Talk:Intelligent design/Archive39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New vote on lead

Right. the old version was of a kind of awkward format for working our way forward, so, in order to try and move us forwards, I've set up a new voting scheme to try and get as much consensus as possible. Then we can work on the points that are more strongly disputed. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on April 7-9 is currently placed here

The discussion on April 9-10 is currently placed here and here

The discussion on April 12-13 is currently placed here and here

The discussion on April 25-26 is currently placed here

[edit] Format: Choose your prefered format

In these two options, anything in italics is part of a vote below this. Just choose which of the two formats you prefer. I've stripped references, rest assured that everything is, in fact, referenced.

[edit] I

[Opening sentences: Intelligent design is (definition) and (god-related) or vice-versa.] [[Proponents sentence: Its leading/primary proponent(s), all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute/the Discovery institute ] believe the designer to be [the Abrahamic God/the Judeo-Christian God/the Christian God] and claim 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.]

[Second paragraph: The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Public statements by scientists have described it as a pseudoscience or junk science, the former of which was also used by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association.] In 2005, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Despite the limits of the proposition, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying [the Abrahamic God/the Judeo-Christian God/the Christian God] as the designer. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

[edit] II

[Opening sentences: Intelligent design is (definition) and (god-related) or vice-versa.] [Proponents sentence: Its leading/primary proponent(s), [all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute/the Discovery institute]] believe the designer to be [the Abrahamic God/the Judeo-Christian God/the Christian God] and claim 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.

[Second paragraph: The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Public statements by scientists have described it as a pseudoscience or junk science, the former of which was also used by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association.]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[edit] Voting on format

  • I prefer II, could live with I, but find it a bit disorganised. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • II is the better of these, mainly because I contains two seperate references to the DI's beliefs. Tevildo 06:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • II looks a lot neater. SheffieldSteel 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • II Odd nature 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neiither. I have issues on specific clauses, that are already under discussion by a number of participants below. Of the two options, however, II is definitely preferable. ... Kenosis 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There was a version at one point that included the general scientific consensus that ID is not science in the first paragraph, which seemed a good idea to me. .. 19:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Options for opening sentences

1. Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by the actions of some intelligent cause than by processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.

2. Intelligent design is a conjecture claiming that certain features of biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, could not have arisen by natural processes and requires an intelligent cause. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.

3. Intelligent design is a variant of a traditional argument for the existence of God that claims certain features of biological life and the universe could not have arisen by natural processes such as those of evolution, but must have been created by an unspecified intelligent agent.

4. Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God based on the premise 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."

5. Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of biological life and the universe could not have arisen by natural processes, but must have been created by an unspecified intelligent agent, usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.

6.Intelligent design is the proposition 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." It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.

[edit] Voting on opening sentences

  • I like 3 best, followed by 1 and 2. I don't like 4 or 5. 4's second half seems misleading. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 4 seems to be the only usable one - the others are far too radical departures from the current version to stand a chance, and are going to encourage further the people who claim that this is "OR". I would like to see "teleological" back in there somewhere, as well. Tevildo 06:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Why should similarity to the current version matter? Change can be good! Particularly given the sheer awfulness of 4's second half. Adam Cuerden talk 06:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree it's a bad piece of _writing_, which is why we need the quotation marks if we're going to use it. But it's how ID defines itself - I think that alone is sufficient justification for it. Tevildo 06:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I can only disagree with you: Do any other featured articles open with an acknowledged bad quote? Adam Cuerden talk 14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 1,3,2,5 in order of preference - Strong Oppose on 4. Morphh (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to eliminate the DI's definition of ID from the first sentence. I predict that if it were replaced with a less verified and less notable definition, there would be no end to the arguments about how to state what the proposition or concept is. I would expect it'll need to be reconsensused every couple of weeks, pretty much guaranteed. I would maintain that any alternative to the longstanding use of the quote of the DI definition should be clearly an improvement, and should be agreed to be so by a clear consensus of participants in this discussion before being put into use. I think the simple solution, now as before, is as Tevildo said, to use the quotations, which is the way it was earlier before they were removed in error and the article was locked in that position. As to the propositions 1 through 5 above, I advocate #1, with the proper quote verbatim and with proper quotation marks. The proper quote is: "... certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." To me, #4 comes in a close second. Both of these versions have previously had some degree of agreement among WP users involved in this page. ... Kenosis 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I support Kenosis's suggestion of "1 with quotation marks" - should we call this "6" and put it in explicitly? Tevildo 17:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My vote. 4 followed by a weak support for 3. Probably can't support any of the others, but maybe a very weak support for 6.Orangemarlin 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 6, 1 - not support 2,3,4,5 - 2 is ugly, and 3,4,5 don't properly separate the proposition of ID from the beliefs of its supporters. Tomandlu 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 1 only. Odd nature 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote chart on opening sentences

I thought I'd try out a table format. We could tick the leads that we find acceptable or cross those you strongly oppose. This would allow us to start focusing our effort on ones that everyone can work with. From there we do the process again with different versions of prose as suggested. This will give us something easy to look at. You can always leave one blank if you rather not way either way. Morphh (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Y Support   Abstain   N Oppose
Username 1 2 3 4 5 6 Comments
Morphh (talk) Y Y Y N Y Y Preference is 1,3,2,5
Tevildo (talk) N N Y N Y I support Kenosis's suggestion of "1 with quotation marks" (which is now 6), and actively oppose 2 and 5. (Added - opposed to 1 while 6 is still on the table)
Adam Cuerden (talk) N Y Y N Y N I like 3 best, followed by 1 and 2 and 5 . I don't like 4 or 5 or 2. 4's second half seems misleading. (On 6, why would I like the part I strongly objected to in 4?) Looking
Kenosis (talk)       Y   Y As to the propositions 1 through 5 above, I advocate #1, with the proper quote verbatim and with proper quotation marks (#6).
ScienceApologist (talk)       Y   Y I agree with Kenosis
Orangemarlin (talk) N N Y Y N My vote. 4 followed by a weak support for 3. Abstain on 6. Opposed to all others.
Tomandlu (talk) Y N N N N Y My vote. 6 followed by 1
Odd nature (talk) Y           Support 1 only
SheffieldSteel (talk) Y N Y 6 is 1 with quotation marks; either form is okay. Don't like "usually but unofficially" in 5.
Rbj (talk) Y N N N N Y the explicit "argument for the existance of God" is redundant and unattributed in the text, but i'm not highly invested

Sorry if I incorrectly tallied your thoughts.. please correct if needed. Comments... Morphh (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey you forgot me!!!!!! Orangemarlin 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't want to draw conclusions from the last vote (since they were reordered and I didn't want to do a word for word comparision and make assumptions since it inlcuded the entire lead and not just the first sentence). I didn't want to be accused of creating votes since they weren't presented in this particular vote. I added your vote to the table (I wasn't sure if you wanted X on 1,2, 5 or just to leave the blank - depends if you oppose them or if you just rather not support them - please correct if needed). Morphh (talk) 2:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this chart is helpful since it is not being kept update to date. It's certainly non-binding. Also, "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works," see WP:CON#Consensus vs. supermajority and m:Polls are evil. Odd nature 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It was up to date until you added your vote. Add yourself to the chart... geezzz. We're using this to gain a better idea of what we can compromise on - otherwise it's back to edit wars. How do you propose the "formal decision making" process go when you look back at the history of debate and lead suggestions? This is a tool to help us compromise on an acceptable lead. There is more to the rest of the WP:CON section you are quoting there. "people first simply check if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus." We're not void of the formal discussion on these topics - we've been discussing them in great detail. This is part of the process. Morphh (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is invisible to me. Orangemarlin 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Suggestion: Divide and conquer

There's two parts of the first sentence: An explanation of the religious nature of the debate - that it's really an argument for the existance of God; a modern version of the design arguement, whatever - and the explanation of that argument.

Now, this may need revision afterwards, as the order isn't really fixed, but what if we discussed those two points seperately for a moment, and clearly state what we want, what we feel are the important things about each part?

