. I was horrified. I could not believe it (well yes I could but I was disgusted, but then I am not American and lots of things here like this sort of thing disgust me). What did the Judge do to deserve this? What did his family do? I might agree with what a Judge says, I might disagree, but over THIS issue? This is not some life and death issue after all. There is not some huge sum of money involved. This is NUTS to threaten a Judge over this. Please...it makes me want to cry. I do not think that the people of the DI are "that kind of people". However, I am afraid that there is a large group of creationists and fundamentalists who have latched onto the ID bandwagon and of that group, there is a crazy fringe element. The same people that blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, the same people who blow up abortion clinics, the same people who are in white militias and are white supremacists etc. So unfortunately, I think that ID appeals to them, and so you get people like that involved. I do not claim that the DI is like that or in any way responsible. It is just the element that this appeals to.--Filll 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think I like you Fill - you talk straight man (woman?). Really, you are not american? Hablas espanol? Falas portugues? Han guk mal arayo? I'm american but lived overseas for most of my life. There are evil people in this world. We need to put the spotlight on them by elevating values and morality not by trashing these concepts. Believe me there are evil people in every camp. Just so happens that the media and the accademic establishment hates us and magnifies the actions of fringe cooks who claim religion etc. But we have to ask ourselves: phlosophically which ideas will breed more psycho murderers?Adlac 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You find reporting of verifiable facts to be "hate".

And yes, pro-IDers should have input to this article, and they do. As long as they can submit verifiable factual statements, properly cited, they are welcome to make edits. To avoid reversion wars, it's a good idea to propose suggestions here, as other IDers such as DLH (see archives) have done. Why don't you try it? Suggest just one sentence you want to change or add, and discuss it. -Amatulic 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

no they dont. anything we try to add somehow is wrong. i quoted directly from a cite that an anti-IDer used and they said it was wrong. jeez. i quotes directly from what they quoted from.

do you see my point??

OK i will try to make up one tomorrow.

raspor 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look all these articles on evolution and creationism etc are pretty rough and tumble. I have been in pitched battles over the most stupid things on the evolution articles with other pro-evolution editors like myself. All I am trying to do is get them to write clear expository English sentences and to make their points clear. And it is like pulling teeth to get any changes in. It is not easy. You have to build up a certain credibility and trust level with the other editors. You have to make your case. Sometimes several times. I still have not got the evolution lead to be readable, and I have tried 6 or 7 times and posted countless times about it. Everything I ever tried has been shot down or reverted in one way or another. So...you have to not engage in too many insults. You have to try again. You have to be credible. You have to make your case over and over, patiently. Eventually, you might make a dent in things. --Filll 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, please do not encourage the sort of behavior and discussion seen above. Raspor's user talk page or his Raspor's RFC are better places for giving him advice.

90% of the above discussion, particularly Adlac's jingoist epistles, have no bearing on the article. As pointed out to Raspor and Adlac before by many here, Wikipedia article talk pages are not chat rooms or forums. We've done our best to be accomodating, ultimately providing this subpage, and we've been rewarded with trolling and personal attacks for our efforts. There is a limited amount of community patience when it comes to disruptiveness. Any continuing use of Wikipedia article talk pages for off-topic chats and rants will be userfied. Any that devolve into personal attacks will be deleted. Sorry that its gotten to this, but you can't say you haven't been warned. FeloniousMonk 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User conduct RFC: Raspor

For interested parties, FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor

Anyone who has tried to resolve his issues through policy and reason will need to endorse the RFC here if you agree with the summary I've provided... Or write your own. FeloniousMonk 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia entry on ID

So here it is:

Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the Darwinian theory of biological evolution. Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God, proponents of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains; therefore, living organisms must have been created all at once by an intelligent designer. Proponents of intelligent design generally avoided identifying the designer with the God of Christianity or other monotheistic religions, in part because they wished the doctrine to be taught as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution in public schools in the United States, where the government is constitutionally prohibited from promoting religion. Critics of intelligent design argued that it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, that it ignores the existence of precursor systems in the evolutionary history of numerous organisms, and that it is ultimately untestable and therefore not scientific. See also creationism.

Dang, thats a nice piece of research Raspor. Thanks for showing this.Adlac 03:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone see problems with their style? How is it different than ours, except ours has many more references? Comments?--Filll 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

you really cannot see how much more professional, balanced, cool, unbiased it is?

if you cant there really is no hope

raspor 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the difference. This of course is just the free online version, not the full version. I have not seen that. They also are not sourcing anything. They also have given a large fraction of the space up to describing ID in great detail. It does not say who the criticizers are, or the depth of the criticism. It does not mention the court case. However, I think that for someone writing a report on ID, our version is far more potentially useful. It has references, it lets you know that there are not just a few anonymous critics of this policy. One more damning thing of the EB version is that it hints of what is basically perfidity on the part of the DI; to try to trick the court system of the US and the school systems into teaching religion in schools by disguising it. I personally find that far more damaging than just junk science. To me it smacks of intellectual dishonesty at best, and approaching fraud at worst. It makes them sound like a bunch of crooks and chislers, frankly. But if you like that characterization and insinuation, then fine.--Filll 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't mention THE COURT CASE" Oh man that's a good one! My how can ID be described with out mentioning THE CASE?! You know where the Supreme Court ruled that all 600 prophets of ID should be stoned.Adlac 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. However, from the point of view of the opposing side, that is the biggest event so far. I imagine that in a few years, the court case will fade into irrelevance. If things go as I suspect, it is just the first shot in a long struggle.--Filll 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fill, first you don't see a difference except for lack of references. Your next reading of the article reveals a clear conspiricy proving they are crooks and swindlers. Man, you have got let me in on some of that... who is your supplier? Just kidding. I'm just a bit confused about your analysis my friend.Adlac 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The part that rubs me the wrong way (which I suspect was necessary for fund raising by the DI, so I am not blaming DI completely here, only partially), is the image of trying to "sneak" creationism into the schools by renaming it. I would rather (although I think this is too idealistic) have them approach things in a completely different manner. If I was in charge, and money was no object, here is what I would advocate, if I were the director of the DI:

1. I would collect the widest possible range of research proposals on topics that might likely produce evidence of the supernatural, or a deity. Of course, people might accuse this of being a "god of the gaps" approach, but frankly, where else should one look, but in the gaps? You dont want to look in places that you can already rule out. That is just rational and good science.
2. I would engage in a patient process of nurturing research talent and research on several fronts that look fruitful for producing peer-reviewed results. I would make sure that there is no overt agenda that flavors this research, only that it is conducted in a reasonable scientific manner.
3. After publication of a good chunk of these in a number of fields, I would then go public in books and seminars etc.
4. I would probably start with advocating the teaching of this in religion classes or philosophy classes or similar classes. Of course, this runs the risk of "contaminating" these classes with science, but so what? It is far easier to get it in there than it is to go head to head with the science establishment.
5. I would encourage the writing of suitable textbooks, not that partially -rewritten creationist tract that got DI in so much trouble in the trial and in the media.
6. I would be very cautious about more nonpeer-reviewed statistical arguments like that form Dembski, which were shot down so stridently during the trial. Even if you have to have some sort of informal peer-review, like they do at a place like Bell Labs, and you have things torn up by a selected review team, DI can avoid embarassment by making sure that the stuff that comes out is of high quality, even the stuff in books that is not formally peer-reviewed.
7. I am a bit uncomfortable with the entire "change the culture of America and the world" agenda, which I realize is necessary for fundraising probably. I would downplay that, if it was not necessary for fundraising. It rubs people the wrong way. It sounds too much like the creationist agenda, or the lecturing Pope etc.
8. If I could in any way shape or form, I would strongly discourage (or prevent if possible) any of my supporters from making death threats to people like Judge Jones. That really turned my stomach and disgusted me, frankly. I am horrified by that sort of behavior. I have seen it over and over by creationist types, and it scares me to death to imagine hatemongers like that in control of the culture. --Filll 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, we were in charge of the culture!!! This culture was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Bible references are spread over Federal buildings from sea to shining sea. Look at the coins in your pocket, say the pledge of alegence, read the founding documents of almost every old prestigious university in this country. Is the country ruined because of us? Haven't you heard of the scopes trial? At that time they were fighting for free speech rights for Darwinists in the science classroom. You think "God and country" is going to ruin our land faster than moral reletivism and survival of the fitest (ie Hitler - the master race) phylosophy. Good God man it is the only thing holding our country together! Your personal sence of moral values about how to treat others that you just described did not derive from Darwin - it derives from your Judeo-christian culture filtering thorough to you. In the future anything could be justified and perpetrated on the minority. Our whole status of having unalianable rights just for being Human and therefor valuable is in jeparody.Adlac 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW your long post was very sensitive and perceptive to our perspective. An excelent contribution in my view.Adlac 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason you would lable me a conservative is because I am resisting harmful change. Funny that you would fear people from my camp because they want to "change the culture". Heavens, the Secular Progressive crowd is doing that well enough.Adlac 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as an nonAmerican, I see things slightly differently. Several founders were deists, or Unitarians. A lot were not that devout, frankly. There was a revulsion I see in many statements of the founders to religious extremism. The US is also well on the path to a more pluralistic tapestry. The statements about "In God we trust" did not get put on the currency for a good 90 years after the Declaration of Independence. The "one nation under God" part did not get added until the 1950s. The pledge of allegiance itself was meant to be a plea for equality of minorities and women and was changed under pressure. The author was a Baptist preacher who was hounded out of his church by the conservatives in his church. The US has always been a haven for religoius extremism of various stripes, either those thrown out of other places for being too crazy or just unwanted: Hugenots from France, Quakers, Puritans, English Catholics Jews, Anabaptists of various flavors (Dunkers, Hutterites, Amish, Mennonites, etc) mostly from Germany, Dukabors from Russia, Lubbavitchers, etc or else homegrown: Scientologists, Millerites, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Westboro Baptist Church, Theosophists, Spiritualists, Oneida Community, People's Temple (Jim Jones and the purple koolaid), Heaven's Gate cult, Followers of the Bagwan, Nation of Islam (A "Muslim" religion that is not really Muslim), Nation of Israel (A "Jewish" religion that is not really Jewish), Followers of the Kabala (Another "Jewish" religion that is not really Jewish), Society for Krishna Consciousness (a "Hindu" religion that is not really Hindu), Christian Scientists (a religion that appears to be neither very Christian or about science very much) and so on. I also think that it was ALWAYS part of the US culture to have "survival of the fittest", long before Darwin made any dent ("survival of the fittest" was a term from economics, before Darwin even published actually). The US has always been a rough and tumble environment with very little safety net and a lot of brutality in its dealings with minorities, and with its neighbors in the civil war, and in dealings with the natives, and other countries. The US has had a war on average every 2.5 years its entire existence (only 2 of those were formal declarations of war). Compare this to Canada for example....it is not even anywhere close to that. The US has plenty of not so shining virtues, and it can not be blamed on Darwinism. After all, the paper published last year showing a positive correlation between social ills and religious beliefs among western industrialized countries sort of makes that argument look silly, frankly (I put the reference on the education and creationism article page, if you havent read it yet). Coming from another country and another culture, I can tell you that the US has plenty of inherently nasty parts, and it has nothing to do with Darwin undermining Judeo-Christian values. Many of the nastiest people I have met are the "Christian extremists" of various types in the US, and the most fervent of them are frankly nothing like what I would expect a Christian to be.--Filll 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd be amazed how devote many of the founders were, there were a lot of founders BTW who signed the Dec. of Independance, formed the constitution etc. Of the most prominent founders there were a couple of Deists - Washington probably the most devote. Lesser know signers of the declaration were heavy of the devoted side I would say. Yes we do have a lot of religions and many extremes even. There are drawbacks to that but that is what freedom of speech and religion is all about. Besides hows a person supposed to seek truth in this world if their is only one expressed view that of the reigning despot. I'm truly sorry you had some bad run ins with christian kooks. Rememer that the obnoxious types tend to be the most vocal too, so their are many peaceful good ones too that don't mouth off and insult peoples inteligence. I attend regular gatherings of international students who don't agree with me religiously. We get along famously. Remember to when looking at societal correlations with Religion. Did you know that the religious element in this country are the most generous humanitarily in terms of financial giving? We are probably the most generous people in the world. You point out that America is always fighting wars. Well policemen are always associated with violence too. America has a history of putting their own blood on the line when facing tyrany. Pacifists will allow tyrany as long as it is not affecting them, they'll close their eyes and hope it goes away. America has some stains on its record - yes. But remember half of our country gave their blood to defend the right of slaves to be free. You do acknowege the sacrifice of these white, religious folks don't you?Adlac 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Amateur Political and Historical Analysis I certainly acknowledge that many people sacrificed a lot to free the slaves. It also happened quite a bit later than it did in Britain itself (in Australia, they had a law on the books permitting the hunting of Aborigines as game up until the 1920s; at least the US wasnt that bad). I think that too many people want to claim the US is all good, or all bad. It is a far more complicated picture than that. On the negative side, I could point to the gun boat diplomacy of forcing open Japanese markets, and the huge US merchant marine supplying the opium to China in the 1800s. I could point out the political campaign slogan of "54 40 or fight" and "manifest destiny". I could point out repeated assassinations and assassination attempts on American presidents. I could also mention that the FDA came far later than comparable institutions in many other western industrialized countries. I could point out the extermination orders on the Mormons. I could point out the House on UnAmerican Activities Committee and the Golden Fleece Awards and Watergate and Vietnam and American meddling in the politics in Chile and Iran and Argentina. I could point out lobbying, which is basically legalized graft. On the plus side, I could point out the Marshall plan. I could point out the tradition of presidents to give up their seats after 2 terms (before the amendment made it mandatory). I could point out the efforts of Wilson to start the League of Nations, and the efforts to produce the United Nations. I think it is great that Israel was supported, but I am not so happy with the unbalanced support of the Palestinians and the lack of balanced coverage in US media of the situation. I think that the US did the right thing by intervening in Yugoslavia and that worked great, although a lot of people did die, which is very very unpleasant. I think there was no way around it, unfortunately because things had deteriorated too far before the US became involved. I can point out the moon effort, but also the stupid decision to fly these shuttles for no really good reason except to consume resources for years and years and years. The S & L crisis and junk bond scandal of Mike Millikin etc was an outrage and it went on unchecked for years and years, destroying resources. It was obvious what was going on; I saw many interviews at the time with bankers from Japan and the UK and Germany where the foreign bankers said "what on earth is the US doing? WHy would they permit such destruction? What a waste!!" The Panama Canal was a great achievement, but I can also point out the waste of the SSC. We had a huge lead on producing fuel efficient vehicles and technology 30 years ago, and we threw it all away when someone beguiled us with a statement like "morning in America" which was pure BS. The US at one time had more rail than the rest of the world put together, now all ripped up; one of the most efficient method of transportation, and all the infrastructure was destroyed. Why? I would have favored more of a Nixonian approach to support of the Former Soviet Union after the collapse, because I think we lost a golden opportunity there to help them modernize and reform and become less of a threat. I am not in favor of torture because it hurts the US image, but I think that people are crazy if they think it started with this administration. I also think that people are desperate to deal with a serious threat, and the US is bearing the brunt of it. I was not in favor of Iraq, but then I was not very happy about saving Kuwait either, given that the US sent mixed messages. Didnt help with the mixed messages to the marsh people either that rebelled and were squashed after US encouragement. I think that the US gives way too much of its foreign aid to Israel (the biggest US foreign aid recipient by far, and not always the greatest friend the US ever had; after all, they were responsible for the single biggest attack on a US intelligence asset). The US political system is tuned in such a way that Israel and Cuba get treated far differently than they would in many other countries (although not all other countries lost as much when Cuba nationalized either, which people forget). It is also the reason the US cannot implement the metric system, and only has two political parties. Other countries on a per capita basis actually give quite a bit more than the US I think. I will definitely acknowledge that the reason the US is in a lot of wars now is that it is acting like the world's policeman; I think it has something like several hundred foreign military bases, and this is after many rounds of base closings as well. The US does some dumb things. When I first came to the US, it was legal to fund the IRA insurgency and the protestant militias in ireland; they even openly advertised for money to buy arms in the US. Same for many of the islamic charities that were raising money for arms; it was ok. I asked about funding terrorism, and the americans just told me "Oh that is free speech". I was not particularly convinced, even though you had a supreme court decision that said money is the same as speech. But anyway, eventually the US had a wakeup call and realized that open funding of terrorism is not a good idea. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and many people who should not be are being pursued unfairly I think. I do think that the US is in Iraq not for oil directly, but to stabilize the part of the world their oil comes from (realizing that oil is fungible, of course). However, the proximate reason was to get the WMD (which I am fairly convinced there is more to that story than we know, but that is a different topic), and also so that GWB could create a legacy and sort of listened to the wrong advisors. I feel horrible about the troops being killed in Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being needlessly killed. So much death and destruction, for what? The US does bear the brunt of a lot of this, and a lot of other countries are not willing to shoulder their part of the burden. WMD in Iraq would not have been a laughing matter. However, it is not clear that they could have pursued their program very actively with the inspection teams searching, and with the No fly zone. I think that the way that the US welcomes foreigners is impressive, inspite of the 10+ million illegal immigrants and the mixed feelings about them. I can obviously go on and on. My friends have said that the US is like a country with bipolar disorder; really good things, and really bad things. At least it is always exciting I guess. --Filll 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to the point of America being a warmongering country. Right now we have an all-voluntier military force, amercan civilians who leave their jobs and homes to face having their legs blown off, their faces disfigued there brains spread over the desert sand. Why because they like shooting people? No because these people, friends, neighbors and coworkers of mine want to see a seed of liberty planted in the middle east to halt the tide of insane violence. These are the bravest peacemakers on the planet. It is the countries that will not stand up that are to be scorned for their supposed "peacefulness".Adlac 04:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also comment that neither ours nor the EB version says what I would have said; Judge Jones summarized the ID approach as "breathtaking inanity" and that the creationist and ID supporters then promptly made numerous death threats against Jones and his family. I would have mentioned that. I think that shows the ID community in the correct light. Basically criminals and jerks and people who want to spread an agenda of hatred and intolerance. Would you prefer my summary, the current lead, or the EB article?--Filll 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i see most of the hate coming from your side

should not pro-IDers have some input into this article??

raspor 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a charge Fill. Can you source the death threats thing. I can tell you that I would condemn anything of the kind. Sometimes the anti-theistic media takes the actions of a few quacks and beats us over the head with it. Still do you really think IDers are by and large that kind of people? Keep in mind that Theists have a strong phylosophical reason to follow moral conventions regarding how to treat people. There are a lot of Materialists out there too who are very moral people, but on the other hand they don't have to be phylosophically speaking (don't have to be good that is; you know the whole might makes right... opps I mean survival of the fitest principle of the universe.)Adlac 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if I can find a reference for the death threats. I heard an interview on either NPR or CSPAN (I think it was one of those two) with someone that has written a book about the trial (at least I think so; maybe it was the defense lawyer, or one of the expert witnesses-my memory is a bit hazy on this and I wasnt taking notes) and he mentioned it in his interview. I was horrified. I could not believe it (well yes I could but I was disgusted, but then I am not American and lots of things here like this sort of thing disgust me). What did the Judge do to deserve this? What did his family do? I might agree with what a Judge says, I might disagree, but over THIS issue? This is not some life and death issue after all. There is not some huge sum of money involved. This is NUTS to threaten a Judge over this. Please...it makes me want to cry. I do not think that the people of the DI are "that kind of people". However, I am afraid that there is a large group of creationists and fundamentalists who have latched onto the ID bandwagon and of that group, there is a crazy fringe element. The same people that blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, the same people who blow up abortion clinics, the same people who are in white militias and are white supremacists etc. So unfortunately, I think that ID appeals to them, and so you get people like that involved. I do not claim that the DI is like that or in any way responsible. It is just the element that this appeals to.--Filll 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think I like you Fill - you talk straight man (woman?). Really, you are not american? Hablas espanol? Falas portugues? Han guk mal arayo? I'm american but lived overseas for most of my life. There are evil people in this world. We need to put the spotlight on them by elevating values and morality not by trashing these concepts. Believe me there are evil people in every camp. Just so happens that the media and the accademic establishment hates us and magnifies the actions of fringe cooks who claim religion etc. But we have to ask ourselves: phlosophically which ideas will breed more psycho murderers?Adlac 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You find reporting of verifiable facts to be "hate".

And yes, pro-IDers should have input to this article, and they do. As long as they can submit verifiable factual statements, properly cited, they are welcome to make edits. To avoid reversion wars, it's a good idea to propose suggestions here, as other IDers such as DLH (see archives) have done. Why don't you try it? Suggest just one sentence you want to change or add, and discuss it. -Amatulic 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

no they dont. anything we try to add somehow is wrong. i quoted directly from a cite that an anti-IDer used and they said it was wrong. jeez. i quotes directly from what they quoted from.

do you see my point??

OK i will try to make up one tomorrow.

raspor 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look all these articles on evolution and creationism etc are pretty rough and tumble. I have been in pitched battles over the most stupid things on the evolution articles with other pro-evolution editors like myself. All I am trying to do is get them to write clear expository English sentences and to make their points clear. And it is like pulling teeth to get any changes in. It is not easy. You have to build up a certain credibility and trust level with the other editors. You have to make your case. Sometimes several times. I still have not got the evolution lead to be readable, and I have tried 6 or 7 times and posted countless times about it. Everything I ever tried has been shot down or reverted in one way or another. So...you have to not engage in too many insults. You have to try again. You have to be credible. You have to make your case over and over, patiently. Eventually, you might make a dent in things. --Filll 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raspor's first draft proposed article lead

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3]The concept has been around for thousands of years. The Greeks, St. Augustine and Thomas Paley were proponents. May people feel now that the concept has been hijacked by the Discovery Institute. Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[11]

Something like that. cuz the term and concept has been around since time immemorial. It has the domintate opinion until Darwin

raspor 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have spent hours on discussing my ideas. they are all shot down. I just want to mention that more college graduate believe in ID than High School. nope cant say that. its positive about ID.

raspor 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also irrelevant. Validity of science isn't determined by popular vote.

Anyway, your proposed lead is a good start. I like your sentence about the Greeks etc. However, the sentence "Many people feel that the concept has been hijacked..." uses weasel words ("many ... feel") and emotionally loaded terms ("hijacked") and could be rephrased for more neutrality - or the message of that sentence could be merged into following one.

This is how we should work things out. Here on the talk page, talking about specific examples. How about my revision below: It isn't perfect but addresses my concerns:

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3] The concept is a form of teleological argument that has existed since ancient times; proponents included the Greeks, St. Augustine, and Thomas Paley. More recently, the leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[11]

What do you think? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you would prefer the lead to include the fact that ID isn't a new idea, correct? I have no problem with including such a statement in a neutral way. Other regular editors chime in. I'd like to have a constructive dialog here for once. -Amatulic 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also uncomfortable with implying that the DI "stole" the idea, although the idea certainly is not new by any means. They are the leading current proponents of the idea, however, at least as far as I know.--Filll 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fill - absolutely right.Adlac 03:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This proposed intro will never fly. It promotes a view of ID being promoted by ID proponents. It ignores WP:NPOV by misrepresenting the majority viewpoint (the scientific community) while giving the minority viewpoint undue weight, it ignores WP:LEAD, and it lastly it ignores all the evidence that is presented in the article by way of notable sources. Sorry, but such a slanted portrayal while never make it. I suggest you all read up on the topic, starting with the sources given in the article. FeloniousMonk 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

FeloniusMonk, you of all people should know how the process of article creation works. Nowhere did I suggest that the proposed lead was acceptable. Raspor proposed something. I proposed a modification. If he can agree to that modification, he might agree to a further one, until after many revisions on this talk page the lead evolves to the point where we all agree we have a good lead paragraph.

But instead of making a constructive contribution to this conversation, you dismissed it out of hand and destroyed my attempt to transform an edit war into a talk page discussion about specific portions of the article. It's difficult to continue assuming good faith if you fail to demonstrate it. -Amatulic 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's also irrelevant. Validity of science isn't determined by popular vote."

then why to the anti-IDers constantly say '99% of biologists say'?

Because the opinions of scientists about science isn't a "popular vote." More specifically, the opinions of biologists about biology isn't a "popular vote." The word "popular" in this case includes everyone, non-scientists also who don't know better. -Amatulic 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"What do you think? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you would prefer the lead to include the fact that ID isn't a new idea, correct? I have no problem with including such a statement in a neutral way. Other regular editors chime in. I'd like to have a constructive dialog here for once."

yes ID should be described in the first paragraph as if the DI did not exist. like looking at a specimen in a sterile environment. the you guys can bash it. but should not the IDers have a chance immediately to rebutt?

raspor 12:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3]"

This appears to be unchanged from the current version

• "The concept has been around for thousands of years."

Uncited, unsupported, incorrect and vague statements have no place in the lead.

• "The Greeks, St. Augustine and Thomas Paley were proponents"

Again, this is vague, inaccurate, and inappropriate for the lead

• "May people feel now that the concept has been hijacked by the Discovery Institute" - they do? Who are these "many people"?

Again, vague unsourced statements have no place in the lead.

• "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[11]"

Pretty much unchanged. Guettarda 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you had instead responded to my revision immediately below raspor's. -Amatulic 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also piggybacking off of Guettarda, note that "many people" is classic weasel wording. The current version is well sourced and well written. I see no reason to change anything severely. JoshuaZ 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fill, Felon moved my response to my page

what a bob job —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

raspor 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i dont know who wrote this, but i like it

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3] The concept is a form of teleological argument that has existed since ancient times; proponents included the Greeks, St. Augustine, and Thomas Paley. More recently, the leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[11]

yes that at least shows that it existed prior to the hijacking by the DI. i do agree that the concept is being used by the DI. reminds me of the volkswagen. hitler invented it. so what. it was a great idea. great machine. we have to be scientific and get the emotional baggage out of the way.

i personally think ID is a scientific theory. i can show that logically. but still so what. i think hitler believed in 'survival of the fittest' eugenics etc. anti-smoking. vegetarianism. again just cuz someone you dont like promotes something for their selfish motives does not mean the concept itself is bad

also it should be mention that many educated people believe that ID is scientific althought the mainstream does not.

can there be rebuttals in the article? or just the prosecution laying its case?

raspor 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All ideas have intellectual antecedents. Of course ID is derived from prior ideas. But this article isn't about the history of teleology, it's about the specific form of ID that is being marketed as a scientific theory by the DI, the Johnson-Behe-Dembski form.

You can "show logically" that ID is a "scientific theory"? Really? Please do. I can see no way that ID can be a scientific theory. It's obviously not a theory - a theory is a well-supported hypothesis. Since there isn't a shred of evidence to support ID, it can never be a "theory". As for it being scientific - if it were scientific it would generate testable hypotheses. It has, to the best of my knowledge, generated none. Guettarda 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

do you have the patience to do a walk thru?

well first of all do you think a theory needs evidence?

raspor 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A theory is a well-supported hypothesis. Obviously it needs a wealth of evidence to support it. Guettarda 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with Raspor's continued objections

Since at least the 27th Raspor has been repeatedly raising the same set of objections here, all of which have been previously dealt with in the past and all of which favor an implicitly pro-ID viewpoint to the exclusion of the majority's viewpoint.

As pointed out by a number of long term contributors above his objections and proposals fly in the face of both our core policy, WP:NPOV, and substantial credible evidence which stands in contrary to his claims and interpretation of events. Raspor continues raising the same objections and proposals in pursuit of certain points for an extended time despite opposition from almost all credible long term editors. He has refused to abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, failing to cite sources, citing unencyclopedic sources, misrepresenting reliable sources, and insisting on evidence that is strictly partisan and original research. Lastly he has resisted requests for moderation and continues to argue in pursuit of the same certain points despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators.

Considering his participation here has been marked by all three points defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, tendentious, fails to acknowledge policy, and rejects community input, in the interest of freeing up the talk page for other discussions I'm asking Raspor to moderate his participation here and not continue to dominate this page with endless and fruitless objections. His talk page is a more appropriate venue for the laundry list of personal gripes unacquainted with policy that we have seen.

I move that any additional incessant and fruitless discussions that become disruptive be userfied or moved to a subpage here in order to allow other, more fruitful discussions to take place. FeloniousMonk 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement Mr Christopher 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing discussions moved

Per comments above the ongoing fruitless discussions have been moved to this subpage: Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections. This was done in order to clear the way for more productive discussion here. Any further discussions on these lines need to be made there; those left here will be moved to the subpage moving forward. FeloniousMonk 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

youre the boss!

raspor 17:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

well i would like mr. felonious to explain who i did 'disruptive editing' and show the incident. i believe he is in error and is using that to stifle and commentary which is not in his complete acceptance. this it not the wiki way

raspor 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The only people that were being stifled were those that tried to discuss anything other than your objections and proposals. Take a look at the sections above. There you will see that over the period of four days you started at least 5 long sections (not to mention the one I moved and the discussions on other topics that you hijacked) that only resulted in a number of regular, established contributors (prior to me) explaining how WP policy and guideline have shaped the article's content. All of which you've rejected or ignored as evidenced in your continuing objections. In so doing you've wasted a lot of the time, effort and patience of the established contributors here and met all three requirements defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: tendentious, fails to acknowledge policy, and rejects community input. And this is just on the talk page; the only thing that has prevented this from spreading to the article is that it is protected. So, in fact you're not stifled, discussion can continue on the subpage, Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections, and other more productive discussions will be free to take place here. And keep in mind your identical activity at Talk:Evoltion is no more acceptable than it is here. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

wrong! i never edited this article so could hardly be guilty of 'disruptive editing' jeez read it!

and your activity is no more acceptable now than it has been in the past

raspor 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior is not only limited to actions when editing articles, but can include actions on talk pages as well. I should know, I helped write that guideline. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Many editors do nothing productive but cruise around on the talk pages to try to engage editors in unproductive arguments. I have plenty of battle scars from these engagements.--Filll 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another section moved to subpage

To here: Talk:Intelligent_design/Raspor's_and_adlac's_objections#FeloniousMonk.2C_why_did_you_answer_my_post_then_clear_it_without_charging_me_with_any_breaking_of_debate_decorum.3F FeloniousMonk 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] varthold, 31 December 2006

"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"

show me how the above has been test and shown to be true.

raspor 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not understanding what science is. You do not prove anything in science. You do not show anything to be "true" in science. All you have is data, and an explanation which fits the data. Period. No truth. No proof. And so on. Evolution is a theory that fits the data. Is that hard to understand?--Filll 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

we dont have to predict anything? pulleeze.