[edit] Teleological argument

I think that we should clearly explain that this is not a new argument, that it's pseudo- literal readings of the scriptures being portrayed as science. That said, I'm not actually sure that the deep history with the teleological argument is necessarily the best introduce this - We could instead do so by way of creation, Edwards v. Aguilard... there's a lot of other ways to do it. Adam Cuerden talk 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

True - we need to keep in mind the difference between the reason for ID (to squeeze the camel of creationism through the "legitimate secular purpose" eye of Edwards) and the nature of ID (the teleological argument with God left unnamed). However, trying to put the first point into the lead is going to be even more controversial than our efforts with the second... Tevildo 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Of Pandas and People documentation and the internal memos that came up during the trial proves it. The problem with "argument for the existance of God" seems to be over the undisputed fact that it is not quite the same - It's actually a variant of a traditional argument for the existance of God, which is similar, but because it avoids mention of the designer, not exactly the same. This is, as far as I can tell, the source of the argument: It goes just a little step beyond the undisputable facts, raising the similarities to the level of sameness. That said, the lead should contain the most relevant information, and if we're going to go into its history, Edwards v. Aguilard is the much more relevant part.
Woudl there be any support for "Intelligent design is an attack on evolution and other established scientific theories developed after Edwards v. Aguilard forbade the teaching of its predecessor, creationism, in public schools. Whereas creationism was explicitly religious, intelligent design instead claims that certain features of living organisms show evidence of design that cannot be explained without presuming some unspecified intelligent cause at work."? Adam Cuerden talk 00:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

The major points are that it's in opposition to evolution and biology (to a lesser extent astrophysics, geology, etc) and it claims that some aspects of life and so on are too complex, or designed-looking, or finely tuned, or what have you to have arised from natural processes without the guidance of a designer. I don't think the current quote is very well-chosen; by its nature as a DI propoganda piece it has outright mischaracterisations - "undirected", for instance, can mean "left to go on their own without outside guidance" but it also means "fluctuating randomly", or "without any direction of movement" - both of which are flat out wrong, as natural selection is deterministic by definition - all the forces that are not deterministic are defined as genetic drift. Adam Cuerden talk 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Err. "deterministic" definitely isn't the right word to use in this sort of context, and many prominent scientists (Gould, most famously) have claimed that natural selection is indeed random and directionless; this view, of course, is by no means universal. "Natural" would be good in isolation, but I don't think "natural processes such as natural selection" is acceptable from a stylistic point of view, and "natural processes" on its own doesn't bring out the specific attack made by ID on evolutionary biology. And, if we can't get away with "teleological", we're definitely not going to get away with "stochastic" or any similar technical term. Furthermore, any differences between a paraphrase of the DI's definition and the definition itself are going to be seized on as "misreprentation" by the pro-ID editors. That's not to say that we _can't_ put together a paraphrase, but it'll need to have _exactly_ the same meaning as the DI definition. Tevildo 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It's deterministic so far that you can model natural selection mathematically so long as you know the selection pressures on each allele and have a population of sufficiently large size so as to dampen down genetic drift. However, which solution it adopts is random, as it depends on what's available, and random mutations and genetic drift there play a strong role. So, yes, the solution is unpredictable, but the selection itself is deterministic at large populations and smaller time scales. Adam Cuerden talk 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but "deterministic" is a word that, IMO, should be confined to metaphysics and not allowed to intrude into any sort of scientific discussion. If we're going to explain this point in the article, we need to find another word - "predictable", perhaps? ("Nomological" is presumably out of the running, although that's a more appropriate technical term). Tevildo 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One important - indeed, in my opinion, completely deal-breaking problem with the version that uses the quote is that it's an extremely POV quote (best explained, undirected processes, etc) being presented not as a POV, but as a neutral description, even as a valid summary of the subject. In this respect, 6 is far worse than 4, as 4's phrasing at least says it's an argument. "Proposition" does not necessarily indicate any significant debate. Adam Cuerden talk 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proponents sentence

  • 1. Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...
  • 2. Its leading proponent, the Discovery Institute....
  • 3. Its primary proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...
  • 4. Its primary proponent, the Discovery Institute....
  • 5. Its primary proponents, many of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...
  • 6. Its original proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...
  • 7. Its original proponents, the Discovery Institute...
  • 8. The Discovery Institute...

[edit] Voting on proponents sentence

  • I like 2 or 4, but don't care much either way. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, I think that only 1 or 3 are reasonable, with a slight preference for 1 as it avoids the alliteration of "primary proponents". The problem is that we're trying to make three seperate points in one sentence - (a) Proponents of ID regard it as a scientific theory: (b) All the leading proponents of ID are affilliated with the DI: (c) All the leading proponents of ID believe the designer to be God. I think we need to keep these points distinct, rather than trying to combine them. Tevildo 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Addition to the above - my preference would now be for 6, which wasn't there when I posted this morning. It's far less contentious, as the _original_ proponents (Kenyon, Wells, Dembski, et al) can be identified specifically and their association proved. Tevildo 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
there are a lot of scientists that are theist or deist. many of these scientists write books. some even write books about the topic at hand, or at least touch it. probably less that 1% of scientists that believe in God and think that God had something to do with creation, while still accepting the findings of modern cosmology or biology/palentology, are affiliated with the DI. you need some proof there for the word "all" and you won't get it since all i need is one who is not. (and you guys wonder why critics attack this article for bias?) r b-j 13:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can name a leading and/or primary advocate of ID who isn't affilliated with the Discovery Institute (with appropriate references to back up your claim, of course), we'd be more than delighted to change the sentence. Until you (or someone else) does, though, it should stay - it's adequately referenced and, to the best of our knowledge, factually correct. And, this shouldn't need saying, but just to make it clear - stating a belief in God is _not_ advocation of ID, any more than it's advocation of Young Earth Creationism. Tevildo 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
well, since you seem to control the judgement of who is "leading" or "primary" (nothing subjective in that!), i will never be able to satisfy it. but i have named one author, a Harvard prof no less, several times (you can look it up in the archives). another author that i haven't yet mentioned is John Polkinghorne. another might be Freeman Dyson. i know for sure that Polkinghorne supports a theistic concept of design that would fit the un-crapped up definition of ID and has nothing to do with nor approves of the DI. and i suspect the same for Dyson. and, along with Gingrich, they write books. what else is needed to make them "primary" or "leading"? do they have to favor fucking up science education in the public schools to qualify as a being a proponent of ID? if that is required, then they fail the test. r b-j 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just the "living things" (as in, "and of living things" from the current definition) aspect would be enough. Polkinghorne and Dyson are indeed scientists that advocate the teleological argument. They only apply it to the universe as a whole, and are more than happy to name The Designer as God. Tevildo 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
looks like we're in agreement about the facts. i just do not know how, given these facts, that you justify that "all the primary proponents of ID are affiliated with DI" unless you do so axiomatically. is being affiliated with DI a requirement to be considered a "primary proponent" of ID? if you say "yes", then what about the meaning and historical use of the term ID in the years before there ever was a DI? if DI acts to appropriate a term and does all this PR and political bullshit to associate the term with a movement to put Of Pandas and People into classrooms, if DI does that, do we grant to DI that they own the term? r b-j 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is that intelligent design isn't really all that different from creationism. There's two ways to seperate people into ID supporters and creationists: 1. Whether they use the term intelligent design (which largely limits it to the DI), or 2. Whether they pussyfoot around the nature of the designer in a vague effort to appear not to be advocating a specific religion, and thus to make themselves acceptable in science classes. This also seems to lead back to the DI, even if it started out away from them, as that sort of underhanded work requires sharp-line division off from the rest of the creationists for it to work in the first place, and thus goes right back to 1. Adam Cuerden talk 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I vote for 6. Both "leading" and "primary" are subjective and require an arbitrary distinction to be made. SheffieldSteel 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 8,7,6,2,4 - My order... I agree with SheffieldSteel on the terms used. Could we use a less subjective word than "affiliated" or be more specific "closely affiliated"? Morphh (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Following up on Morphh, yes absolutely the article text could be more specific and still be consistent with the reliable sources already provided (about six or seven of them as I recall). I would advocate, following Morphh here, Option 9 ( a derivative of option 1) which might state: "It's leading proponents, all of whom are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute . . ." I'd also like to see an Option 10 available for consideration, another derivative of option 1: "It's principal proponents, all of whom are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute, maintain that intelligent design is a scientific theory. . . " While I agree with (was it Tevildo who mentioned it?) the point about unnecessary alliteration (two "p-words" in a row), it's really a minor disadvantage I think--" principal" replacing "leading" would, if nothing else, be a little breath of fresh air in the wording, without sacrificing integrity of summary of what the reliable sources have reported in summary on this issue, as well as without sacrificing integrity of the more detailed research we've done into where these sources got their information from (direct quotes from Johnson, Meyer, for instance along with the prior challenges issued on the talk page to credibly show even one main, primary, principal, leading and/or original proponent of ID who meets WP:Notability with respect to the topic of intelligent design but who is not affiliated with the DI).