"All you have is data, and an explanation which fits the data. Period."

well ID can do that.

you cant be serious.

raspor 23:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It cannot. You need a supernatural being at the basis of ID, and you cannot prove his existence. Your sarcasm, persistence and rudeness are not going far in making your points. Orangemarlin 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to ask you: How do your comments here relate to improving the article? You seem to be using this page to discuss the relative merits of ID, not improving the article. If you want to discuss ID, please go to one of the many online fora dedicated to that. Please read WP:NOT and WP:TALK. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That is how you fit the explanation to the data. You use the theory/explanation to make predictions. Then you compare the predictions to the data. And if the predictions are close to the data, then you have a good fit. If not, you have a poor fit.

This is the basics in science. Of course there are other requirements, like no supernatural causes, falsifiability, repeatability, verifiability, publication, peer-review, error analyses, controls, statistics, etc. But the basic idea is you have data, and an explanation that fits them. The rest is just ancillary.

How does ID fail?

• The predictions ID makes fail over and over
• A supernatural cause in most forms
• No falsifiability; true by definition
• no publication in peer-reviewed publications

And so on and so forth. ID is not science. And the courts agree with me. And most scientists agree with me. And the dictionaries and encyclopedias agree with me. And most scientific societies agree with me. You think all these people and organizations are fooled or lying or evil or satanists ? Pullleeeeze...I wasnt born yesterday. So...ID is pseudoscience, not science. Sorry.--Filll 23:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the first to respond to this post but my contribution was deleted. Another 2 posts I made were moved to a subpage without explanation. Is this standard practice for the Darwinists on here?Adlac 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfairness Here

I am new and feel treated unfairly. It seems to me that many here the article is the way we want it and we are not going to change it. Any arguement one brings up they retort with 'we have been over that 100 times and you are wrong' I see little good faith in a lot of editors. It seems fixed.

I have tried to present my case and been told that I am a troll, stupid, ignorant, rude, etc. Most attempts to state a POV that is slightly pro-ID is attacked unreasonably. My comments are moved.

The some of the anti-IDers will not listen to reason. Presenting logic and data to them is futile.

But I still the minority view should be represented. It is useless talking to most anti-IDers because the have closed their minds to new ideas.

I would like to invite any pro-IDers to work with me and make this a fair article. Is there anywhere to go for help against bullies here. Those who want to suppress alternate views.

raspor 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Insults will not get you very far here. You adopt most of the standard creationist tactics. You want to debate, but you will not answer any question you do not like. YOu just dodge and weave, and bring up the same old tired issues over and over, blindly and brainlessly. You could be a bot, by all appearances. It gets tiresome after a while, you know?--Filll 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? You didn't sign your posts. Orangemarlin 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What bias and misrepresentation

Felony has state in the article that 10% surveyed believe in ID. Yet he says that belief that God created life is ID. He biasedly forgot to add that 64% belive humans were creaed by God.

And the title of the article is 2/3 of US believe humans were created by God. If you ought there do not think that is bias you need a course in logic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 January 2007.

Glad to see that you fully accept that ID is creationism rebranded as science. As the article shows. However your biases clearly have nothing helpful to contribute to this article, so kindly desist from trolling. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Try to read more carefully. Of course creationism is ID but ID is not creationism. Creationism is a subset of ID.

So I cannot crticise an obviously biased quote? Quit attacking me personally.

raspor 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to revise something, put the before and after text here and let people discuss it.--Filll 17:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

raspor's problem is using a definition that differs from that used by the rest of the world. Like other IDers, the aim is to redefine logic. Wikipedia is not here to give undue weight to such odd perceptions. .. dave souza, talk 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. ID is creationism, but creationism is more than ID. As creationist ideas go, it is neither intellectually stimulating nor artistically beautiful. It's a narrow argument which is, according to Johnson, based on a lack of faith and imagination (since he said that he could not believe in God if the Bible weren't literally true, hence his need to make God conform to Johnson's need for "proof"). Equating belief in intelligent design with belief in God is an insult to most believers. Guettarda 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

dave you called me a troll and there is a guideline here about trolls: dont feed them. if you do not want to go by the guidelines here you should not post. so please try to follow the rules

raspor 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] closed minds

adlac,

email me. would like to talk to you. the darwinists here are not following wiki guidelines and are not posting in good faith. continually attempted to inform closed minds will not work.

raspor 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, I'm sure we will talk at some point. Thanks for your support. Right now I am still hoping that the opposition will have a straight discussion with me about how we can agree on the Wiki policy that views must be presented as acceptable to proponents by involving mediation. Saying that since the ID article is "pseudoscience" we don't deserve to judge how our own view is represented doesn't sound right to me. I have also experienced two cases of moving my threads without explanation when I want to discuss the issues with the main contributers and one case of wholesale deletion of my posts. I still hold out hope that somehow or another they will come to the table. I'm not here to have a fun chat in a subforum; I am here to make this presentation of ID reflect the actual stated beliefs of it's adherents. I'm not going to surrender to bias but see to the proper representation of our views as defined by us the actual view holders (according to Wiki policy). Why don't you guys e-mail me and maybe you'll find out I'm not such a bad guy after all.--Adlac 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As you'll have noted, policies particularly relevant to changes to this article are linked from a box at the top of this page. The actual stated beliefs of ID's adherents have to be properly shown by verifiable evidence without giving undue weight to minority or non-notable positions. What you call "the proper representation of our views as defined by us the actual view holders" sounds awfully like original research which you'll appreciate is against policy. ,,, dave souza, talk 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave, on the Encyclopedia page on ID you can't believe that giving "undo weight" to ID applies do you? That rule is clearly talking about general topics such as "Life Origins" where the competing theories should be given weight according to their current prominence. Are you saying we should minimise an explanation of ID on its own page because it is a minority view? Next, "Verifiable evidence" is talking about sourcing edits not about scientific verification!!! Hello, how are you going to get scientific verification of every view represented on Wikipedia. Most views that you or anyone else holds are not based on scientific laboratory findings. Enough of these red herrings.Adlac 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight might not be the most relevant piece of policy, but it is relevant. Verifiability means we cannot state what people believe without a source. Please don't dismiss policy. -- Ec5618 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't dismiss the policy, I embrace the policy. But as you said it is irrelevant!Adlac 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

would it be OK to say God or aliens designed the first living entity equiped with the DNA code and then evolution took over from there?

raspor 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you say God, it is not science. But sure you can say that. As I have tried to get you to understand, evolution has nothing to say about where life first came from, and a whole bunch of other stuff that fundamentalists want to claim is part of evolution. --Filll 20:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

you were the one that stated that evolution did not conflict with the believe in God. i didnt bring it up you did

raspor 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

These word games are pointless, stupid and boring. Read the articles please and dont keep posting nonsense.--Filll 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should try to read more carefully. Yes I agree the games you are playing are pointless, stupid and boring. You bring God up then say we should not.

raspor 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

God is not part of evolution. Period. Do you get it? God might have created the rules by which evolution operates (theistic evolution) or the laws by which the universe operates (scientific law) or have created the first life form on earth (abiogenesis). Evolution is silent about ALL of that. However, any theory that includes God is not science, by definition.--Filll 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] raspor's vandalism

raspor is now deleting properly cited and appropriate information in the article. The question is how do we deal with this new development now that he is vandalising the article and not just wasting the other editors time here on the talk page. Mr Christopher 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

it was biasedly quoted

raspor 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record I just put the three revert rule link on raspor's talk page with the warning that his continued vandalism may result in banning from this article. Mr Christopher 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

you have accused me of vandalism. please justify your frivilous accusation. and you are not being truthful about 'banishment' is this your technique to bully and threaten newcomers?

very unkind

raspor 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On your latest vandalism, the percentage of americans who believe in god is not relevant to this article, raspor. The article is about intelligent design and not how many americans believe in god. Mr Christopher 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to stay neutral in this. I have suggested that Raspor get a mediator/advocate who is willing to work with him and explain policy to him. Instead, he has chosen to continue ignoring policy. There are right ways to get things done and wrong ways to get things done. Even if the goal is to get something of merit done, doing it the wrong way is unproductive and can be disruptive.

At this point, I feel I have no choice but to reluctantly agree that Raspor is being a disruptive editor and follow official channels to get discipline restored to this article. If one of you wishes to run this up the channels (which may result in getting Respor blocked), I will lend my support. Further, I really really wish you will do so ASAP so that we can bring focus in the discussion page back to "how to write a better article".-Psychohistorian 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. AvB ÷ talk 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Humps just submitted a 3rr notice on raspor but I fear it may not be formatted correctly. Mr Christopher 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor has been blocked for 24 hours. AvB ÷ talk

Raspor, the article is not about how many college kids believe in ID compared to left handed mothers, or high schoolers or pre-schoolers. The entry Felonious Monk made regarding the Harris poll is sufficient to let the reader know how widespread the acceptance of ID is. There is no reason to add poll numbers for college kids, high school, mothers of twins, people of color, handymen for jesus, etc. Mr Christopher 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] false accusations

The justification for the recent vandalism concerned Felonious Monk's addition on a Harris poll. First of all Harris is considered a reliable and credible source. Second, the Harris article cited stated At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design)[6]. Felonious Monk's entry reads "According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design". The justification put forth by raspor include:

• this addition takes a study and cherry picks stats that support a personal point of view without giving an accurate picture of what the whole study is saying
• the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info
• cite was biased quoted
• the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info

Felonious Monk's edit seems completely within policy and he quoted the portion relevant to the article on intelligent design. In view of this I find raspor's reverts baseless. Mr Christopher 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

you have unjustly accused me of vandalism. this is a bullyism. technique. stop libeling me by saying i committed vandalism.

raspor 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, you should read each of these links carefully before making your false accusations: WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:LAWYER, and WP:CHILLOUT. Orangemarlin 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU read the article on vandalims and show me the clause that says i committed it

raspor 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies and misrepresentaions

'Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[10]'

I read the citation and nowhere did it say that the leading proponents of DI assert ID is on equal footing or superior to evolution.

'Although the concept has substantially influenced public opinion in the United States, it has little support in other parts of the world.[22]"

And i read the above citation and saw no mention of that assertion

lets discuss. i want to make these sentences more accurate

raspor 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss. Not only is this well known, it has been found in court that the Discover Institute attempted to put religion on an equal footing with evolution. Read the case in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents Orangemarlin 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

the info is not in the citations.

raspor 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A further citation is needed: I've amended the article accordingly. .. dave souza, talk 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] read the guidelines::

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

If it is relevant what % of US accepts ID then it is also relevant that 3 times as many college grads accept it.

Why are you afraid people will know that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're beginning to appreciate the requirement to discuss points and not repeatedly revert. The statement "10 percent subscribe to the theory that 'human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them' (intelligent design)." is highlighted at the top of the report as one of the main results of the survey, the claim "that 3 times as many college grads accept it" is nowhere in the report that I can see. Please read things carefully. .. dave souza, talk 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be an interesting fact, if you could document it. It is contrary to everything I have ever heard, read, or experienced personally.--Filll 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor now has 24 hours to reflect on the importance of 3RR, but I think he was referring to the table "SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION– BY EDUCATION" which shows ID support rising from 6% at HS or less to 15% College Grad and 17% Post Grad. Unfortunately enthusiasm for making a point seems to have overcome care with arithmetic or balanced description. Oddly enough, considering the much touted claim that ID includes creationism, Belief in creationism is shown as declining from 73% to 42% as educational attainment increases. .. dave souza, talk 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

varthold 1 January 2007

Evolution is not scientific. As stated earlier, in order for a thing to be scientific, it must be (1) observable, and (2) repeatable in an experimental setting. No person has ever witnessed the creation (sorry) of a new species. The creation of a new species from mutated members of an existing population of a known species has never occurred in an experimental setting.

Despite FeloniousMonk's assertions, no new discovery in biology has been uncovered based on a projection of what should happen in the future given the core beliefs of evolutionary past. Indeed, in the microbiological world, the more we learn about certain structures, such as mitochondria, the less likely the evolutionary theory becomes.

Y'all want to insist that Intelligent Design is un-scientific? Fine. But to insist that ID is unscientific, while failing to tag evolution in like manner, is illogical. 71.210.215.86 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're having this problem with logic. Please read the Kitzmiller judgement carefully, with an open mind. .. dave souza, talk 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Get an ID and log in.
• We have a huge list of evolutionary predictions that have been born out in the data
• over 99% of all biologists, and 72 US Nobel Prize winners, and over 100 international scientific societies with hundreds of thousands of members and the US supreme court and several other US courts all support evolution, and claim evolution is a science but ID is not. So are they all stupid?
• We have a huge list of speciation events that have been observed in the laboratory. These are repeatable as well. (Sorry)
• If we are illogical, but what does that say for the US court system and the overwhelming majority of scientists?--Filll 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By saying that Intelligent Design is "in opposition to biological science," or an "alternative theory," are we disregarding the fact that proponents of ID accept a lot of (even controversial) biological facts. Most proponents of ID accept the age of the earth and even that we evolved from apes.

I understand the reasoning for putting the overview in this way; it is a different way of explaining our origins. However, this article does give the impression that ID and biological science are constantly opposed and irreconcilable in regards to everything.

If someone could clarify that ID does accept our evolution from our ape relatives, and other such concepts, it might help with the general understanding of the concept. I feel like although all of this is implied, it is worth being stated.

Being new to Wikipedia and unintelligent, I wouldn't do this myself. Atheist-Expat 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There already exist various syntheses of creationism and evolution as theological or religious views, e.g., theistic evolution, old earth creationism, etc, which may easily and peacefully coexist with scientific inquiry in various ways, depending on whose views one consults (see, e.g. "relationship between religion and science"). The synthesized concept called intelligent design is opposed to methodological naturalism, i.e., the foundational requirement of scientific method to limit itself to empirically testable phenomena. What ID requires, in order to be termed science or scientific, is a fundamental expansion of scientific method into areas that go beyond the natural world and into the realm of philosophy, theology and religion. The statement in the article "stands in opposition to..." is a reflection of this reality and also a reflection of explicit statements by ID proponents such as Phillip Johnson that can be found in the WP article text and footnotes. ... Kenosis 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The supposed process of speciation that led to man or any other animal can never be emperically verified. If there was one laboratory event that produced a new step in actual genetic complexity resulting in a new species, which has never happened BTW (sorry FILL) then it would only prove that the conditions provided in that lab produced something new - only by analogy would it indicate that other millions of conditions did or even could have produced the diversity we have today(because we don't know what each of those conditions actually were). The reason true speciation has never been seen in a lab is that it would be like adding a whole new subroutine to a computer program only without a programmer. Like trying to explain the information contained in this sentence by studying the properties of the components of my computer. The information content is not produced by the computer it is imposed on it by intelligence. Imagine if there was some piece of literature somewhere, that was best explained by appealing to the properties of ink and paper rather than an author. Imagine if it was psudoscience to posit an author. Ah, but we don't have to imagine do we. Welcome to the twilite zone.Adlac 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And this specious argument has what to do with the article? •Jim62sch• 18:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well off topic, I'd say. However, Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? Read and enjoy..... dave souza, talk 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV = "it suffices to present views in a way that is acceptable to their adherents"

yes and according to MR you should just go home and go to sleep and let him and the mob run this part of town

raspor 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Raspor, try reading WP:CIVIL. There is no mob here. Orangemarlin 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been the most fruitful discussion to date. No secret though that I am an army of one here. But the discussion has been pleasantly civil.Adlac 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

so intimidation is OK. one of the mob called me a vandal. do you find that not-mob-like?

raspor 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No ID proponent collaborated on this article.

"There is a simple reason for all of this. It is plain that no ID proponent shared equal collaberation on the original development of the article. When did the idea start that the best way to find out about ID's views is to consult Darwinian activists? "

this is what i refer to as mob rule. the darwinists will not let anyone who is even neutral about ID add to this article. they own it. its no use talking to them

i have read in the archives where pro-IDers have pleading for the most minor changes to give this article a sliver of balance. nope they wont do it.

the only way to change it is by having enought numbers in the ID side. its mob rule here since the darwinists will not give IDers a crumb on their own article

raspor 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you titled this section using the term "ID proponent" and then later refer to such proponents as "neutral" about ID. Really now.

Why don't you come up with a specific example, and post it here on this talk page with a proposed change? I see you making complaints without ever saying anything specific. Take any sentence of the article and tell us how it should be changed, or why it's not neutral or not factual. -Amatulic 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made the same request 2 or 3 times already. I will do so again, PLEASE Raspor take a sentence or a section that you feel is biased or inaccurate, post it here, with your suggested neutral version. Fair enough?--Filll 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i did and wrote a whole paragraph and now its gone. this is a typical tactic here.

raspor 12:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, this article is visited regularly by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Some of these are quite clever people, but most just repeat what they heard elsewhere. Concepts such as the second law of thermodynamics, natural selection, and peer-review are often misunderstood by people who are, quite frankly, ignorant of science. Often, new editors do nothing but accuse other editors of pushing a point of view. As such, it's possible that the article has been written mostly by people who have little respect for intelligent design. I put it to you, raspor, that this is not the fault of other editors.

There is ample reason to believe that this article has been written by intelligent people who have put forth intelligible arguments. Please don't suggest that viewpoints are being supressed. If someone presents useful suggestions, they are heard. It just doesn't happen often, so that even useful suggestions might initially be drowned out by the din. -- Ec5618 00:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

no the article is biased. the concept intelligent design has been around for thousands of years. now the 'evil' DI is using it for their 'evil' purposes. so what. the concept firstly should be explained neutrally then if the they anti-IDer need to bash i cant stop them. has the DI used the concept so they can promote thier agenda, duh? yes! so what. thats the way politics works. if they want the US to be a christian theocracy that is their right. i am not for it. but to squish that is to squish the atheists. which seem to be many here. i think the atheists here are just getting back for the years they had to stay in the closet. to actively promote atheism is just as wrong. there is tremendous evidence for some kind of 'creator' why cant that be talked about. ID has been around for thousands of years. just admit it. it wasnt an invention of the DI. look at the def. thats where the lies are

raspor 12:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• "the concept intelligent design has been around for thousands of years" - really? That's the oddest idea I have heard this year. Where, pray tell, do you get that idea from?
• "now the 'evil' DI is using it for their 'evil' purposes" - what are you trying to say here?
• "the concept firstly should be explained neutrally then if the they anti-IDer need to bash i cant stop them" - I agree with the first part - it should be explained neutrally - but I don't think it should be "trashed". As it stands, the article does a great job of explaining it neutrally.
• "has the DI used the concept so they can promote thier [sic] agenda, duh? yes! so what. thats the way politics works" - without someone promoting it, ID wouldn't be notable; without the DI and its millions to promote it, Johnson's view of evolution would be even less notable than his AIDS-denialism.
• "if they want the US to be a christian theocracy that is their right. i am not for it." - I have no idea where you are going here
• "but to squish that is to squish the atheists." - huh?
• "which seem to be many here. i think the atheists here are just getting back for the years they had to stay in the closet. to actively promote atheism is just as wrong." - I have no idea what this has to do with theism/atheism. Personally my religious views influence my opposition to ID, but only tangentially - as a Christian and a scientist, I find ID an offensive perversion of both religion and science. If I were to re-write the article influenced by my own biases I would stress these things. But I am not here to insert my own biases into the article, I am here to ensure that the article remains neutral. Which it is.
• "there is tremendous evidence for some kind of 'creator' why cant that be talked about" - what evidence?
• "ID has been around for thousands of years. just admit it. it wasnt an invention of the DI." - again, can you support this with a source?
• "thats where the lies are" - lies are intentional falsehoods. Accusing your fellow editors of lying is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. If you continue to engage in personal attacks you may be blocked from editing. Guettarda 15:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raspor claims this is unbiased

Raspor claims that the Encyclopedia britannica article on ID is unbiased:

[edit] From Raspor's talk page

just read their def of 'intelligent design' very balanced, fair, informative.

not just a bashing of the idea by people who are against it

wiki in this case is a failure

i hope people will realize wiki is not a real encyclopedia. there should be a disclaimer somewhere

i thought it was serious for along time. people use this as a source.

compare brits to wiki's on ID

what a joke wikis is

should warn people that its just a bunch what seems to me to be college student with time on their hands spouting off.

nothing can be taken seriously here

Is there some point to this? Is there some suggestion here as to how to improve the article? This comment looks like a candidate for speedy archiving in the page history. Guettarda 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

the point is according to the guidelines i am supposed to discuss proposed changes.

do you want me to make changes without discussion?

raspor 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are proposing changes here? What changes are you proposing in this section? Guettarda 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is removing Meyer's comments or presentation supposed to make it better?

I do not get it raspor. Did he say it or not? There are several sources.--Filll 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

removing meyers comments? i dont get what you mean

raspor 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

you edited the text and removed a sentence. no?--Filll 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

must have been by accident. i like psycho's revision and want to have it public. must have made a mistake.

i have lots of other things to do. dont have much more time for this. i can see it is futile.

raspor 12:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] then change the name of the article

"This article deals with the concept of intelligent design as propounded by the Discovery Institute, nothing more."

i thought the aricle was about the concept 'intelligent design' not a specific flavor of it

see you have inexorably linked ID with DI for your agenda. the concpect existed before DI and be around after DI

this is the bias: you want so, so badly to link the two

raspor 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, see crass and evolution, both of which are examples of articles with less than comprehensive names. We could call it 'evolution in biology' and 'crass (punk band)', but why should we overcomplicate the title when the article makes its scope clear. -- Ec5618 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is a separate article on teleology.--Filll 13:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Congress says that Intelligent Design is sponosored by the Discovery Institute:

Congressional Record Issue: INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A SCIENCE -- (House of Representatives - June 14, 2000) Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I received a letter that was written by seven members of the biology department and one professor of psychology from Baylor University in response to my co-hosting a recent conference on intelligent design, the theory that an intelligent agency can bedetected in nature, sponsored by the Discovery Institute.

Emphasis mine. JPotter 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed change

Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

to

At this time its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Bad idea - in the existing statement, the word "are" is present tense, so "at this time" is implied. Adding "at this time" implies that this will change. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Guettarda 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fill can you help me

i saw your comment but have a hardtime getting to the exact spot to edit

anyhow

i think and you realize that consensus editing of whatever has inherent problems. if the minority view is suppresse there will be problems

ok if teleology is a synonmys for ID that state that at the beginning of the article.

and again 'intelligent design' is simply a better term that 'teleology'

really if you anti-IDers cannot ever compromise to the minority that this article is a bob job

raspor

OK here is what I propose. One might consider a notice and link at the start. One or two other editors above did that in their suggested rewrite of the lead. It could also do be done with an italic notice above the lead sentence, something like See also teleology or For historical discussion of this principle, see teleology or something like that. Now I would make a list of phrases like that to place above the lead sentence, or maybe at the bottom of the lead, and then put them here to let people discuss them. And if you find something that people object to strenuously, I would forget those. If you find some that people dont mind, try it and see if it gets reverted. Then discuss it and the reason for reversion. And try again. You could also look at the archives or above to see how the other person suggested teleology be put in the lead.--Filll 13:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

you see what I mean. there has to some balance here. there is a minority opinion and so squish it would be wrong

ok now should i just change it then see if gets reverted. i really thing fellatio will revert just about anything anybody else does. i have read the archives and i believe he thinks he owns this article.

i think you anti-IDers would be wise to give the opposition a little leg room. really the article reeks of bias. people can see that the other side is not allowed to talk.

its like a court room where the defense witnesses all have duct tape on their mouths when the jury walks in and the prosecution says the defense has no case.

raspor 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

say about what?

raspor 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here - what are you talking about? Guettarda 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Help us to understand, what exactly is your point? Mr Christopher 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interesting comment on reality::::

No, it is not agreed. Psychohistorian and Avb appear to have agreed that the sources do not support the words in the article. I strongly disagree, as do other editors, and maintain that they are both supportive of the statement and very informative to the previously uninformed reader. And, the editors here have been over this multiple times. I trust it will not be necessary to discuss this entire issue again from the very beginning; but if it is, I'll be willing to participate. ... 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC):::

so this is the gist here. even if sources logically do not support something it will remain as long as the majority think so.

so no matter how illogical the arguments, how bogus the sources it does not matter

and everything has been gone over already.

so everybody just go home and dont say anything about this article

'move on, move on. theres nothing to see here'

bobjob

raspor 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frustrated

I'm trying to keep up with this discussion, but it is difficult. There doesn't seem to be much discussion going on here, just one user Raspor making accusations about a whole host of issues, everyone trying to respond as if they are serious or meaningful, and his usually ending the discussion with something on the order of "mob rule" or "a bunch of you just delete what I've written" and etc. A number of us have asked Raspor in the about as nice of terms that we can muster to chill out and discuss whatever issues he might have in a logical and reasonable manner. But his responses are belligerent and occasionally offensive, which I know frustrates more than just me. The goal of these discussions are to create a better article, one that is NPOV and well-written, but all that is argued here are points that were resolved months ago. I don't know how many kbytes of data have been thrown back and forth, but nothing has changed. Is it possible to move on? I'm not even responding to him anymore, because he doesn't appear to be interested in engaging in thoughtful discourse. Orangemarlin 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to be as nice as I can to raspor. I have invited him several times to give us more concrete examples of what he wants to do. I have told him how to include the material that he wants in the article. However, he just engages in unproductive activity. That is why there is an RfC pending against him.--Filll 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would to somewhere be able to add to an article the ID point of view on any of these topics. is that possible or does everything have to be from the anti-ID point of view?

Can I put an explanation of why IDers believe ID is scientific?

raspor 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as you provide the reverent references stating why ID is scientific. I might warn you ahead of time that there is ample evidence of Phillip E. Johnson, William A. Dembski, and Michael Behe stating that the very ground rules of science have to be changed for ID to be considered scientific (which would also qualify astrology as a science).--Roland Deschain 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything has to be done by consensus. And that is how it is. Put your suggested addition here for comment and let people discuss it. Just do not put it in the article or it will probably be reverted immediately.--Filll 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And WP:NOR policy means that no-one can just put their own thoughts in: everything has to be properly attributed to a verifiable source. .. dave souza, talk 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks fill thats a good suggestion. at least you are telling me it will be reverted

and what i want to present is IDs side of the argument

i dont think they saig that by the way. do you have a site(cite)

are you saying astrology is not a scientific theory? please tell me

raspor 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, astrology is not science. It does not conform to the scientific method established over the last 4 centuries (or so). Behe admitted to changing the definition of science during the Dover trial in order to qualify ID as science. Go the the articles for the other two people for more than enough quotes to substantiate my claim.--Roland Deschain 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

to me no one can own a concept

it has an existence outside of who sponsors, propounds, denies, created it

raspor 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Raspor's comment here comes a bit closer to the heart of an important issue. To paraphrase an earlier comment I made in a slightly different context, previous efforts over the centuries centuries by such persons as Newton, Leibnitz, Paley and numerous others were not termed "intelligent design". "Intelligent design" was attached to the particular theological slants being developed by the Discovery Institute affiliates starting in 1989 with the publication of Charles Thaxton's Of Pandas and People, with the Discovery Institute itself being formed in 1990 (though the thread can be traced back to the mid-1980s with the publication of Thaxton's Mystery of Life's Origin). Previous religious apologetics and speculations, including some by highly competent scientists, have generally been classified under the accepted philosophical/theological term teleological arguments. ... Kenosis 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

""" "Intelligent design" was attached to the particular theological slants being developed by the Discovery Institute """

OK what is different about the way how the way the way the term intelligent design was used before 1975 as it is now.

did newton believe that life was designed?

raspor 18:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

astrology is not science??? why??

No, astrology is not science. It does not conform to the scientific method established over the last 4 centuries (or so). Behe admitted to changing the definition of science during the Dover trial in order to qualify ID as science. Go the the articles for the other two people for more than enough quotes to substantiate my claim.--Roland Deschain 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

how does it not conform to the scientific method. please explain

raspor 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this qualifies as disruption.--CSTAR 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

raspor, the fact that we have to explain such trivial things to you is ridiculous. See scientific method.

See also: Astronomy, Astrology. -- Ec5618 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

if you think astrology is not a scientific theory you do not understand science.

what is the criteria for a scientific theory? i really dont think you understand that

raspor 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's it. I'm done with you. I am amazed by the extent to which you will go to prove your ignorance. Incredible.

Astrology is not a scientific theory. Astronomy is. Please read scientific method, and don't come back until you have. -- Ec5618 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

if i believe that life was designed i do not believe in 'intelligent design'?

raspor 18:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your dilemma somewhat more clearly now. From a theological standpoint, neither the word "intellegent" nor the word "design", nor the combination of the two, adequately expresses the kind of higher-power concepts that theologians, philosophers, and others engaged in intensive study and discussion of these issues, deal with in their particular endeavors. Most theologians would avoid, and have avoided, this term even before one gets to question of the ideological and socio-political quagmire that "intelligent design" has become today. Most experienced theologians would assert that the words "intelligent design", even viewed separately from their widespread use as a handle by the intelligent design movement with its particular set of agendas, do not even begin to express adequately the attributes of [fill in whatever deity, higher power, or other universal entity of your choice]. But I gotta go for now-- will be back later on. ... Kenosis 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you loon. You believe in teleology. Now get of this page. -- Ec5618 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i'm a loon? oooh insults

anyhow so you are saying that i can believe that life was designed and not believe in 'intelligent design'?

pray tell

what would i have to believe in to say i believe in 'intelligent design'?

mickey mouse?

raspor 18:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That you believe that life was designed and that it is detectable in nature using science. JPotter 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind what you believe has no consequence in this article. Seriously, no one cares what you believe or what I believe for that matter. It is of no consequence and has no business being on this page Mr Christopher 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an important point as it speaks to what defines an ID adherent and what defines a theistic evolutionst, ie, that the signs of intelligence are detectable. JPotter 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection

So if I believe God created living things then I do not believe that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection?

Then I think you need to redefine 'intelligent design'

raspor 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Wikipedia:What is a troll describe the behaviour demonstrated above?