Thus, my proposal: #9: "It's leading proponents, all of whom are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute . . ." , #10:"It's principal proponents, all of whom are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." , or even an option #11: "It's principal proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." Whether any of these are acceptable or not, no doubt the choices can be narrowed down significantly at some reasonable point in the discussion that is already underway here. Kenosis 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I just had an opportunity to think about the issues here in somewhat more detail, and it now seems to me that the words "leading proponents" express both "original proponents" and "principal" or "primary" proponents in a way that includes both of these attributes of those proponents. The first such attribute is that they came first with a significant and clearly identifiable gap in time, at least several years, between their presentations of their POV and the presentation of those who followed starting in about 2001 or so and continuing through at least Ann Coulter's book in 2006. The second such attribute is the relatively minor level of book sales and hence influence on the issues involved in the topic of intelligent design between primary proponents such as Johnson, Behe, Dembski along with the facilitative influence of other participants such as Meyer, Thaxton, Chapman, etc., as compared ot others who weighed in after the unveiling of the teach the controversy campaign starting in 1999. Thus, the earlier language "leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, maintain that intellgent design is a scientific...",.or variation thereof, was and still is a quite reasonable way of stating the information to the reader interested in attempting to understand the topic. ... Kenosis 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Coulter might be a candidate for RBJ's counterexample. She's (arguably) a "leading proponent" - certainly, she advocates ID (although for explicitly religious reasons), and lots of people have read her book; and, although she cites Behe and Dembski as sources, I don't think she's _personally_ associated with the DI. My preference is still for "original". Tevildo 06:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is indeed an argument to be made there, and Coulter was brought up and discussed extensively in this context. I'll try to find it and put a link here if I can. The talk-page discussion(s) of Coulter concluded quite convincingly that she is not only not a leading proponent, but is not even adequately familiar with the topic to have written about it without going to the Discovery Institute for her information. She is a commentator, a political pundit, who wrote Godless as a sweeping socio-political commentary, decrying all manner of destruction of the moral and intellectual fabric of the United States perpetrated by liberals and secular humanists. It's an interesting read, if one cares to look into popular modern conservatism in America. In short, no one else even comes close to the amount of influence and to the timing of the "leading" proponents, Johnson, Meyer, Dembski, Behe, etc. Personally I don't think "original" captures this quite strongly enough. Perhaps there's yet another way of stating this fundamental point about the class of persons who are fundamentally responsible for intelligent design. ... Kenosis 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2 or 4 for this one. 7 would be okay, but suffers from a slight accuracy problem in that the phrase ID does predate (albeit in a very minor way) the DI. Tomandlu 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 1 only. It is the only one that is veriably accurate and doesn't contain weasle words. Odd nature 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Leading" might be regarded as slightly musteline. I'll agree with RBJ insofar as there's a risk of defining "leading" as "being associated with the DI" and begging the question. "Original", if not perfectly objective, does give us a narrower target containing the same individuals. Tevildo 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What consitututes "a leading proponent" is already well defined and understood, as seen in the archives. Odd nature 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We can't use the archives as a source. If "leading" is actually _defined_, we need to include the definition somewhere in the article. If, as I suspect, it isn't, I think we should try and find a word that both covers the individuals in question accurately and doesn't provoke edit wars. Tevildo 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This sentence does seem to be a somewhat awkward shoving together of two unrelated points. Maybe it would work better divided into two sentences, one on the DI, one that just says "Its leading proponents claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing or is superior to accepted scientific theories such as evolution" (or however the original is phrased). Adam Cuerden talk 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but with the observation that failure to mention the Discovery Institute connection in the lead is not acceptable to some editors. Back in about December we had something along the lines of "Its leading proponents are all associated with the Discovery Insitute; they claim...", but that didn't survive for long, and I don't think there's any point in suggesting it again. Tevildo 08:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
But what reason is there for saying that only its leading/primary/original proponents claim that ID is a scientific theory? Surely that should be just a generic "proponents", with the DI mentioned seperately. Adam Cuerden talk 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason is that certain editors aren't happy with any version that doesn't have the "leading proponents/Discovery Institue" connection as the very first thing we say about ID proponents. I don't think this is necessary, but my opinion is only one among many. Tevildo 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1 preferred and is well supported, 3 is also ok. .. dave souza, talk 19:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but just because it looks like it makes sense at first glance doesn't mean the combination actually makes sense. We can do better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Vote chart on proponents sentence

Y Support   Abstain   N Oppose
Username 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Comments
Adam Cuerden (talk) Y Y         I like 2 or 4, but don't care much either way.
Tevildo (talk) Y   Y     Y     I think that only 1 or 3 are reasonable, with a slight preference for 1 - my preference would now be for 6
SheffieldSteel (talk)           Y     I vote for 6. Both "leading" and "primary" are subjective and require an arbitrary distinction to be made.
Morphh (talk) Y Y Y Y Y 8,7,6,2,4 - My order... I agree with SheffieldSteel on the terms used.
rbj (talk) N   N   Y       ... you need some proof there for the word "all" and you won't get it since ...
Tomandlu (talk)   Y   Y     Y   2 or 4 for this one. 7 would be okay
Odd nature (talk) Y               Support 1 only
Kenosis (talk) Y               Support 1 for lack of a clear improvement among currently available options
Orangemarlin (talk) Y Y Y Y Any of the first four are clear and to the point. 2, 4 are my favorites.
dave souza (talk) Y   Y           1 preferred and is well supported, 3 is also ok

Created another chart as it gets very difficult to see where people are at just looking at the text. Please fix if I misrepresented your vote. Morphh (talk) 3:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I going nuts or do I see this section twice? Orangemarlin 05:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This is for the "Leading proponents" sentence, not the opening paragraph. Tevildo 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for the correction on that. Late last night, I made that mistake. And thanks, Adam, for immediately correcting my erroneous edit to this section. ... Kenosis 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry. I saw Orangemarlin's comment, and realised what had happened. It was an easy mistake to make if you didn't realise there were two charts. Adam Cuerden talk 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It was late, and I must have been smoking pot when I read it. Orangemarlin

14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The identity of God

Should he be described as...

  • 1. the Abrahamic God
  • 2. the Judeo-Christian God
  • 3. the Christian God
  • 4. God
  • 5. the God of Christianity (source's term)

[edit] Voting on the nature of God

  • I like 2, 5, 1, 3, and 4, in that order. Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If 5 is in the source, 5 is (theoretically) best. However, it's proved to be a highly contentious phrase, and I think that 1 is the best compromise. Tevildo 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
is it attributed to that source? is there any factual cause to differentiale the Christian God from any other God? indeed from Abrahamic religion: " All three religions worship one God [...]. Indeed, there exists among their followers a general understanding that they worship the same God." why make the article look stupid? r b-j 13:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 4, 1, 2, 5, 3 - My thought is that it is the same God (same creator). I agree with Rbj and think it would look odd to specify Christian, when they all worship the same Abrahamic God. Morphh (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 4 only. Maybe 5 if that's the source, especially since the "Jewish religion" doesn't believe in this myth. Orangemarlin 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 4 only. Odd nature 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with 4 is that it relies on our readers appreciating the subtle difference between "God" and "a god", which is by no means an uncontentious issue. We need to make it clear which god they believe in. Tevildo 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That's why there's wikilinks. Odd nature 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That was held to be inadequate for "teleological" - we had to put "argument for the existence of God" in explicitly, which I'm sure didn't help the controversy. However, I don't have particularly strong views on this specific point. Tevildo 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with God or whatever else. Best section heading ever, by the way. SheffieldSteel 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with wikilinking the term God to something more specific. Morphh (talk) 3:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
'God' with a link. Tomandlu 13:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph

The current version is "The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. A public statement by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association described it as a pseudoscience, other public statements have agreed or called it junk science." - can this be improved? Adam Cuerden talk 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(The original was "The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science.[18] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.") Adam Cuerden talk 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and more recently there have been complaints that the scientific community as a whole cannot "state" anything, but that the WP editors should use some other characterization of what the scientific community as a whole unequivocally asserts. (It may seem a quibble now, but Adam Cuerden was not here to dfend this language at the time. Look it up in the archives, if I may be pardoned for saying that.) I certainly recognize this is an extremely difficult topic, in large part because it is inherently deceptive, on account of its fundamental objective to avoid running afoul of the US Supreme Court while advocating teaching creation-based biology ("creation science") to school children under the auspices of "science". ... Kenosis 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest "have stated" or "have asserted"? Tevildo 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
who cares what the NAS says? Are they the authority on what is science? 2000 members....uh ok. That is hardly representitive of the "scientific community". So if an organization that has a pitiful 2000 members states X about something pertaining to science, does that equivocate to fact? But overall, the article is a nice infidels.org article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Certainly there are other ways of stating the point in the article text than the way it's currently stated. Presently, the footnote contains a summary of many of the major organizations' position on the issue of "inteligent design" asserted by its proponents to be scientific and therefore eligible for inclusion in public school science curricula. The NAS, incidentally, is a major advisory body in the US, not just a happenstance assembly of a couple thousand scientists. ... Kenosis 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
To the anonymous user who couldn't sign their name--the National Academy of Sciences is one of the premier scientific groups in the world. You must be at the top of your field of study to even be considered a member. When I was in college, to be taught physics, chemistry or biology by a faculty member who was in the NAS was considered very special. My Physical Chemistry course was taught by one of the elder statesmen of Physics and Chemistry--and he was an elder of the Mormon Church. If they say something, it has critical meaning and is representative of all of the scientists in the United States. Orangemarlin 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything useful in my suggestions (now archived) - e.g. Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive37#Just_the_facts_1.31? Many editors liked 'em, but in the end, they were shot down with insults rather than constructive comment that might have allowed me to address the concerns. I realise they suffer from the problem of the scientific community "asserting", but that's a minor issue IMHO. Tomandlu 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Towards pursuing a more global perspective here, I do think it is useful to explore making clear that ID is a legal strategy driven by US law, specifically by the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguilard. There's adequate discussion of this in the trial transcripts of Kitzmiller v. Dover to fulfill WP:Attribution and WP:Reliable sources in my opinion. What I most appreciated in Tomandlu's proposal was "Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute, a U.S.-based ... think tank..." , because it makes clear that it is primarily a U.S.-based issue. Perhaps there are yet other ways of making this point within the current proposals, without ripping it up and starting from scratch on the format of the lead. Currently the lead has three short paragraphs, (1) an introduction of the concept/proposition and who are the principal or leading advocates, (2) the response of the scientific community, and (3) its present legal status. ... Kenosis 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the original phrasing or the current phrasing only, everything else proposed is either weasely or gives undue weight to the pro-ID crowd by downplaying the utter rejection of ID by the entire professional scientific community. Odd nature 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to change "The scientific community states unequivocally that..." to "The [overwhelming] scientific consensus is that..."? This gets around the obvious problems of there being no 'office of science' to issue such statements. SheffieldSteel 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be OK - probably without "overwhelming", which is (a) emotive (b) not strictly necessary. Tevildo 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"unequivocal consensus" might work, come to think of it. Tevildo 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Overwhelming" is accurate and verifiable via the Dover ruling. We will just quote the ruling on the matter if necessary. Odd nature 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Overwhelming consensus" I can live with. I think it's better than "states unequivocally", at least. Tevildo 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. At least we can all agree on one part of the lead =) Adam Cuerden talk 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About this most recent push to resolve the conflicts about the lead of this artiticle