Just wondering...... dave souza, talk 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

no

try to read more carefully

raspor 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, if raspor is truly as ignorant as he comes across as, then technically he is not a troll. If, however, raspor is not ignorant, as he claims, then he is a troll. He is either ignorant or a troll. Assuming the first, I have tried to get him to read up on some topics, such as the scientific method and teleology. It seems he has not, which suggests that his ignorance is willful. -- Ec5618 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] raspor's distraction

I don't have time to count them but it appears the overwhelming majority of new headers on the talk page have been created by raspor after he was advised to knock it off. None of his posts here have anything to do with improving the article, they are all mainly insults and proclomations that the article is biased and we don't understand what ID really is. Previously his comments were being moved to a different sub area. What do we need to do to start moving all his comments there again? In a period of less than a week he has completely highjacked this talk page and continues to ignore all calls for restraint and civility. He thumbs his nose at policy, he thumbs his nose at fellow editors (and mocks their names), he thumbs his nose at adminsitrative action that has been taken as a result of his behaviour here. This is beyond ridiculous at this point. Mr Christopher 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God would not be considerd an 'intelligent designer'?

you anti-IDers logic astounds me. first of all you do not accept ID as science because it could be that God was the intelligent designer.

then you tell me that people who believe that God designed life do not believe in ID

do you honestly not see the illogic here?

raspor 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not illogical if you present both ideas accurately. Guettarda 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see this to be an intelligent question by Raspor. Now, kindly ask yourself the question: "Is 'intelligent designer' adequate to capture the intent of the great religious traditions (and/or other individual spiritual quests) in describing the deity they worship and/or whose spirit they may attempt to find and follow?" Recall from having read the intelligent design article thoroughly (which I presume you have by now) that a small number of people had used the term "intelligent design" or "intelligent designer" in a very fleeting way prior to the 1990s, several in the mid-1800s, one around the turn of the 1900s, and there's a 1967 use of the term in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy by the author of the article on "Teleological argument for the Existence of God". Never did these words receive any significant attention, until the handle was put onto a particular set of teleological arguments as an "end-run" around the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States by those who organized the Discovery Institute and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, attaching to the term a "conservative" socio-political agenda that called for, among other things, getting "God" into the public schools and calling it a form of science, starting around 1990. Recall also from your standard history lessons that there was a time when mixing up the churches with the business of science often had extremely nasty results in the human search for truth (whatever exactly "truth" may be), and that the church's involvement in politics had often had extremely nasty results in the quest for justice (whatever exactly "justice" may be). And, recall also that the actual agenda for those who attached the term "intelligent design" onto their particular set of arguments for the existence of a deity was hidden from the people who they were speaking to, that is, speaking with forked tongue-- see wedge strategy. The wedge strategy called for sneaking ID into the public schools, changing the definition of science to allow for supernatural explanations, and ultimately persuading those exposed to this idea that Jesus Christ was the way, the truth, and the light. And perhaps, further ask yourself the question: "Do these practices undertaken by the intelligent design movement represent the values and examples you were taught to believe were characteristic of the 'intelligent designer'?" Is Abraham, Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus of Nazareth, or any sincere religious person doing "good things" by being intelligent and because the "Designer" is intelligent? No way. Intelligence is not the primary issue in a genuine spiritual or theological analysis. Rather, characteristics such as faith, hope, love as defined in 1 Corinthians 13 for example, compassion as described by Buddha or Mohammed, these are some of the characteristics religious or spiritual persons look to in a "higher power" of the universe. Intelligence, the ability to process information effectively, doesn't mean diddlysquat in this context, and virtually all theologians have avoided the use of the term even in a solely theological context, opting for words such as wisdom and the like, which tend to hint at something beyond simply "intelligence".

But, ever since the Discovery Institute affiliates attached the term "intelligent design" to their particular brand of religion/philosophy/speculative-theology/pseudoscience with a socio-political (I'm tellin' the truth here) agenda, the words "intelligent design" have taken on a particular meaning to the general public, which is roughly "trying to get religion into the science classroom". That general widespread meaning is the primary notability of ID, and thus is what we're obliged to report in Wikipedia. There is reference in the article to the teleological argument for those who wish to pursue a strictly theological view, and indeed many of the historical approaches used by the intelligent design movement may be seen in that article.

Perhaps if history had taken a different course, the words "intelligent design" could today be much more easily applied, without a whole lot of controversy, in thinking about how the universe must have been designed, how it couldn't all be totally by accident, etc. Those kinds of speculations and/or beliefs should, if Raspor wishes to put them forward to the public, be put forward in a blog or other publication, and maybe, just maybe, we can then refer to your writing in some article in Wikipedia at some time in the future. But it is not our job to put them forward in WP, nor do we have permission to impose these kinds of speculations upon those pages. Our job is to report the facts as best as possible in keeping with WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and to do it via WP:CON. I apologize for the long-winded comment-- I hope this helps somewhat. ... Kenosis 02:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] potter has a point

That you believe that life was designed and that it is detectable in nature using science. JPotter 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

and yet the definition here is

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." What seperates 'intelligent design from teleology is that the intelligent cause is detectable in nature using science.

thats seperates if form what newton etc believed

this would be more truthful

raspor 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed change to start paragraph

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." What seperates 'intelligent design from teleology is that the intelligent cause is detectable in nature using science.

this would solve a big problem. for instance newton believed that God created live etc but i do not believe he based it on science. i believe faith

he did believe 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause'

but he did not believe it could be scientifically proven. IDers now at least believe it can bre proven. this is the big difference and should be made clear in the first paragraph

raspor 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not half bad. Let's see what others have to say. -- Ec5618 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is accurate and while the point is made in the body of the article, it may be appropriate to highlight it in the lead. JPotter 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it belongs in the lead - most people don't know what teleology is, so adding this to the lead does little except insulate us against the complaints of the uninformed. Guettarda 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

yes ec and jason,

to me solves a lot of problems. the old creationists like newton relied on faith to tell them that life and the universe was created. but the IDers nowadays believe science can prove it. this really seperates the two trains of thought. so this would seperate say a genesis God believer from an IDer. i really think this is the crucial difference between many creationists and IDers

see otherwise ID = creationist and creationist = ID. this way ID not = Creationist

ok should i change it? help me with phrasing and grammar a bit. its a rough draft

raspor 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ID has never been stated in a way that it can be separated from "genesis God [belief]". ID has never been expressed clearly enough that it can be "separated" from anything. ID is compatible with both YEC and 95% of evolutionary biology - it all depends on who is speaking to what audience at what point in time. Guettarda 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed change to start paragraph

- - Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." What seperates 'intelligent design from teleology is that the intelligent cause is detectable in nature using science. - - - this would solve a big problem. for instance newton believed that God created live etc but i do not believe he based it on science. i believe faith

he did believe 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause' + - this would solve a big problem. for instance newton believed that God created live etc but i do not believe he based it on science. i believe faith - - but he did not believe it could be scientifically proven. IDers now at least believe it can bre proven. this is the big difference and should be made clear in the first paragraph

raspor 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Christopher 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] better definition of ID. clearly seperates it from creationism

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection and that the concept can be proven by science."

[edit] another proposed change

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection and that the concept can be proven by science."

raspor 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer the original proposed change. -- Ec5618 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ec,

if you like it change it whatever way you want and propose it

i cannot even get my ideas in the discussion page. cuz of the mob mentality

its really up to you

thanks

raspor 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable: "and that the concept can be proven by science". To begin with, what do you mean "by science"? That's too vague - do you mean the scientific method, the scientific community, or simply the collection of "facts" that are commonly called "science"? Far more importantly, science cannot prove, only disprove. Ok, maybe it is fitting - the scientific method requires testability and does not "prove", so it's appropriate that an untestable hypothesis should seek "proof". Guettarda 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikiwow what gives you the right and authority to move my proposed changes to this article

raspor 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Mr Christopher 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't this warrant a ban?

In the past half-hour alone, raspor has made approximately half a dozen edits to Talk:Intelligent Design, all of them disruptive in nature. Again, this is only in the past half-hour. What exactly does it take for a ban, at least a temporary one until he/she learns how to conduct themselves, to be put in place? I feel this user's disruptions have gone on long enough. --Wikiwøw 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This is tiresome! (Not you, Raspor of course.)Orangemarlin 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i made suggestions for change which another editor thought was good

ban me for that??

raspor 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could be banned for your behaviour. Please, take it slowly, and confine yourself to this page for the time being. -- Ec5618 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring community input is a mark of the sort of disruptive editors that usually end up getting banned, yes. FeloniousMonk 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] plethora of intermediary whale fossils

"there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils."

no this is one of the things that bothers me about the ID, evolution articles.

now this statement. to the best of my knowledge there is NOT a plethora of fossils unearthed that show the various proposed creatures between land animals and whales.

please directly me to a source that tells us about the 'plethora'

i could be wrong. but show me please. i have never seen evidence of this

it seems like a lie to me

raspor 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The whale lineage isn't discussed in the ID article so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here. Nor can I find where you are quoting when discussing this plethora (I can't find the phrase "there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils" anywhere on the English Wikipedia) However, obvious pointers for where you could learn more would include [7] and [8] or almost any cetacean biology textbook. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not about debate and discussion of issues but discussion of how to improve articles. JoshuaZ 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where can IDs side be explained

I see nowhere in any of the articles where the ID side is explained. Certainly if this is a controversy both sides of it should be discussed at least briefly

Again show me

raspor 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have particular sourced material you think should be added that explains the ID side? JoshuaZ 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

would 'icons of evolution' be OK?

raspor 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you write anything on the subject, you might want to read [9]. -- Ec5618 16:55, 4 January 2007

(UTC)

i am fairly familiar with all of that. what is your point? raspor 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

can you tell me what your point is?

it is OK to remove material which one interprets as personal attack

raspor 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That such a shoddy, dishonest, and thoroughly discredited source is probably the last thing one would want to use in writing an article. Guettarda 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wiki has failed here

I have seen many good articles in wiki. Evolution, ID, Whale evolution are the worst I have seen.

The one on falsification is excellent.

The editors in these areas seem to have little understand of science. They seem uneduated. They think science is just reading what an authority says and then regurgitating. Rote learning. Sad commentary for the US.

They seem almost like robotic zombies. For instance they must have read that there are a 'plethora' of fossils. Then I ask where that fact can be cited and they cannot even respond in a coherent manner. It seems they are not able to think on their own.

They do not understand what a scientific theory is. They think if there are enough 'science' words it is science. They do not understand 'criteria'. They cannot even read the wiki article on falsification and apply to any aread. They think that astrology is based on horoscopes. (Maybe reading the National Enquirer too much) Are these young kids? There have been many scientific studies on astrology. Astrology has been proven invalid for most purposes. They cannot see though that it is how defines something like 'astrology'. See they hear a word and immeditately jumped to the first impression they have of something. They do not analyze cooly. It is all buzzwords and what they must hear on TV. They need to read more. They need to question.

Whose fault is it that we see the results of a failed education system here? They were taught by rote. Look-say. No analysis.

And the hostility to anyone who does not think like they do. I believe the present Iraq situation is partly to blame because we have so many people like these who the education system has failed. The inablility see another point of view. I do not think that it is really their fault. They are threatened greatly by another point of view. They feel it is 'evil'. Xenophobia. Fear of the unkown. They did not have the education to understand subtle, non-standard concepts and react with hate and fear. I did not realize how bad the situation is. And now we have xenophobes writing a public encyclopedia. They cannot see that 'not-my-idea' does not equal 'bad-idea'. Was it over-indulgence. A group narcissisim? Too much self-esteem?

You can see that whenever I present something which is out of their reach they react with insults, deflections, or just non-sensical responses.

The education system in the US is in shambles. And here is the result.

raspor 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your above assessment is absolutely incorrect. The consensus on the talk pages of articles is pretty clearly against giving undue weight to the point of view that you are advocating. With the idea that this is not the place to soapbox about the above topics aside, let me say that your accusations about assertions regarding the Wikipedia community being biased are unfounded- the community's unwillingness to listen to a demonstrably biased editor unwilling to consider the validity of other positions is justified by the fact that you have been so far entirely unwilling to take part in process, preferring instead to raise substanceless objections on talk pages. --HassourZain 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, not to address you point-for-point, but accusations of xenophobia are misrepresentations- historically, "Intelligent design" in the form of the idea that the biblical creation story (or whichever fable) was literally true, was the norm. Your objections are far more symptomatic of closedmindedness and xenophobia than any other user in this dispute's actions. O_O --HassourZain 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting how many of Raspor's criticisms better describe her/him than his/her fellow editors. It's also interesting how, after spewing insults, Raspor then says "they react with insults". It's interesting how s/he seems to see him/herself in everyone else. It's all irrelevant, of course, this is about discussing changes to the article - comments on user conduct belong in an RFC. Guettarda 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

insults. look at the records. i was nice and asked for help to stop the harrassment. fighting back was my only alternative

and equating biblical creation with ID shows you do not understand the subject

raspor 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda did not equate the two. --HassourZain 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"and equating biblical creation with ID shows you do not understand the subject"

Actually I did nothing of the sort. As I explained to you earlier:

ID has never been stated in a way that it can be separated from "genesis God [belief]". ID has never been expressed clearly enough that it can be "separated" from anything. ID is compatible with both YEC and 95% of evolutionary biology - it all depends on who is speaking to what audience at what point in time. Guettarda 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"insults. look at the records. i was nice and asked for help to stop the harrassment"

As someone who has tried to explain things to you since the beginning, you have been rude and abrasive since the beginning. When you first asked questions I pointed you to the answers. You chose to ignore my assistance, and demanded that people answer your questions (despite the fact that I had pointed you to answers.

"fighting back was my only alternative"

To being with, that isn't true. If it were true, if you use insults you have no right to complain about other people using insults. You can't have it both ways. Guettarda 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design" in the form of the idea that the biblical creation story (or whichever fable) was literally true, was the norm.

raspor 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who drew the analogy. Additionally, I am fully aware of the differences between the two. Creationism is, literally speaking, a specific vein of intelligent design in that it believes the existence of life is the responsibility of some intelligent force. Creationism happens to go into a lot more detail on the subject, but Creationism is a subset of ID. Not all belief in ID is creationism, but all belief in creationism is (in the traditional, western sense) is by its definition ID. --HassourZain 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design" in the form of the idea that the biblical creation story (or whichever fable) was literally true, was the norm."

I'm not sure what you mean here (really, someone who ridicules the education of others should try to (a) write grammatically, and (b) improve your spelling), but as best I understand it, no, ID is not the idea that the biblical creation story is literally true. As I said before, ID is whatever they think the audience wants to hear. Creationism is not a subset of ID, ID is a subset of creationism. Guettarda 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hassour!

I agree with you!

Creationism is, literally speaking, a specific vein of intelligent design in that it believes the existence of life is the responsibility of some intelligent force. Creationism happens to go into a lot more detail on the subject, but Creationism is a subset of ID. Not all belief in ID is creationism, but all belief in creationism is (in the traditional, western sense) is by its definition ID.

this one of the inaccuracies in the article i was trying to straighten out.

can you help me?

raspor

I am more than happy to help you make any edits concerning errors that are occurring on the page, and the idea that Creationism is a subset of ID is a common mistake. I will have a look at the ID article and see if there's any instances of this mistake or add a new section clarifying if there is not one already. --HassourZain 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't have any problems with you raising questions, but it's a much more constructive effort if you use reliable sources and other people's conclusions from those reliable sources. The problems that several editors have had are with some positions you have been asserting and advocating on talk pages, particularly surrounding issues that WP:NPOV's "Undue Weight" policy has to say things about. I understand that you don't have as much experience editing Wikipedia as some other users do, and I'm trying to help. Other editors wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with your edits as they do, if you would engage them in a less confrontive manner. --HassourZain 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain, please note that our article on intelligent design is about a concept promoted by the Discovery Institute, not teleology (the general concept that life was designed). While this might seem a bit odd at first glance, the term 'intelligent design' does not in and of itself imply that it deals with life, the universe and everything. The term 'intelligent design' was specifically introduced by the Discovery Institute to propote their philosophy, and using it more generally to describe teleology could be confusing. That is why, within Wikipedia articles, all references to 'intelligent design' are references to the specific concept.

As such, creationism is not a subset of intelligent design. If anything, creationism (or better: creation science) is a subset of teleology, as is intelligent design. And, since all proponents of intelligent design were creationists before becoming intelligent design proponents, it should be safe to conclude that intelligent design is a subset of creationism. Thank you. -- Ec5618 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that we have tried to explain this to raspor on several occasions. I honestly don't understand why he still doesn't seem to understand. -- Ec5618 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with some of the specifics of your classification, and I have rethought my position, on contemplation of what you've brought up. It is apparent to me that creationism and intelligent design are both clearly completely-contained subsets of teleology, I hold to the view that creationism is a partially-contained subset of intelligent design in the following regard (and I'm talking about what might be termed the Judeochristian or traditional take on creationism). Teleology is the assertion that all of existence, the universe, has a purpose. Creationism, in its traditional position, says that the entirety of creation, including for example life, physical laws, sometimes morality, was created by an intelligent god. Many positions of intelligent design do not necessarily posit that the universe or physical properties or what have you were necessarily created by god (though many do), and a few positions do not insist that the actor was God; In this sense I understand what you mean by thinking that some (or nearly all) positions in Intelligent Design are contained within creationism. However, I think it's closer to the truth to say that they are two overlapping subsets of teleology than either is completely contained by the other. --HassourZain 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would make some venn diagram visuals, but it would take too long and I'm sure the debate would have moved on. :I --HassourZain 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You'll note that my argument for suggesting that intelligent design is a subset of creationism was that all proponents of intelligent design were creationists before becoming intelligent design proponents. Admittedly, that argument is a bit inconclusive, and thus open for debate. But it is telling.

You may want to read up on the Wedge document, which details how members of the Discovery Institute have popularised the term intelligent design with the intention of wedging religious teachings (back) into the United States school system.

If you ever get the urge to make to Venn diagram, feel free. At the least we could show such a graphic to new editors to explain the hierarchy within Wikipedia articles. -- Ec5618 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then, here it is. I love Venn diagrams. If you see any changes that need to be made, drop my a line on my talk, or here, or on the main talk page. --HassourZain 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

very nice!

i think what you are showing is that these concepts are complex. what you are saying is that some teleogists are both IDers and creationists. but done all creationists believe that life was caused. anyhow its very nice. i dont think you can ever change any minds here. they are not open to new ideas. they will shoot you down. just try it. its ego. felon seems to think he owns this place. anything that changes has to be under his terms. he is a dictator.

raspor 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your diagram. Any attempt to define a sample space for ID is nothing but a guess; none of the proponents of ID have attempted to define its bounds. Guettarda 21:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the diagram, there are four points of view.

• Basic teleology. Something did it. (White)
• Creationism. God did it. (Yellow)
• The Discovery Institute's Intelligent design. A godlike being did it. (Green)
• The general concept of Intelligent design. Something did it. (Blue)

Surely, Guettarda, we should be able to put this graphic to good use, even if only in the Talk namespace. -- Ec5618 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

whoa! when does the DI say a god like being did it?raspor 22:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dembski tries to say that if the probability of something is less than [some very small amount], then a miracle is more probablewhere did behe say that it was a 'miracle'? raspor 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Behe? I see you are continuing to be disruptive. Please stop wasting people's time with ridiculous questions. Guettarda 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute has stated that it promotes Intelligent design with the dual purpose of defeating materialism and affirming the reality of God. Which you would know, if you knew as much about this subject as you claim. -- Ec5618 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

can you get me a cite. i think that is out of context

raspor 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly not in the mood to help you. I have tried in the past, with very disquieting results. Please turn to google. -- Ec5618 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

well someone here told me if you assert something you have to back it up. i dont think what you said is true. of course darwinists dont have to follow the rules. i am understanding that now. and the next time you ask me to back up something i will tell you to turn to google

raspor 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference to the above diagram: keep in mind that teleology in the sense I was working from just means "The universe has a purpose". I was sort of operating with the philosophical definition of teleology in mind, and thus the broader category. However, to be fair, it is true that often intelligent design is an ill-defined idea- the definition, again, that I was working from in the diagram defines it as "The universe has a purpose, and the reason life came about is by means of an actor that is an intelligence." In essence, though, I do think that Guettarda's objection has substance. I think the visual aid is a helpful tool in seperating the ideas talked about above, though. --HassourZain 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DI quote

One church and state watchdog organization stated, "Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers."

did the DI say this? no someone in an atheist group said it. how can this be a valid source?

raspor 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I will admit it sounds extreme to me and a bit hard to swallow. I have however heard many creationists want to remove the separation of church and state, and want to convert everyone else to their flavor of belief. So that is not too far from the truth. I do not know abou tthe national and international affairs part.--Filll 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok now that I read it, it sounds reasonable. It is controversial. It is the view of those on the other side. Period. So what? You want to pretend there is no opposition to them?--Filll 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

hey i was told not using colons was disruptive. are you going to start using them? anyhow what is farfetched it the source. this should be removed. it is just an opinion of an atheist.opinion of the other side. can i do that in the ID article?raspor 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I use the colons most of the time. And I would not try it. I suspect you might be in a bit of trouble before too long and it would make it worse. It is VERY tough to build consensus on contentious issues like this for sure. Heck they are even angry at me for trying to help you a bit.--Filll 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

so an article on the DI can have a sentence that says they want to 'turn public schools into a religious camp' and the source is from an atheist web site and it is just an opinion. no basic in fact. but on the ID page were are not allowed to use the DI as a source even tho it is promoter of the concept of ID? now do you think that is fair? and wow they are after you becuz you talk to me. its fellatio isnt it? why do you all cower to him? its all a bobjob. you can see that cant you.raspor 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely the DI's words appear in the ID article. I even tried to use some and people were upset but I still intend to use them.--Filll 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The full quote makes it clear that this is the opinion of a watchdog organisation. Yes, we state that an organisation has an opinion. In the same manner we quote William Dembski's opinion: "ID is part of God's general revelation [...] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."

Sometimes, opinions are relevant. -- Ec5618 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, opinions are relevant. unless its an IDer. this is a bobjob

I was looking thru some archives and i notice that another IDer was harrassed by fellatio. Many of the phrases that are thrown at me were thrown at him verbatim. disruptive, troll, bad sources, NPOV etc. this is the tactic here. anyone trying to make the article unbiased is harrassed. reminds me of the brownshirt tactics. raspor 23:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

fill this is crazy. anything anyone says even in a dicussion page is forbidden. this is a bob job for sure. does anyone have an integrity here??raspor 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

bobjob is not a word. Look it up. -- Ec5618 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a word, but at least finally I know what it means. See this explanation. -Amatulic 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So what's the source for this quote? What article is it supposed to be in? What does this have to do with Wikipedia? We are here to discuss article content, however broadly you want to define it. Guettarda 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote is from the article on the Discovery Institute. Apparently, raspor objects to quoting organisations that have a bad opinion of the Institute. -- Ec5618 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ec moved all this from the discovery article talkpage. he really should spend more time on contructive things rather than disrupting.raspor 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean instead of posting "where did Behe say this" in reply to a comment about what Dembski said?? Guettarda 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias / Censorship is justified under certain circumstances!

We must insist that, under the circumstances, bias and censorship are a necessary feature of the ID article. Justification: ID = Pseudoscience. Is this what is said here? You be the judge...

"...this is a pseudoscience subject and the DI and their affiliates would never support this article portraying intelligent design as pseudoscience. In fact we have specific policies regarding article about pseudoscience. There is no way in heck we could write anything that their adherents would support without making a mockery of Wikipedia. Rest assured they will NEVER find this article or any related ones "more or less" acceptable. So you continue to promote this one line from a NPOV policy but you're leaving out the most vital piece of all. Intelligent design is pseudoscience, a fact that their proponents and affiliates deny. Please step back and see the whole picture and not the tiny frayed edge of one corner. And also keep in mind, as it has already been pointed out, the definition used in the article is the DI's and the DI's positions are well documented in this article." Mr Christopher 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

...will the "pseudoscience" justification save Mr Christopher? Feel free to weigh in on his points here. Happy New Year everyone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adlac (talk • contribs).

"Save" is a rather interesting word choice. Save in what way? The world awaits your definition of save.

What is the bias of which you write, that ID is labled as pseudoscience? Were it not that ID is pseudoscience, you might have a point. What has ID to offer to scientific discussion? Nothing. It offers "tuths" predicated on the acceptance of supernatural beliefs, yet surely you must know that mere belief does not a truth make. Oh sure, ID tries to cloak its belief in a shroud of scientific sounding drivel, but so did alchemy, so does astrology. Of course, the early manifestation of both had a scientific value in the end as they gae rise to legitimate sciences: chemistry and astronomy. There is no such future for ID. It is merely another attemp in the long line of Christian apologetics attempting to show itself in a philosophical/scientific light. Alas, that great minds such as Aquinas, Pascal and Newton could not do so hardly bodes well for the far lesser minds of the Dembskis and Behes of the movement.

Finally, what is the censorship of which you write? Can you provide concrete examples? Are you saddened that this article does not mirror the ravings found on the webpages of the Discovery Institute? Do tell. •Jim62sch• 13:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment under such an idiotic titled header. I'm not playing your game, adlac. Mr Christopher 16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wise decisionOrangemarlin 16:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID IS science...

I intend to add to the ID article many of these points, amply cited, which describe our actual positions. Therefore, state your best rebuttals.

1. The contention has been made ad nausea that ID is "unscientific, pseudoscience and junk science" (...as if there are nuanced differences between these three terms - nothing but gratuitous slander actually "Junk science" - what a laugh; is that a technical term?). As such, the ridiculous claim is made that ID theory has a stultifying effect on science.
2. My main point: How can the accusation that ID hurts science even be entertained when the foundations of modern science were built on, as a matter of fact, specifically inspired by the theistic position? Did the modern resurgence in scientific inquiry begin with Darwin - no way!
3. How about the contention that ID is not science at all? First you have to explain what you are going to do with most of the founders of modern science before the 1800's and with the 600 and growing scientists living today who desent from Darwin.
4. Further, ID never said it came to its conclusions based on "we can't explain this; therefore, God did it." It bases its conclusions on our positive knowledge of what Intelligence (mankind) produces and what chemicals and chance can and can't produce. It is very clearly a deduction about positive knowledge - such that as scientists research the qualitative distinguishing characteristics of intelligently designed products and investigate the structures and information systems in biology - a growing number of deductions can be made. ID's conclusions are based on what we know about cause and effect relationships not on what we don't know.
5. What a canard to have Darwinists say that ID is not based on positive evidence, makes no predictions or hypothesis, is not falsifiable. Because the next minute they will turn around and try to refute (falsify) Behe's research conclusions which derive from hypotheses, support ID predictions based on the characteristics of designed systems, and are empirically observable and testable. Behe continues to be employed at his University because everyone "secretly" acknowledges that he is engaged in the work of real science there. Right now, someone explain to me how Darwinists can say ID is not science one minute, and the next, confirm that it IS science by debating the findings of its research.

>>>Adlac 08:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the archives. Intelligent design is not science. And please don't claim that editors are wilfully ignoring vital evidence. It comes off as hostile. -- Ec5618 08:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could start by considering the discussion higher up this page as to why ID is not science. To begin with, of course, intelligent design is not the same as belief in God. To say that scientists before Darwin were adherents of ID is silly. It's also wrong to say that ID never said it came to its conclusions based on "we can't explain this; therefore, God did it." Yes, that's what they are saying. See my comments higher up the page. It's incorrect to assert that It bases its conclusions on our positive knowledge of what Intelligence (mankind) produces and what chemicals and chance can and can't produce. Most of the arguments made by ID proponents are along the lines of "this is too improbable to have evolved via known mechanisms". That is not positive support for ID, it is (if true) a statement of the incompleteness of existing theory - which, of course, is something that no scientist denies, because if a theory was completely accurate there would be no need for further experimentation. As I said higher up the page, the only "positive" arguments for ID is that some things are so improbable that external (ie, divine) intervention is more probable. Of course, there is no way to assign a probability to design, so it's false to say that any probability is more or less likely than an act of God. It is also incorrec to say that It is very clearly a deduction about positive knowledge - such that as scientists research the qualitative distinguishing characteristics of intelligently designed products and investigate the structures and information systems in biology - a growing number of deductions can be made. Evolution produces systems which appear "designed", for the simple reason that both evolution and design seek to optimise systems to their environment. In a sense, "designed" systems are "selected" by the environment much the same as natural systems. The idea that something looks designed so it must be designed is a fallacy. In addition, of course, ID proponents have yet to produce a single example of these "designed" systems, despite the millions of dollars that have been thrown their way. Point #5 is just weird. Behe is tenured - they can't fire him for espousing nutty ideas. To say that Behe continues to be employed at his University because everyone "secretly" acknowledges that he is engaged in the work of real science there is hilarious...do you have a source for this? As for What a canard to have Darwinists say that ID is not based on positive evidence, makes no predictions or hypothesis, is not falsifiable. Because the next minute they will turn around and try to refute (falsify) Behe's research conclusions which derive from hypotheses, support ID predictions based on the characteristics of designed systems, and are empirically observable and testable - I have no idea what you are talking about. Behe never used hypotheses, he used analogies. He said "X appears to he irreducibly complex". While each of his anecdotes can (and are) shown to be flawed, the "hypothesis" makes no predictions. To disprove IC you would have to study every system in every living thing - clearly an impossibility. Something that depends on anecdotes isn't science. In addition, of course, even if something were found which was "irreducibly complex" that would not support design, it would merely show that current evolutionary theory is incomplete. It isn't a binary choice betwen evolution and design - there is an infinite set-space of possible theories, and it's impossible to prove one by rejecting another. If ID wants to be science its supporters need to come up with some means of doing experiments which support the idea of design... which isn't something that any of them have yet done. There is no "research" into ID, or at least none that has been shared with the world. Guettarda 08:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All of which has been exhaustively explored by an exceptionally reliable source at the Kitzmiller trial. A minor point: the claim that science came from theism is undermined by the fact that natural theology quickly led on to deism: creation according to laws: see the Moore reference given above. .. dave souza, talk 10:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

History has shown again and again and again that every time another mystery is explained in terms of natural processes that are predictable in some way, it falls from what folks often regard as "supernatural" into the realm of "natural". I suppose it's all part of evolution... pardon me ... progress. There is no reason to suppose the evolution of knowledge will stop presently. One day, the relevant natural laws relating to speciation and such will be better understood, at which point we'll need to deal with the next level of mysteries no doubt. Part of the issue the scientific community has in opposition to ID is that it in no way assists this process of better understanding what the processes are, but instead uses speculated probabilites to reason to speculative conclusions. When viewed as a form of philosophy or theology, such teleological arguments for the existence of an "underlying" or "imbedded" creative consciousness of some kind are nonetheless frequently regarded as quite reasonable even by many scientists. ... Kenosis 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what kenosis writes here. The main problem I see with DI/ID, is that their efforts are focused almost entirely against evolution. I am not sure why they bother; is it tradition? Is it an anxiousness to preserve biblical inerrancy and/or biblical literalism? I think that many accept the possibility of the Divine, including most Christians through theistic evolution and probably a very large chunk of scientists. Even scientists that are nominally atheists or agnostics like Einstein express a spiritual appreciation for nature, as can be seen in reading Einstein's quotes on this. Evolution is not the enemy, and trying to inject a diety into evolutionary processes in a direct rather than an indirect way is asking to restrict progress, and to risk failure and being discredited.--Filll 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Einstein: "in a direct rather than indirect way" So a designer is indirectly responsible for evolutionary processes? Anyway, Einstein wasn't a biologist. He did say this about his ambitions in his own feild however, "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Would Einstein agree with this point, "It is valid to infer that certain features of the universe were designed." - This is presisely what ID claims.