This current push to resolve the persistent issues about the aritlcle in the form of a "multiple-choice test" should, in my opinion, at least follow basic principles that are generally agreed to be followed in the modern civilized world, which provide for giving written notice to those who may object to what's being proposed, along with notice of the specific terms and time-frame of what's proposed, and along with the opportunity to be heard by those who may in fact object. Within Wikipedia, by my understanding, this period of time generallly is expected to be a week or more. This period of time ordinarily gives those participants who haven't decided they've had their fill of the crap that attends to controversial topics such as this article enough time to check back into the discussion if they are able and willing to do so. It may seem a minor procedural matter perhaps, but worth noting I should hope.. I trust that some combination of participants will tell us all what on earth is the expectiation for the present participants. Thus far, within the last day, it's been essentially limited to a bunch of multiple-choice questions without telling anyone what the test is intended to be and how much time we have to complete it. ... Kenosis 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, what's going on here, and why wasn't the record of presentation and discussion preserved? Who is deleting it? There was a discussion on certain specific issues already in progress with multiple participants, and someone has removed it from the talk page. Kindly replace it! ... Kenosis 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent_design/LeadVoting1. I presumed people could look at it there, but it was turning into the same conflicts that stalled this page for two weeks now. I thought this might work around them. Adam Cuerden talk 14:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see the edit here. Why archive currently active material unless it's plainly irrelevant or disruptive? This was a discussion presently in progress. Kindly at least set it up with a large notice and an option to view it with a "view" tab. We're not accustomed to seeing recent exchanges just disappear, and this is not in keeping with talk page conventions AFAIK. Thank you. ... Kenosis 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted a notice about the archive in this edit in the section entitled "New vote on lead" above. Hopefully that'll be adequate to keep participants apprised of where some of the recent discussion is currently located. ... Kenosis 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To few people are involved in these discussions. We have two POV-pushing Creationists against two or three people who rotate in and out, because we have real lives, and also need to sleep (it appears that no one here sleeps). The POV-pushers have moved the lead from totally neutral to a complete whitewash of the underhanded methods used by DI (shall we revisit the Wedge document once again). Decisions on changing the lead should take a few days at least, letting many other editors contribute. I'd like to hear from some non-POV pushing creationists (Homestarmy comes to mind, who I know could help craft a compromise). If we go back, you put up 5 choices for leads. The original lead was the favorite of most people. That should have done it for all of us. This nitpicking one line at a time is counterproductive, and as Kenosis says, we need time for many people to weigh in. It will take forever. Orangemarlin 16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so I know... who are the POV-pushing creationists? From what I've read, the main editors in the discussion don't seem to believe creation or ID. I'm just not sure who you are referring too because it is certainly not me. Please provide a link to the vote for the prior consensus (most people) that you keep brining up, because from my view of the archives, the statement was under dispute since its introduction. I've provided a list of editors that have objected to it and it seems to exceed those that were for it. To address the issue, most of us have supported over a dozen different lead versions that have been presented, while we discuss the detail of which has the best prose. This is not POV pushing. We're trying to solve a dispute and work out the best prose to accomplish it. Morphh (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Morphh, Orange gets to say things. whatever he wants. he can say the sky is green with polka-dots. he says all sorts of things. these things are his opinion (unless he is lying). he doesn't seem to think he needs to justify these things he says with any fact. i'm sure (since he's said it multiple times before) that he thinks i'm one of the two creationists. that, besides many other things he never bothers to back up, is what convinced me that he simply says whatever he wants independent of any veracity. r b-j 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
RBJ, there you go with that uncivil commentary once again. I don't have to prove what I believe, because the facts back me up. I've got a well-written Federal District Court decision that states plain and simply that ID is religion. I'll ask politely once again, why is ID not an argument for G_d. You convince me, and I'm pretty damn smart, so I'll listen to reasonable arguments. You shouldn't write it because you don't know how to be civil. Let morph write it, who at least tries to be civil, logical and polite. You claim you're a pot-smoking ne'er-do-well, which is irrelevant who has one purpose in life, fight POV wherever it is. Funny that I don't see you defending the Evolution article against religious POV. Orangemarlin 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
so repeatedly lying about people's position is civil? did i ever claim to be a ne'er-do-well? the problem is Orange, there is a record of what you say. that's why it's so easy to dismiss your credibility. you have none. and you prove it yourself.r b-j 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Although it is impossible to lie about someone's belief, and I do believe you're a creationist, I will refrain calling you that. You are, however, a creationist-POV pusher. Different altogether. And as for my credibility, you make me laugh. I have not been banned. My edits are rarely reverted, unless it is an obvious POV battle, in which case I usually stop. So, my credibility is pretty good around her, maybe not with you. And yes, you did claim you were some sort of pot-smoking thing or another. I threw in ne'er-do-well, since pot-smoking is not exactly a legal activity in the US. As for your claim to be some left-winger, well there is an article out written about Wikipedia--there are individuals who claim they are one thing, but truly are another. I think you know it as well as I do. Now, I asked politely below to settle this discussion, and calling each other names is obviously useless. Let's stop now. I believe what I believe, but so do a lot of others. You believe what you believe, and only Morph shows up to support you. What does that tell us? Orangemarlin 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
so you threw in "ne'er-do-well" because you equated something that is not exactly legal in the U.S. with ne'er-do-well. only in the last decade did the US Supreme Court finally put the last nail in the coffin of the sodomy laws. so are pre-1990 gay guys ne'er-do-wells? what about demonstrating against Fearless Leader and his war (and not dispersing when the cops say so)? that's ne'er-do-well? or driving 70 m.p.h. in a 65 zone? you've never done that, i'm sure. you have no credibility. you assert things, opinions that you would like to be taken as fact or truth or whatever semantic you mean "for real", but you offer nothing ever to back it up. you think i'm a creationist for what reason? (other than your opinion). you can say whatever you want about your belief, but when you qualify your belief as fact, yes, you lie. it is intellectually dishonest. that might worry me, but your intellectual dishonesty is so childlike that it's trivial to see through it. not only are you intellectually dishonest, you take on the intellectual dishonesty of a high-school kid. you say stuff that is semantically equivalent to "well I know that such and such is true and you just have to take my word for it because i'm certain." it's stupid. r b-j 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but sodomy wasn't illegal where I live (at least over the past 30 years or so). I guess pot isn't either, but Federal Law takes precedence. My chauffeur is not allowed to drive the Rolls over the speed limit. I'd have him publicly flogged. Orangemarlin 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"chauffeur... Rolls", given Orange's standard of evidence, he's a Republican. r b-j 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Then again, there is a possibility you wouldn't know pot if it grew in your backyard, you wear suits everyday, only listen to Christian Rock, and are religious. And I could be a pot-smoking, alternative-music loving, pierced-nippled, long-haired over-aged Deadhead. You must never know. That's why Jimbo himself promotes ignore credentials. Orangemarlin 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
your response is non sequitur. you missed the point. since it appears to have to flown over your head, would you like me to spell it out for you? r b-j 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Jules: We're gonna be like three little Fonzies here. And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda what's Fonzie like? Yolanda: Cool? Jules: What? Yolanda: He's cool. Jules: Correctamundo. And that's what we're gonna be. We're gonna be cool. Now Ringo, I'm gonna count to three, and when I count three, you let go of your gun, and sit your ass down. But when you do it, you do it cool. Ready? One... two... three." Morphh (talk) 2:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> RBJ, you are just the most rude, uncivil individual on here. You have called me a liar on several occasions, and frankly, you have no right. I cannot lie about an opinion. If I think you're a Creationist, tell me how that's a lie. I can think whatever I want, and as long as I communicate accurate what I, just I, am thinking then it's damn truthful. However, why don't you send me a link to a set of edits you've done that proves me wrong, then, although I didn't lie, I will admit to misunderstanding you. Since I've already looked at your contributions (admittedly, not every single one, because as a non-pot-smoking businessman, I actually work), and have found nothing to counter my personal belief set about you, then I am truthfully stating my observations and belief-set. Orangemarlin 17:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can explain why ID isn't an argument for the existence of G_d, then I'll be convinced that you are not a POV pusher. Using DI documents don't count, because that's like asking Bill Gates to write an article on the security of Window's XP. Just so that I don't miss what you write, create a new section, delineate with bullet points your arguments (again, POV is using DI verbiage) with references, and I will shut up if I'm convinced. Orangemarlin 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, I don't think the point is to prove that ID isn't an argument for the existence of God. It certainly is in my view, in the courts view, and DI's view, however, there are sources that state (NYT article, Godless, DI) that it is not limited to God. It does not specify the designer, which I expect is also published in the court document. Thus we can not state God as a statement of fact, as it is disputed that ID limits itself to God. As for DI documents not counting, DI can be a source even if it is POV. In your example, it is perfectly fine and recommended that we use sources from Microsoft to write about their security (remember the Microsoft Wikipedia debacle and the recommendation - Read what Jimbo stated). It is the article that must be neutral by not asserting that the most popular view is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions per NPOV policy. The lead discussed tells the reader as a statement of fact and as the definition of ID who the creator is and I (and many others) think this is against policy. Morphh (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Morph, I appreciate what you're saying and your civility, and let me laugh out loud about Microsoft. I was just using that as an example, because we know about Windows security. OK, I do agree with what you're saying, except under oath DI said something different. I am willing to compromise that DI is saying it isn't so, but what I consider to be reasonable sources, the Federal District Court testimony of certain DI leadership, is not exactly in agreement with what they're trying to say. Again, DI is trying to deceive everyone, and the point of fact is they've been caught at it. Then of course, there is the whole Wedge Document and Teach the Controversy items that are completely antithetical to your arguments. But for the sake of consensus, how do we make sure that DI is attributed with what they believe (based on Kitzmiller, Wedge and Teach the Controversy), and what they would like us to believe. DI owns Intelligent Design, for better or worse, and I am unwilling to separate the two. So, do you see my conundrum? What you want to write is technically correct, because that is the official position with respect to Intelligent design, which is similar to the official position of Microsoft that Windows XP is safe and Vista is a great upgrade. But the verifiable unofficial is somewhat different for Intelligent Design and Windows XP. Orangemarlin 21:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you there. I think we need to try and find the best way to explain what your saying. Here is the official party line but DI owns ID and it is really xyz and it has been show to be so in court. Here is all the evidence that ID is xyz and science says its all bunk. My main concern is that we can not dismiss the official version by stating the unofficial version as fact. We're suppose to be neutral and not favor. We must let the readers decided that ID is DI God propaganda based on the facts presented. Morphh (talk) 0:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I had a difficult time finding your comment. Sometimes these discussions get confusing. Anyways, I'm on board. I guess we'll argue about the order, but as long as it is clear that 1) DI says XYZ, but 2) the verified references say NOT XYZ but ABC, 3) XYZ is not science, and 4) G-d is mentioned somewhere in the XYZ, we might have a compromise. Orangemarlin 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Purely on a point of information, the "consensus version" was the "2" of this current round of discussion. Tevildo 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Where do you see that? The Supermajority was not achieved and there were certainly strong opposes - see WP:CON. There were 3 that thought it was the best lead. There were 3 (or 4) that put it in the bottom two (2 of which had strong opposition). Concensus will be achived most likely by a lead that everyone can find acceptable. Morphh (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)-
it is an absolutely false "point of information" that the current version 2 (or any version with the made up definition of ID being "an argument for the existance of God" had ever had consensus. that's why there is this frackas happening now. r b-j 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the current point of contention - I was just answering Morphh's question about the version to which Orangemarlin referred, which has, in the distant past (two or three weeks ago) been referred to as "the consensus version". I'll agree that there isn't a consensus for it now, if that makes you happier. I also feel that I should point out that "our side" regard it as a barely-acceptable compromise - speaking for myself, I would _like_ to start with "Intelligent design is a type of Creationism", but that's never going to fly. However, I doubt whether any version that doesn't at least _mention_ the religious nature of ID in the first sentence is going to survive. Tevildo 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the #2 from two weeks ago had some consensus (which I support) but that's not the #2 (the original lead from last month) that we've been referring to for the last day. The numbers got switched up. It has since changed again, being 1 & 4 repectively.. I think. #2 is not #2 anymore. haha Morphh (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am gettin the impression that some editors here feel that 'creationists' should not have any involvement in this article and that 'creationists' are somehow deceitful, ignorant, unethical people. Am I wrong to get this impression? 68.109.234.155 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>That is patently false. Most of the editors here do not like deceitful, ignorant and unethical people, whatever their belief-set. I actually do not think that RBJ and Morph are deceitful, ignorant or unethical. They see the same exact issue as I do, and I am totally frustrated by their inability to see what I see. The Discovery Institute is deceitful, in that they are attempting to make Intelligent design to be science when in fact, intelligent design is nothing more than another religious argument that a supreme being controls Evolution, in this case, a god of some sort (and we're even arguing about that). In one court case Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District, the Wedge strategy and other speeches by Discovery Institute people, they are creationists. Some editors believe that Intelligent design should be described as what it is: a religious theory that requires a supernatural being, probably G_d. Other editors believe that we should be stating that Intelligent design is some sort of science. The Discover Institute is deceitful and unethical, but definitely not ignorant. The Creationist editors who don't come in writing things like "evolution is only a theory" deserve good faith. RBJ and Morph, at a minimum are smart and seem to believe in their POV with all of their passion. I don't get it, but I don't get people who love Soccer. RBJ is very uncivil, but I'm used to it. Orangemarlin 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks, can we get back to discussing the article, rather than the failings of any individual or group of individuals? Thanks. Can I ask both Orangemarlin and RBJ whether (and if not, why not) they're happy with Kenosis's "1 with quotes" from above? It has both the DI definition and the statement that ID is a version of the teleological argument, which I think will be essential components of any eventual compromise. Tevildo 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm on board with civility from the beginning. My problem here is that I am unconvinced that the lead should have been changed from this perfect lead. Also, I'm not sure to which #1 you're referring. Lot's of one's previous to this discussion. Orangemarlin 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by the actions of some intelligent cause than by undirected processes such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.
I would personally favour the version you refer to as well, but Kenosis's version might be our best shot at a compromise. Tevildo 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey r b-j, grow up. or at least please consider it. Your unrelenting whining and complaining and attempting to claim a moral high grown is sickening. Grow up and learn how to play with others. Mr Christopher 20:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
hey Mr. Christ. do you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about? r b-j 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Presumably Mr Christopher is talking about the difficulty, when reviewing RBJ's contributions to this debate, of finding positive suggestions of ways to improve the article, rather than criticism of others' suggestions. SheffieldSteel 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
if you take a look at the article history, as well as this talk page, i made multiple "positive" contributions (the evalutation of "positive" i realize is debated) with precise NPOV wording of the lead (that came from the dictionary, not off my own creation) that did not have these blatent neutrality problems. including putting in suggestions of others (Tomandlu). all were reverted and falsely labeled as Creationist POV. so there is a problem. when black is called white and white is called black, we have to first get through that cognitive disconnect.
i have finite time, i can't monitor this every minute. i can maybe check in on it day by day, so the best that i can do, given these circumstances, is to try to simply keep the article from becoming a soapbox of those whose hatred of ID is so obvious. stop the breach in the dike first, then build it up later. r b-j 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What is your problem with civility? Either be civil or a number of us will take a personal interest in seeing you get a topic ban or another NPA block. Odd nature 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
no problem with civility. just a problem with dishonesty, intellectual dishonesty or the less sophisticated kind. r b-j 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a bit late to mention this - the reason I changed the format was because we were ending up with several slight variations of text, but voting on them as a block, when it was becoming clear that almost all of the controversy was to do with the first sentence or two, with small differences of opinion elsewhere. Adam Cuerden talk 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |}