>>>Adlac 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - Encyclopedia Britanica on Einstein: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."

>>>Adlac 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe an indirect way is far more convincing than a direct way. If one ignores the anthropic principle, there does seem a confluence of constants and physical laws etc to allow life, at least as we know it. However, the ID approach is incredibly ham-handed and clumsy, at least what I have seen so far. Design of a flagellum? Not from what my biologist colleagues tell me. They do not find that very convincing at all. So...what do I say? I am not an expert in their field. Most of the other things seem more plausible to imagine evolutionary principles operating. That is why I think evolution is such a bad target.--Filll 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well ok, "evolution is a bad target". The way I see it there really can be only two basic views anyway, natural agent or inteligent agent. Do you agree? The nature only folks are current enshrined in Darwinism. But hey I can definitely meet you half way on this. If you mean by evolution, change over time, or adaption then ID has no qualms with that. Only we would say that we are finding leaps of complexity that we feel that is best explained by guidance and plan. And when I say leaps in complexity I am not just talking about the quantity of the complexity but the kind of complexity that we see the quality of it. GTG sorry.

>>>Adlac 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is a splendid target for stirring up old misinformation, as the DI has expertly done, and again you posit a false duality: an intelligent agent can operate undetectably through natural laws, or processes such as evolution through natural selection. Your feeling that the "leaps in complexity" show a "kind of complexity that we see the quality of it" is just as good as evidence of an undetectable designer as the portrait of Jesus formed in moon rocks or the image of the Virgin in the shape of – what was it? a potato or something. When this research is published, then Wikipedia can report it, but in positing direction and purpose it still falls within the realm of theology or teleology rather than science. So do we read God's word in the light of God's works, or interpret her works according to our reading of her word? .. dave souza, talk 09:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a response to this in my talk page. raspor 18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My best shot, in brief:

1)It is the scientific and legal consensus that ID is not science. I cannot speak with more authority than the courts or international science organisations. Nor can you. ID purports to be science, but is not, and that is where the pseudo-science and junk science labels come from.

2) The misleading arguments from ID proponents about what science is and isn't are hurting science.

3)See 1) above.

4)I don't understand your argument, but it looks like the misuse of probability theory to argue that if something is improbable, then it can't have happened by chance.

5)Behe's views on ID are publicly disowned by his department: see [10]. It is quite possible for a scientist to be religious, and still be able to function as a scientist. Please understand that science and religion are not completely incompatible.

Further, most scientists would not object to ID as a philosophy. Trishm 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for all of your responses: Answering objections to my 5 points -

1. Guettarda – did not comment. (do you then agree that repeating 3 times that ID is unscientific is gratuitous since each term means the same thing and the link to “junk science” defines it as a pejorative term – I bet someone has called it voodoo science too – should this be added and cited?)

Dave -

Trishm – “legal consensus” – Dover district Judge Jones in bed with the ACLU is not exactly the Supreme Court, true? Settling questions solely by appeal to authority is to embrace authoritarianism. That assumes that their objectivity is unquestionable. The minority is always wrong simply because the Autocrats have issued their edict. Anyway, none of this justifies citing epithets – very skanky for an Encyclopedia article don’t you think?

2. Guettarda – as far as I know all here agree that ID (i.e. certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause”) unequivocally includes theism – at least that is the frequent accusation on this forum. What can you possibly mean by denying the connection between ID and Centuries of revered theistic scientists before the 1800’s? So again, how can the principle conclusion (see above) of ID’s 600 scientists, from diverse philosophical backgrounds, which is the same, in substance, as the scientists who were the engine of the scientific awakening, be considered detrimental to science? Never!

Dave – Did you know that agnosticism is represented among the fellows of the DI? There is even more diversity of philosophical viewpoint among the 600 and growing world wide scientists who dissent from Darwinism. Half of the confusion on this forum about ID is the entrenched misunderstanding that ID encompasses and welcomes and represents only the views of a limited band of Christian theists. Listen to the definition of ID with new ears “certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause”. You can bet that many deists are in line with this definition. I can demonstrate to you that the following scientists would endorse ID’s simple contention that certain features of the universe exhibit actual design not simply the appearance of design – Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Linnaeus, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Joule, Kelvin, Carver, Planck, Einstein. Test me on this, I challenge you. They spoke much more freely about their inference to design because there was much less open hostility to such conclusions within the less polarized scientific community of their day. Today scientists must be strict “APPEARANCE of design advocates” or be caste from the fellowship as pseudoscientific swine.

Trishm – What could be more misleading than implying that Darwinian evolution, a theory regarding historical events, meets the test of repeatability and observability? Rather it is an inference regarding the ability of natural processes to have self-generated all the complex biological structures, systems and data that exist.

This is getting long – wish I had the time.

>>>Adlac 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Adlac, for asking the questions and thinking about the answers before going in and editing. I do have a comment about what you said about my response to 1), and I think I was a bit too curt in my intial response. Instead of thinking of it as an appeal to authority, think of it as reinventing the wheel. Quite honestly, this court case was very important, and contained more expertise in its witnesses than wikipedia has at its disposal on this issue, no slight intended. The people who presented the evidence and adjudicated are people whose job it is to sift through evidence and make the appropriate inferences, and they spent an awful lot of time on it. You only need to read the judgement to know the final decision was made carefully, I suspect at least in part because there was a lot riding on it politically. Appealing to authority is quite ok if the authority is extremely knowledgable and unbiased. You may consider consider him as stooge for the ACLU, but the Bush administration considered him the best person for the job:

He was praised by Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania Governor and former head of the Department of Homeland Security, who said that "I can't imagine a better judge presiding over such an emotionally charged issue."

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League on February 10, 2006 he responded to critics who claimed that he had "stabbed the evangelicals who got him onto the federal bench right in the back" by noting that his duty was to the constitution and not to special interest groups.

Whatever bias you perceive, I would recommend that anybody interested in writing about ID read as much about this case as they can. The article on michael behe has a summary, but the full transcripts are well worth dipping into. Wonderful as we wikipedia editors are, we would be a bit full of it if we considered ourselves greater authorities than those who took part in the court case.

What part of the judge's findings do you think was not justified by the evidence presented? Trishm 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in a discussion of this judge's credibility one must address the fact that 90 percent of his decision that he spent so long sensitively honing and parcing was adopted wholesale / verbatim from the prosecution position papers lawyers - I mean the actual verbage is the same. This indicates shoddyness in his decision. So what would this judge do with the science of Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Linnaeus, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Joule, Kelvin, Carver, Planck, and Einstein? They all inferred design as well. If the judge thinks the reasons ID infers design are problematic then let him argue his case. But to reject the possibility of inferring design based on recent attempts at defining science, with evolution itself failing the tests, is absurd in my view. ...I'm having a hard time keeping track of posts so that's the reason for my irritating signature. I like jim's colors - which I could figure that out.

>>>Adlac 12:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is typical for Judges to extract most of their final judgement from the material submitted by the lawyers on both sides. This is not at all atypical. The judge was really passing judgement on what was suitable for introduction in the science classrooms. That is a long ways away from talking about Newton, Boyle, Kepler etc were doing. They all have published their work. Their work that we use does not include the supernatural. It has been tessted and retested for hundreds of years. ID does not seem to have passed any tests as far as I can determine. I have many references that claim it did not pass any tests.--Filll 15:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the question of what part of the finding you think was not supported by the evidence:

It seems you disagree with the definition of science by the National Academy of Science. The alternative presented by Behe was considered unacceptable. According to Behe's own testimony, his definition of science would include astrology. Note that the status of ID as a scientific theory is totally independent of the status of any other scientific theory (so I won't bother refuting your evolution claim). If ID could demonstrate its status as a science to the extent that anything else taught in science class has, then (like evolution) it wouldn't have a problem with being taught in schools. Trishm 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit presumptious to try to change the dominant definition of science in the West. I have been looking into how science is defined in India and taught in schools for HInduism and Creationism and they teach in schools all kinds of things. Yogas flying unaided because they were able to concentrate. Using cow urine to treat AIDs. Issing PhDs in astrology, supported with government money. That the universe is quintillions of years old. That humans have exited in unchanged form o the earth for millions of years. That the Vedas (their holy books) are pure books of science and do not disagree with science whatsoever. And on and on and on. The merging of science and religion has all kinds of interesting consequences. Just look at what the indian school sysstem teaches and what some of the activists are complaining about. Take a look at Postmodernism, Hindu nationalism and Vedic science, Meera Nanda, Frontline magazine (December 20,2003 – January 02, 2004) For example.--Filll 15:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Going back to Adlac's comments on my comment...

1. Unscientific, pseudoscientific and junk science are different but overlapping. Unscientific is just what its name says. Pseudoscience is more subtle - it refers to things that have the appearance of or claim to be scientific, but don't actually use the scientific method. Junk science is a commonly used term, and it's becoming increasingly common, especially for agenda-driven "science" funded by private "think-tanks" (early examples include the research funded by big tobacco that "showed" that smoking wasn't harmful). All terms have been used, all are sourced, all have different meanings. I am unfamiliar with "voodoo science", so I can't comment on it.
2. While it builds upon earlier theological ideas, including especially Paley, ID seems to wander off into an area that isn't consistent with canonical Christianity. ID makes God ("the designer") a tinkerer, fiddling with genes, designing proteins (if you believe much of what is said). That makes God directly responsible for malaria and AIDS (assuming one disagrees with Johnson's AIDS-denialism while still sticking with ID), among other things. Tradional Christian theology (to the best of my knowledge) attributes disease and evil to the fall, not to God's intervention. Making God a tinkerer, limiting God, making God intentionally responsible for evil takes one outside of mainstream Christian beliefs. In addition, the idea that you can "test" for design by saying that low probabilty events are more likely to be attributed to miracles than to chance (which in effect puts probabilities on miracles) limits God, strips Him of majesty, and forces God to conform to human ideas of Him. This is not consistent with canonical Christianity, it seems far more gnostic to me. I don't know what you mean by asserting that modern science is built on a theistic foundation. It isn't built on an atheistic foundation, but that isn't the same as saying it is built on a theistic foundation. The "six hundred scientists" (I presume you mean the people who signed the dissent from darwinism) are not, for the most part, scientists active in the biological sciences - many are engineers (and we all know how little the average engineer knows about anything outside his immediate field). Not that a "dissent from Darwin" says much - that started in the early 20th century with Haldane, Wright, Fisher, Maynard Smith, Simpson, etc, who built the modern synthesis. It continued with people like Hamilton and group selectionist ideas, and had had its latest flowering in Joan Roughgarden's idea that Darwin got sexual selection all wrong. "Darwinism" gave way to the modern synthesis in the first half of the twentieth century.

The assertion that “certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause” is deeply flawed. You list a host of people who you say believe that believed that it was not just the appearance of design, but actual design. Of course, most of them lived long before people knew anything about the structure of the world, but I would like to take you up on your offer regarding any twentieth century scientists. That fewer people today endorse a position that there is actual design, as opposed to the appearance of design reflects not so much an enforcement of orthodoxy as it does an ever-deepening understanding of how the world works. Sixty years ago inheritance was a mystery which most people figured was linked to chromosomes, but no one really knew how they worked, so someone could get away with saying it was a "divine mystery". Now people routinedly fiddle with genes, and know how to switch them off and on, how to control gene expression...you can order a specific DNA sequence, stick it into a living organism, and switch the gene on or off. Fewer people will attribute things to divine mysteries simply because we know so much more. While there are still lots of gaps, they are far smaller and far less intellectually challenging. Consequently, fewer people are bothered by them.

Getting back to the idea of the appearance of design versus actual design, anything designed (by humans) is designed to deal with the natural world. The assumption that things optimised by nature should look similar to things designed (optimised) by humans is actually the null hypothesis. Similar challenges produce convergent solutions. It's when something looks substantially different to how it "should" have been designed that we need to ask the question "why not?"...and that tends to be most easily explained by pre-existing constraints (like the fact that we are trying to be bipeds using a framework "designed" for quadrupeds, which is why so many people suffer with lower back pain). Guettarda 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now we are getting somewhere

Adlac I thank you for your response. I think we need to explore it a bit more and flesh it out. If we do, this could provide the kernel of what is needed to explore this important part of the question in the article. We need references of course and a bit more of the argument from both sides. I will point out that also 20 of Behe's colleagues in his department have formally denounced his work in public. I saw this in one of the references I dug up when writing another article. So it not just his department and perhaps his department chairman or the dean that caused that notice to be placed on the webpage linked to above by trishm. It is several of his colleagues, who individually were happy to stand up and denounce this work. I would ask then Adlac, since it is true that the supernatural was part of the potential explanations that Leibnitz and Newton etc had available, why did any work that they did relying on the supernatural not gain currency and traction in science? Why did science discard this as a hypothesis? Was it a successful hypothesis that was discarded because of some anti-religious bias that developed? What happened to that work? I know Leibnitz at least is still revered in philosophy; I do not know about all the religious efforts of Newton but I know they were extensive. I will grant you that it USED to be part of science. What happened for science to discard it? Could it be that they were not able to find evidence for it, and it was an unfruitful direction, so it was decided to no longer pursue it?--Filll 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I put this in the wrong place. Patience Fill.

>>>Adlac 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that my points were not addressed.--Filll 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's my attempt...

Anytime a scientist sees "apparent design" and removes the word "apparent" he's in for major persecution no matter what his qualifications and skill- absolutely true. This goes for all the 600 and growing scientists on the "dissent from Darwin list". But just think, Behe infers design no more affirmatively than many great scientists of the past. Ok, to your main question "why did any work that they did relying on the supernatural not gain currency and traction in science?" What work was the work they did based on inference to a designer? Without the existence of the "Fundimental Intelligence", do you see how human thoughts that purport to be intelligent and rational can no more be chosen than the sky can willfully decide what kind of weather we will have today. All thought is then determined only by the particular chemicals present in the brain at a particular point in time being the nesessary outcome of an infinite chain of cause and effect events. Thoughts are more accurately described as secretions of a chemical machine than willfull choices and conclusions of a human personality. Descarte was an early scientist and phlosopher in the scientific awakening. He said, "only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes." On this foundation Newton set out to discover the world, believing phlosophically that things should turn out to be rational - not irrational, designed not random and law abiding. When he made discoveries he said, "man that is sick brilliant, who could have thought of that, amazing, blows my mind how smart that designer is. That is what gave these great scientists such as Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Linnaeus, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, etc. their motivation. What I don't understand is what the value of science is to those who have come from nothing are going nowhere and can have no strict basis for values about what is good or bad, desirable or not, but only know what is. What then is the purpose of science? To make things better? What is better? Better for who? I'm not saying that materialists aren't smart and thirsty for knowledge, I just don't see how their philosophy warrants that passion. Now Newton made some inappropriate inferences about things he observed but so does every scientist who does not yet know the whole. That didn't keep him from pushing the frontiers of knowledge. You ask, "Why does science today discard the whole basis for his science?" There were a lot of historical factors - trends in philosophy and science that determine the prevailing views today, IMHO. But basicly I don't think people generally like the idea of a designer and to be honest the theists have basicly forfeited the intelectual arena for a couple centuries and haven't engaged modern culture and thought in the proper ways.