[edit] Decision Making

I think this effort has resolved little: POV pushers are still trying to insert weasel words, misrepresent the majority viewpoint on the topic and misrepresent sources. Also remember, "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works," see WP:CON#Consensus vs. supermajority and m:Polls are evil. Odd nature 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What choice do we have? I think this lead section has become a big POV debacle, but it's that or a edit war. And many of the usual suspects are contributing any more. Orangemarlin 17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Voting is evil, have other things to sort out, feel should give all options due consideration but brain hurts so haven't tackled this as yet. However, this source which I came across in another context gives some interesting comments, including:
They try to stuff a vacuous "Designer" into gaps in current scientific explanations, while offering no account of how this Designer is supposed to operate, or when and where He has intervened in the history of life, or how one would distinguish between the effects of a Designer of unknown and unguessable motives and the actions of unknown or poorly understood natural causes.
This utter vacuity makes ID impossible to test; the "evidence" for design consists entirely of supposed problems for evolutionary theory (as has been noted, ID "theory" seems to amount to "somewhere, somehow, something or other is wrong with evolution").
Perhaps not a sympathetic source :) .. dave souza, talk 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. We can now test to see if certain organisms were genetically manipulated by humans. We certainly can test in the same way to seen if organisms were genetically manipulated by ancient aliens. We test right now to see if radio waves have been manipulated by aliens. It is not a big leap to use a similar process to see if DNA was manipulated. 68.109.234.155 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I recognise the concerns, while at the same time I suspect that I am being classed as a "POV pusher". I am not. If you will read my constructive suggestions in an open frame of mind, you will see that I don't dispute one fact or reference in the various recent incarnations of the lead. The debate is not about the facts, but about whether the article should be conflating them, rather than letting them speak for themselves. I have nothing but contempt for ID in general, and the DI specifically, but I would rather see them hanged with their own rope. As an example away from the lead, take a look at Intelligent_design#Fine-tuned_universe - why is the second law there, and have any relevant ID proponents from the DI really tried to use that old chestnut? I thought they were smarter than that.
Beyond that, there are some respectable figures who give FTU house-room (Stephen Hawking IIRC), and, to be frank, the current version is a bit of a rant. Hitler liking dogs is neither an excuse or confirmation of his vileness, and nor does it reflect particularly on dogs (personally, I haven't got much time for FTU or dogs, but that's not the point...).
Please consider the possibility that criticism of some aspects of the current article and lead is neither a criticism of the work the long-term editors have put in, nor POV-pushing. Tomandlu 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Curious: why do you hate the DI? And why do you hate a concept like ID? 68.109.234.155 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't hate it/them - I have contempt for it/them. Why? Because I think ID is a cynical invention of the DI, which makes it a cynical organisation. The verifiable facts support me in this supposition. Tomandlu 19:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
problem is, Tomandlu, your contempt for DI notwithstanding, Orange and 151 (and whoever) still will peg you as a creationist (as they did for me) because of opposing this blatent POV in wording and for offering something better (which was reverted shortly after i put it in). there's just no satisfying these guys, on either side. r b-j 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I still do not understand. What is this awful thing that the DI did? They are cynical? Is that unethical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.234.155 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Is cynicism unethical? AFAIK only behaviour can be unethical. So ask yourself what behaviour did this cynicism engender, and answer you own question. Tomandlu 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
and this cynicism spreads in so many different directions. they accused both of us (at different times) as being creationist or writing creationist POV. in case Orange thinks i have only recently conveniently renounced creationism, here is a comment on this talk page last January [1][2] but then the article lead was not flagrantly biased [3] and there was less apparent need to come to the rescue of its NPOV. but since they start sneaking in the bias (and, regretfully i wasn't paying attention). it's interesting the series of delta changes to slide it painlessly from the far more NPOV to what they did when they pushed through the FA. it's amazing, actually. like out of the Karl Rove playbook, but on the other side. "Rovie" would be proud of it. (does being on the right side justify dirty tricks like a blatent POV redefinition of the terms of debate in a reference like Wikipedia?) r b-j 05:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this line of questions have to do with imrpoving the article? And it is me or does 68.109.234.155 remind you alot of one of our favorite trolls from not so long ago? His "arguments" seem familiar. Mr Christopher 19:51, 27 April 2007

[[Voting is evil, have other things to sort out, feel should give all options due consideration but brain hurts so haven't tackled this as yet. However, this source which I came across in another context gives some interesting comments, including: They try to stuff a vacuous "Designer" into gaps in current scientific explanations, while offering no account of how this Designer is supposed to operate, or when and where He has intervened in the history of life, or how one would distinguish between the effects of a Designer of unknown and unguessable motives and the actions of unknown or poorly understood natural causes. This utter vacuity makes ID impossible to test; the "evidence" for design consists entirely of supposed problems for evolutionary theory (as has been noted, ID "theory" seems to amount to "somewhere, somehow, something or other is wrong with evolution"). Perhaps not a sympathetic source :) .. dave souza, talk 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC)]]]

What did the above have to do with improving the article? The point I am trying to make is that there seems to be a lot of POV pushing on the part of those with 'contempt' towards the DI. I really feel those who have very strong anti-DI sentiments should recuse themselves from editing this article. This article should not be a soap-box for anti-DI arguments. It should be objective and those with too strong of emotionalness towards the DI should decline from editing. 68.109.234.155 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bye then. SheffieldSteel 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Since I have publicly stated my contempt for ID/DI, I assume that I am one of those editors who you think shouldn't participate... and yet the only reason why I have had to be so forthright in stating my HO is because otherwise the type of edits to this article that I would like to see will be interpreted as pro-ID POV. Ah, taste the irony... Tomandlu 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
155, my opinion about the DI or ID is none of your business. Mr Christopher 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, your suggestion that only pro- or sympathecit IDers edit the article is IDiotic. Do you mean to suggest only people with pro-nazi leaning edit the article about Adolph Hitler? Get a clue Mr Christopher 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Never said that. What I am saying is that those who edit the articles should be objective. And if they have too strong of anti-ID sentiment they should probably not edit the article. And those that are too emotionally pro-ID should not edit either. Many here say they hate the DI and want it to hang etc. etc. This article should not be a placed where rapid anti-IDer should be able to vent their POVs. 68.109.234.155 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're WRONG. The ONLY thing we have to go by are Wiki standards and policies. We need not be objective, we need not like ID, in fact we can hate it as long as our edits comply with Wiki policies. YOU do not make the rules here. Mr Christopher 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

you need not like ID, but objectivity is not opitional. r b-j 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#SOAP no wiki does. 68.109.234.155 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I'm fairly close to pursuing another Sockpuppet charge for what appears to be another Raspor sockpuppet in our midst. I'm tired of this frankly. Orangemarlin 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Complete misinterpretation of Wikirules. In fact, by making this article WP:NPOV we eliminate DI propaganda from the article. So thanks for helping the discussion along. Orangemarlin 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So, how does one handle descriptions of propaganda per WP policy? Not an easy task, and this article on ID is a tough gig for sure. The Kitzmiller v. Dover court and other sources say it's a new form of an old argument for the existence of God, but which its proponents do not call a religious argument or even a philosophical argument, but rather call it SCIENCE, except when talking to certain preferred religious groups, to which certain proponents say it's actually a wedge strategy intended to ultimately bring about a science consonant with theistic convictions (per Philip Johnson), and ultimately bring the word of God into the consciousness of the young so they're not corrupted by, oh heaven forbid, methodological naturalism and even worse, the materialism of modern science (screeching violins loudly play horror movie sound effects--"wreeet!, wreeet!, wreeet!, wreeet!"), but rather will be brought into the light of the Gospel of John (per William Dembski--nice soft music now plays in the background, signifying a happy ending for all), etc., etc. I apologize for being hyperbolic here, but no wonder people so frequently are confused about this topic when first encountering it. So, given the difficulties here, the article must report in summary form what the reliable sources say about it, which it has done with the participation of something like a couple hundred editors, and continues to do with the participation of a newer set of editors. And, of course many persons will, I expect, continue to complain, in essence, that this is not the story they wish to hear about the topic and thus WP is substantially or totally biased about the issues it reports. Or that the Kitzmiller court is biased and the result of an activist judge (Bush appointee John E. Jones III, who still gets hate mail and death threats), or that the article misrepresents what the scientific community has said, or that the cited scientific organizations do not reflect the views of the scientific community, or that the tone of the article is wrong, or that the article is controlled by a whole bunch of ID-haters, etc., etc. In the meantime, the Encyclopedia Britannica Concise entry on the topic of ID, although very brief, refers to the whole affair completely in the past tense. Remarkable. ... Kenosis 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I definitely enjoyed - and I think I agreed with - that. Thanks. Tomandlu 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is what seems unobjective to me: "intended to ultimately bring about a science consonant with theistic convictions" Seem like you are saying this is wrong. And remember the DI was not involved in that court case. They did not want it to take place. The school board took it upon themselves. It was a foolish endeavor. I think the most important thing the DI has brought out is how weak the theory of evolution is. The evidence is underwhelming. The DNA structure simply does not have the informational capability. More people are seeing this and this will cause open minded scientists to look in other directions. 68.109.234.155 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Two things. First, with regard to the first sentence about the Phillip Johnson quote, a position consistent with that of other leaders of the IDM too, I most certainly am saying it is wrong to teach matters of faith as science. But we are less concerned in the article with what I think than with what the scientific community thinks. Second, please see Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. While it is true that there are very important matters yet to be investigated and ultimately explained in biology, such as punctuated equilibrium, morphogenesis and abiogenesis, explanations of these will need to be a bit more specific, testable, verifiable and replicable than the statement that "God did it" (or an "intelligent designer") in order to be termed scientific. I'm somewhat reminded of the movie Agnes of God, where Agnes, played by Meg Tilly, explains the baby she gave birth to as "God put the baby in me"--the court-appointed psychiatrist, played by Jane Fonda, was, perhaps needless to say, seeking a slightly more specific and verifiable explanation as a foundation to the report she would ultimately give to the court that appointed her. ... Kenosis 23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all no one wanted matters of faith taught as science. Secondly no one is saying 'God did it' as a scientific explanation. And it should not be wrong to question Darwinism. I do not believe that Johnson and Behe said we can prove the existance of God scientifically. But there are so many areas in the Darwinistic theory that have no explanation and we are told to have faith that soon the answers will be forthcoming. Why can't we say lets look into these problem areas and try to find an alternative answer intead of saying 'evolution did it' without any proof. 68.109.234.155 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As anon IP 68.109.234.155 has asserted, it is indeed not wrong to question Darwinism, erroneously confused as it so often is with "social Darwinism" in the tradition of Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus and Francis Galton. Nor is it wrong to question evolution or more specifically evolution by natural selection. What is needed to successfully refute any or all of these such that it can be taught to science students, however, is evidence that can be examined, tested, integrated into the taxonomic charts, etc., in a way that makes better sense and which can be brought out into the field and will turn out to be predictably applicable to newly discovered living species and fossils. Instead, as a matter of fact, the evidence in support of evolution presently is increasing, not decreasing or being successfully refuted, especially with the advent of DNA analysis. Please remember too, that it took some 13-14 billion years for the universe to get to the present stage, and it took, as nearly as can tell to date, some 3 billion years or more to get from the primordial soup on Earth to the present stage. Thus far, biologists, as they're called today, have only been closely looking at this process for a couple hundred years. So yes, there's a great deal more yet to investigate. But thus far, the only major adaptation that biology has needed to make is to take closer notice that more complex species tend to evolve stepwise rather than in continuous random fashion (punctuated equilibrium). At some stage in time, biologists will arrive at more specific and testable explanations of what to look for as precursors to morphogenesis in more complex species (what kind of environmental or interspecies stressors to look for, for instance), and already may be close to finding elementary explanations for abiogenesis. Given the arguments rendered above about DNA structure (which may or may not turn out to be correct), I'm sure the anon IP must know all of what I've just said already. But, again, we're not so much concerned about this in the article on ID as with what the scientific community, educators, and the courts have said, as well as with what ID advocates have said, and what the reliable secondary sources have said about these issues. That's our main job. The rest of this exchange is just (friendly, I trust) talk and argument. ... Kenosis 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
But then why was the 'critical analysis of evolution' propostion shot down in Ohio? It was forced out by the anti-IDers. Have you read it. Seemed all right to me. Just pointed out some areas where Darwinism had some very weak points. In Ohio schools one is not allowed to doubt Darwinism. Doesnt that sound like religion when you are not even allowed to question obviously weak areas? 68.109.234.155 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)!
I haven't read the Ohio proposition, nor read any of the published commentary on it, so I personally don't know at present. ... Kenosis 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, our anonymous friend is quite correct. All the truly great scientific discoveries were made by sincere and devout Christians (Galileo, Newton, Kelvin, Faraday). The problem, ever since then, has been that the "scientists" are so bound up in their dogmatic beliefs that they are unwilling to change their "scientific" theories even in the light of overwhelming evidence obtained through impartial observation of the universe. If only these hopelessly hide-bound "scientists" would be willing to behave in a more rational and logical manner! Perhaps they should try to learn something from the minority of scientists whose enlightenment and pragmatism are founded in truth: the intelligent design community. SheffieldSteel 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hah!, "hopelessly hide-bound"... yes, I know a few of those personally. It'd please me if it were possible to compare notes about this with SheffieldSteel over a beer, or two, or three. Whether the scientific community is arguably hidebound (maybe read that: "conservative") as a whole appears beyond the scope of the article on intelligent design.

I think I should also point out, though, that when Galileo, Newton, Einstein and others who've made breakthroughs put forward their theories, they were not content to rest on philosophical generalities or speculative schemas with a conclusion that "therefore there is a God, or at least an intelligent designer of some kind". Instead each offered a specific schema that was testable and turned out to be pragmatically verifiable in specific and replicable ways when their theories were put to use in the world. This is as differentiated from matters of faith, such as, for example, "if I do the morally right thing, I will be rewarded ultimately, though it might be in another life" Well, maybe so, though we'll find plenty of contrary results to report in this life and a lack of verifiability of these things, which is of course why it would require faith. And unlike the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun, unlike the theory of gravity, and unlike the theory of relativity, such matters of faith are not consistently replicable in a way that can be demonstrated in specific terms such that they can be agreed to be part of what is called "science". An important aspect of the information derived from science is that it works equally well and is equally verifiable without reference to whether one is atheist, theist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist . . . ... Kenosis 00:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For some reason SheffieldSteel seems to have forgotten the truly great scientific discovery made by the sincere and devout Christian Charles Darwin, but then "the minority of scientists whose enlightenment and pragmatism are founded in truth: the intelligent design community" looks awfully like unseemly sarcasm. So it goes, .. dave souza, talk 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, you're wasting your time responding to this person. See his talk page. Orangemarlin 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This person asked some questions and made some assertions, and i responded to those I thought I couid reasonably respond to in some way that might be useful in dealing with the topic at hand. Some of the points, both by IP 68.109.234.155 and by me, were in my opinion relevant to this topic. ... Kenosis 05:45, 28 April 2007
I'm merely pointing out the ruse that has been perpetrated by this individual in the past, which ends up being disruptive. That's all. Orangemarlin 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I really think that the editors here can make up there own minds. 68.109.234.155 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
And I note that this user is now blocked as a sockpuppet of Raspor. At least try to change or MO. Orangemarlin 22:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add Link

Could you add a link in the Pro-ID section to the Wiki site: ResearchID.org--Jdavid2008 03:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't think it's a good idea to unprotect at the moment. we don't need another pro-ID link at the moment. the anti-ID crowd will likely use the opportuninty to change the article for the worse, then it gets reprotected. and unfortunately the rule seems to be "90% of the law is possession" at the moment. when there are signs that these guys aren't gonna just railroad another variant of their favorite flagrantly biased lead and they start to recognize how unnecessarily biased in tone it was, then it would be a good idea to unprotect. r b-j 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. And I removed the obtrusive template. This article will be unlocked when we agree on a lead. Orangemarlin 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And the answer is????