>>>Adlac 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all Adlac, and you're going to think I'm a bit anal retentive (and I am, but in my profession, you have to be), I hate the way you do your signature. It takes me a bit of time to see what part of the discussion is yours. Why can't you just add your signature at the end of a paragraph just like probably 99% of the people on here do? But it's a minor point, and maybe I'm the only one who gives a crap. On to your stuff. You start out with a claim that "600 and growing scientists" are on some list that is opposed to Evolution. Since I like fact based discussion, here we go:

1. A review of these "scientists" show that 80% are not biological scientists. A mathematician is a scientist (I guess, although I'd vote to exclude them from the party), but they presumably don't have much knowledge of biological evolution. And a computer scientist, philosopher, etc. who are on the list are hardly scientists.
2. Oh yeah, 600 represents about 0.15% of all scientists in the USA and probably 0.001% of all scientists in the world. I'll bet 0.15% of all scientists believe in little green men too, but that's not fact based, so I won't go there.
3. You should read the Steve story. The National Center for Science Education has compiled, as a parody of these lists, a list of more than 700 scientists all named Steve, or with variants of that name, who support evolution. There are only five Steves on the DI's list of 400. The point being is that there are more Steve's who support evolution than your list of non-Darwinists.
4. I hate to do this to you, but you really should read that list. I don't think it says what you think it says, which is "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." That's not exactly an endorsement of the end of Evolution!

You really shouldn't bring up these old canards, because they really are too easy to refute. I have a suggestion. Read the following [Talkorigins list of Creationist claims]. At least you'll know what isn't going to get you far. Even most ID and Creationist people don't bring up this stuff.

On to the rest of what you write. Science does not presume or include "morality." That really is the purview of Religion. Science has no purpose other than to gain an understanding of the world around us. It can make us better. In some other cases, it can make life worse. But it is fact based, and that's it. As a physician, when I do everything I can with technology or my brain to cure a disease state, and I succeed, there is no morality involved. It is just a result based upon scientific knowledge and principles. If I get drunk, and accidentally kill someone, that has nothing to do with science--that is a failure of morality. Science does not discard morality, but it does leave it to the individual. But that's what happens anyways. Churches can rail away about morality, but if no one listens, nothing happens. This is about as philosophical as I can get on a cold evening in California. Orangemarlin 07:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually those 600 "scientists" who have been gathered over the last several years (and not all what I would scientists by a long shot) represent far less than 0.15% of scientists in the US. They are 0.15% of the 480,000 geological and biological scientists that existed 20 years ago. So out of all scientists, using current numbers, it would be far far less than 0.15%.--Filll 15:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to the notion that morality is the purview of religion. Morality is philosophy, not religion. -- Ec5618 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My study of morality and religion ended with Hebrew School many years ago. Like the figurative duck, I know what morality is, and mine does not require religion.Orangemarlin 17:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, while its been my experience that a vanishingly small percentage of scientists that I've talked to actually receive training in what it means to be a scientist and to do science - that is, the philosophy of science - researchers and scholars who have had such training in that area (one example that comes immediately to mind is Donna Harraway) seem to all collectively disagree with the notion that "science does not presume or include 'morality'".-Psychohistorian 14:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientists do not get trained in ethics etc. This is philosophy. It is not science. I do not know when scientists have ever, if ever, been trained in such things. You can do science without them. I personally would favor many "moral" questions that overlap with science like human experimentation, animal experimentation, stem cell research, etc to be the subject of research funding by the federal government. I want to see conferences where scholars examine these issues carefully and drive the debate instead of Joe Six Pack and his elected representative being our only moral compass. I feel like a lot of these issues we are thrashing around and arguing in circles with minimal examination and information. Of course scientific input is important in these discourses to inform it, but this is not really a scientific activity. It might put constraints on science. Anyway, that is my 2 cents.--Filll 15:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Most scientists do not get trained in ethics/morality. The last time I looked (admittedly, it's been awhile), only the top ranked science programs require it (MIT iirc used to require a course on "Philosophy of Science" of its science majors, I'm not sure if that's still true). As for your general point, I think we can both agree that a "does too"/"does not"/"does too"/"does not" debate is going to get us nowhere. So we should aim for something better. Read the works of people who have studied and researched in the area (again, I recommend Donna Haraway - she's both a scientist (zoologist) and a philosopher). But think about this..you talk about how you'd like animal experimenters to work under more moral guidelines, but they are being done under moral guidelines (you can't really get away from morality), just not morals many people agree with. So, the moral dimensions are there, but what are they? In any event, I'm probably mangling Haraway's (and others') arguments, so I recommend you go to the source.-Psychohistorian 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Having studied at MIT, I would find this very surprising if it is true, or still true. I think people will never be happy with the morals/ethics etc involved with constraints on science. Some will want more. Some will want less. In fact, if we have a good policy in the middle, I would expect that this policy would make everyone unhappy at least a little. But this is not really germane to a discussion of ID and whether science includes the supernatural, except very indirectly. The claim that is made by DI/ID is that if we teach them that God made them and the world, then people will be more moral/ethical. I think that history demonstrates this is not even remotely true. And studies demonstrate that societies that have greater religiousity suffer from more moral/social ills than societies that have less (I put a reference in the controversy over creatinism in schools article if you want to look).--Filll 15:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get out of his post "if we teach them that God made them and the world, then people will be more moral/ethical". What I get out of his post is, "Without the existence of the "Fundimental Intelligence", do you see how human thoughts that purport to be intelligent and rational can no more be chosen than the sky can willfully decide what kind of weather we will have today. All thought is then determined only by the particular chemicals present in the brain at a particular point in time being the nesessary outcome of an infinite chain of cause and effect events. Thoughts are more accurately described as secretions of a chemical machine than willfull choices and conclusions of a human personality." I didn't reply to it because it is so fundamentally wrong that I just don't see it as worth my time. But if I must..it presumes that science is about the pursuit of truth rather than a search for efficient descriptions (about managing resources). Science is about addressing needs, not transcending them (that is, not about enlightenment). His argument also really displays a gross misappreciation (though a common one) of the Cartesian fallacy (people get focused on looking at that connection as only moving in one direction).-Psychohistorian 15:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent observation Psychohistorian. People think that somehow science is about "truth". It is not. It is not about "proving" things. It is not. Mathematics and logic deal with truth and proving things. Science does not. Science is about finding the most parsimonious descriptions that make the most accurate predictions. It is, as you say, about "efficiency", not truth. I like that description. Mind if I steal it? Also, I am not ascribing these sentiments to Adlac, but they are arguments that I have heard by other ID supporters/creationists/creation scientists/fundamentalists, etc.--Filll 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. How can you trust statements of one scientific discipline that make deductions in isolation from others. You are right, there are a lot of mathematicians who roll their eyes at the optimistic pronouncements of darwinists who have little grasp of the weight of mathematical probablities and the like. In fact it is quite instructive to notice in which disciplines darwinistic faith is the most strident. Engineers don't specialise in biological systems unless they are involved in reverse engenering progects that focus on natural systems for understanding of how to solve a problem. However engineering science, information science and computing science does have a lot to say about the unique and specific qualities of intelligently designed products and systems....more later. I sign so as to keep track of my posts. Is there a better way? - just experimenting really.

>>>Adlac 14:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, name one prominent mathematician. Please. The probability of all of the endpoints of evolution may be small, but they aren't 0, and given the billions of years of time, I think that the probability level is more than sufficient. As for non scientists like engineers or computer scientists commenting on Evolution? Meh. Applied science is not science, and they just build contraptions. An Evolutionary biologist has more to say about computer programming than does an engineer about evolution. And finally, saying something like "Darwinistic faith" is pejorative and argumentative. There is no "faith" in Evolution. It is a fact. Doesn't require faith.Orangemarlin 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A standard tactic is to brand:

• science is a religion
• evolution is a religion
• atheism is a religion

and so on. I understand their motivations, but they are quite irritating and unhelpful in this regard. When I have questioned them before, they tend to fall back on differing definitions of the word "religion" sort of like their "evolution is just a theory" argument. These are stupid semantic arguments that might fool the average dufus on the street, but anyone who is a bit more intellectual than that will not be fooled. Maybe this is a place for another similar analysis like the "fact and theory" article. Hmmm...--Filll 19:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The St. Darwin's Day celebration at the local Church of Evolution was very touching this year. We sacrificed a couple of vestal virgins (Christian of course). We then heard a sermon from the local Communist Party Priestess about how Stalin contributed to cleansing the earth of religion. Then we took up a collection for Hillary Clinton. The ceremony closed out with burning of a bunch of peer-reviewed papers showing how sea shells got on top of all the mountains by miracles. I'm still choked up about it all. Orangemarlin 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why dont you people write on your own talk pages?

do you see what the title is here? honestly. you cant even follow your own instructions.

go away no one wants you here raspor 13:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that is here? Do you still not understand how WP works?--Filll 13:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

GO AWAY!!! raspor 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This page was created to allow you to formulate useful input without your excessively long posts dominating the main Talk pages. This page does not exist so that you can yell at people.\

Please, write introductoy paragraphs, listen to the objections we have, just as we try to do when you comment on existing text.

If you're not going to cooperate, then at least let the rest of us do so. -- Ec5618 15:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he prefers to be banned and blocked from Wikipedia--Filll 15:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

please start using colons. and quit being disruptive. that comment does not belong here GO AWAY!!! raspor 15:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok so give me some names of creationist scientists that are great scientists.--Filll 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you a start:

Jefferson: a Deist at best Newton: Deist, Unitarian Einstein: Deist at best Darwin: Slightly agnostic but maybe deist Schrodinger: Probably atheist I bet Feynman: Definitely atheist Francis Collins: Deist, maybe theistic evolutionist but definitely not a creationist

Probably about 50% of scientists are atheists or agnostics. And most of the rest are deists. Very very few are creationists. Certainly not into bible inerrancy. I did an estimate of how many biologists and geologists there are in the US right now. It is probalby over 700,000. And maybe, just maybe 300 are creationists. And just about no one you ever heard of. Maybe 1 or 2. The MRI guy. That is it.--Filll 02:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, reading this discussion above, enough is enough. Raspor, your actions here and elsewhere over the last few days are not contributing to the project, they are disrupting it. You need to take heed of the fact that the preponderance of those who have weighed in at your RFC are not supportive of your behavior. Either you settle down and stop attacking others or the community will be compelled to follow next steps.

Everyone else, please don't feed trolls. FeloniousMonk 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I keep being optimistic I can get him to engage in more thoughtful conversation and calm down and even become productive.--Filll 02:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look fil you are the one doing the debating here. This is not even a public page. Maybe YOU should be banned for trolling. You attack me constantly. This is worthless. raspor 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a public page. It is a public subpage of the intelligent design Talk page. -- Ec5618 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

the heading says "Raspor's and adlac's objections" shouldnt we try to follow the headings. should i put suggestion about ID into the ronald reagan talk page?? raspor 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This subpage was created so that the main Talk page wouldn't be dominated by your comments, to be a place where you could work on useful input. That doesn't mean your comments would exist in a vacuum. What would be the point? You might as well email yourself.

Please use this page to communicate your ideas to other editors, not to blog. -- Ec5618 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ok ecchh. that was a really annoying and petty comment. but anywho tell me on the quote in the discovery article what can a person do to get an accurate quote there. fellatio keeps reverting it. is there anyway to stop him? raspor 14:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My name is Ec5618. FeloniousMonk is called FeloniousMonk. -- Ec5618 14:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, unless your objective is a community ban from editing Wikipedia, please be civil. Your current behaviour is unacceptable. Guettarda 15:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

why is everyone else allowed to insult but i am not allowed??? and what is a community ban??? raspor 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attack are unnecesary and against wiki policy. why do you feel you have the right to move my comments??

ec. i really feel that referring to my posts as 'incoherent' is a personal attack. others are agreeing with my ideas. i really would like to know why you have the right to move my good faith comments out of the ID talk page?? raspor 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i have proposed a change to the wording of the article

to replace the word 'argument' and others have agreed with me. but anyone who agrees with this change their comments are immediately moved off this page. is that wiki policy?? raspor 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead suggestion

Please take a look at Talk:Intelligent design/LEAD. Comments?--Filll 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

i like it better. never thougth 'argument' was right. would prefer concept as in creationism. dont understand why creationism is a concept and ID is not even a concept. isnt the pink unicorn or the spaghetti monster a concept?? raspor 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure which is better; concept or proposition. I thought proposition felt a little better since it is something proposed. I almost put proposed concept.--Filll 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, Is there a reason we are not clearly saying it is an argument/concept/proposal put forth by the Di and their affiliates? Is there a policy that forbids specifying who is making the claim? Mr Christopher 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is a policy. However, I thought there were huge fights about this, which we have mainly resolved deciding it was the DI that proposed this. So in light of the settled fights, I do not see why we cannot put DI in their explicitly, if you would like. Try it out in the sandbox and see what people think.--Filll 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why is most everyone who is pro-ID blocked or banned?

Here we have an article on ID with absolutely no input from anyone who is pro-ID. hmmmm is that pushing a point of view on the part of the darwinists?? raspor 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to ask you to refrain from bringing up subjects on this talk page not related to improving the article. If you want to discuss the proposal to ban you from the community [11] please do so elsewhere. Mr Christopher 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the article fully, but regardless I'd say proposing elimination of bias is relevant to improving an article. Bias is the greatest problem and challenge of the wikipedia project. I find articles on non - controversial topics on wikipedia to be amazing...but if there is some controversy - political, social, religious, whatever...wikipedia is not so good. Consensus has a serious flaw..."two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" and all that :P.

BTW, isn't there a policy to "assume good faith"? I wonder if you are not assuming good faith with raspor. Don't know the history or anything, i'm just sayin... - AbstractClass 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Don't know the history or anything, i'm just sayin" With all due respect this is an understatement, AbstractClass. The user in question has already been blocked twice in 8 days and there is a current and active proposal to block him entirely. That proposal did not come from a vaccuum. And editorial consensus does NOT mean majority rule (a majority is easy to fake/scam see WP:CON for the entire policy) so the 3 wolves and 1 sheep analogy is uncompelling. Cheers Mr Christopher 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think there was anything wrong with the post here. What did he do previously? I reviewed the consensus link you provided (thank you)...I think that sounds good in theory, but I think in reality there is an unavoidable element of "majority rules". Certainly from my limited experience I have not witnessed an unpopular view get a fair shake, I could be wrong in the bigger picture though! Thanks for your response. - AbstractClass 00:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at his contributions history, the RFC filed against him, and the discussion of a community ban over at WP:AN/I. Guettarda 01:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

AbstractClass, I don't not to seem rude or short, but feel free to discuss it at length anywhere but here. We're trying to get this page back on track and focussed on improving the article, not discussing raspor or engaging his antics. My talk page, other editor's talk pages, the RFC project for raspor, and the link above will give you an avenue to satisfy your curiosity and comment as well. Thank you. Mr Christopher 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)