So where are we? Two votes, no consensus. Doesn't that mean the article should be reverted to the form of the original lead, which was This version. Orangemarlin 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We've managed to reach agreement on some points. That's a start. There's a revised second paragraph with reasonable consensus, agreement to work the changes into more or less the current format, and a few other things. The opening sentence/two opening sentences is still under discussion: The main thing becoming clear is that the current options probably aren't good enough (see Xerxesnine below, me and others above.) What we need to do now is discuss where the problems lie, which seems mainly to be A. "argument for the existance of God" leaves out the important information that this variant leaves God unspecified, thus slightly mischaracterising ID, and B. the Discovery Institute's definition of ID mischaracterises evolution. We can work through this. Adam Cuerden talk 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Before we start on the detailed work, have we decided that the format of the opening sentences is going to be:-
Intelligent design is the proposition that {paraphrased version of the DI definition}. It is a version of {appropriate exposition of the teleological argument}.
If not, we should address this first. Tevildo 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam, Is your issue with the quote the word "undirected"? Would adding [sic] after the word be something that might work for you? Morphh (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit more widespread than that, really. There's no real indication that this is a quote by a proponent, other than stating it's a proposition - an odd phrasing that makes no real effort to clearly indicate the quote as a disputed, POV definition, while the quote talks about it as the "best" explanation, and so on. We can't do that. Adam Cuerden talk 04:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, in this vast jungle of a talk page, I'm unaware of specifically where this vote on the page lead is. However, the lead wherein: "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God" etc, seems to indicate a point of view that is contrary to the intial premise for the proponents of this philosophy. I think a middle ground can still be reached, however that version is not in any way, shape, nor form a balance lead in.Mister Fax 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Discovery Institute's definition of ID

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

My apologies for re-hashing what has already been discussed at length here. But the mere suggestion that the opening sentence should include the Discovery Institute's definition of ID (or some variant thereof) tests my restraint.

As we are all aware, one of the major misconceptions among the public is that evolution is just accident and randomness. When put that way, there's no wonder why public understanding of evolution remains relatively low (in the United States). In his conversation with Richard Dawkins, Ted Haggard summed up this misconception, "Sometimes it's hard for a human being to study the ear or study the eye and think that happened by accident." Of course, variation is slight randomness within constraints, while selection is the exact opposite of randomness. Presumably to counter this exact misconception, Dawkins uses "non-random" in his definition of evolution, e.g., "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

The use of the phrase "undirected process," while technically correct, nonetheless fuels this exact misconception which ID proponents exploit in their arguments. In the public's mind, "undirected process" is equivalent to "random process" or "accidental process". Or, at least, the Discovery Institute would prefer that people draw those equivalences.

The second problem is that the definition as a whole presumes a dichotomy between nature and intelligence. This is, of course, is a philosophical position. Does intelligence grow out of nature, or is intelligence projected into nature from the "outside"? A scientist could hold either philosophical position. But the Discovery Institute is using the latter philosophical position to make (what is in their view) a scientific argument.

In summary, the Discovery Institute's definition (1) mischaracterizes evolution by exploiting the misperception of the role of randomness, and (2) mischaracterizes science by exploiting the unnecessary (i.e. philosophical) dichotomy between nature and intelligence.

In my view, this appears to be an open-and-shut case. Wikipedia should not allow any phrase or definition which mischaracterizes the opposing point of view without duly acknowledging said mischaracterization. And especially not in the first sentence of an article.

Xerxesnine 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You make a convincing case, but it seems based on a lack of trust in the reader. 'Undirected', as used in the DI's definition, simply means 'not governed by an intelligent force' - it must mean that, since it 'opposes' the intelligent designer. Still.. could we replace 'undirected' with 'unmediated' or 'unplanned'? Tomandlu 11:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You're completely right. So please add your opinion and votes above! By the way, Silence once wrote: "...one could argue that evolution is not "undirected", in that it is directed by processes like natural selection. It's just not willfully directed." Orangemarlin 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. I've been trying to say this for ages. Adam Cuerden talk 18:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a proposition presented by a lawyer which is why the current paraphrase is significantly better, though with room for improvement. "Theory" is there to imply science, "certain features" means cherry-picked examples for their God of the gaps, "best" is pure advertising, "an intelligent cause" is teleology with an unnamed but jolly clever Creator, and "an undirected process" is, as you indicate, code for "without divine intervention", hinting at their misrepresentation of natural selection as random. Even in quotation marks it's too loaded a statement. .. dave souza, talk 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What Xerxesnine writes is clearly the WP:NPOV about this whole discussion. That's why I am bothered about this rewrite of the article lead from the beginning. Just to satisfy a few individuals, whose voices outweigh their sources, we are attempting to create a weasel worded lead that sounds like advertising. Intelligent design is a religious and pseudoscientific argument to explain evolution as being directed by G_d. It was proven in a court of law. It is backed up by documents used by the Discovery Institute. And Behe himself admitted as such. Why have we spent two weeks arguing about this insanity? Orangemarlin 20:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to repeat this again.. just read this section. Would adding the tag [sic] after the word "undirected [sic] " address this issue. It would be a clear statement that this term is incorrect or questionable but still quoted verbatim. Morphh (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should be using a quotation with so many problems in the lead sentence in the first place. The first sentence should be as pure NPOV as possible, and there's no way to make that quote NPOV without immediately providing the scientific viewpoint in response. It may be a DI quote is usable, but that smacks of "first quote I found" syndrome. Adam Cuerden talk 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I remember several other quotes from dictionaires and encyclopdias. If we quoted one of these, whould it satisfy the suggestion of a quote but remove the pitfalls of using the DI verbage? Morphh (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
it didn't satisfy them before. one time when i put in the American Heritage definition verbatim, it was removed as "DI propaganda". the American Heritage Dictionary is DI propaganda? that was something i hadn't thought of before. r b-j 15:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>The problem with such quotes is that they're tertiary sources, to be treated with caution under WP:NOR. For what it's worth, Britannica Concise currently has the one liner Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.”, then 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, followed by what's really a description of the irreducible complexity argument. It misses out some ID arguments, and it goes beyond the overt DI Position, but does manage to pack an outline of the IC argument and its refutation by (unnamed) critics into one paragraph, complete with 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. Entertaining, subject to copyright and certainly wouldn't satisfy all the editors here. .. dave souza, talk 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Britannica Concise were Wikipedia (which it is not) such statements would, I think, be WP:Weasel in a number of places of the just-cited text, e.g., "more or less in their present form by an 'intelligent designer'". But it isn't Wikipedia. Wikpedia, by way of WP:Consensus, has thus far chosen to be somewhat more specific about its summaries of topics such as ID, in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:Attribution. Instead, WP editor/participants/users have to date collectively chosen to find the best possible consensus on language that summarizes or otherwise represents the important points what the WP:Reliable sources have said about ID. ... Kenosis 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
To Morph: I really dont think we should use a quote at all, it's a way of forcing something into the lead that can't be edited. The DI's quote is especially problematic, though, particularly as the current phrasing does not identify it as a POV quote. It's being put across as a neutral account, despite all the puffing and propoganda. Adam Cuerden talk 04:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't bother me if we don't use quotes (in fact I prefer we didn't) but #6 had the most support behind it so I was trying to think of ways to work from there. #1 had the next, followed by #3 (in my count considering opposition votes). So, should we start another discussion that fine tunes these into something that we can agree on... I like the way that the Britannica Concise has it presented, though I agree that we could make it more accurate. I've stated before that I think we should have more in the lead that describes what ID is about from the aspect of what they present. I think including the irreducible complexity argument early in the lead should be something we consider. I read our lead and gain little about what ID is and much about the politics and deception around it. Morphh (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Does this mean that "Intelligent design is an argument intended to demonstrate that [certain aspects of] living things were created by an "intelligent designer"." or "Intelligent design is a[n attempted] refutation of the theory of evolution." might be reasonable candidates? I would certainly support either of these. Tevildo 15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Both of those are good, though I think I'd like to add a tiny bit more, something about these certain features being claimed to show evidence of design, hence their selection. Adam Cuerden talk 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The biggest obstacle here is agreeing on alternate language. For a long time now, the article just tells the "definition" of ID like it is put forward by its primary proponents, and cites to it. It's not our fault there arguably are logical flaws and/or misrepresentations in the presented definition, as the DI has had plenty of time to discuss this internally and get feedback on it, and this is the definition they've long setlled upon. Any and all of the leaders of the "intelligent design movement" have phones I should think, and email, and can get in touch with any of the other leaders with a simple phone call or email--Thaxton, Johnson, Dembski, Meyer, Behe, Chapman, etc., and this is the definition they consistently continue to present for quite some time now. That's why it's been presented as a verbatim quote (except recently the quotation marks were removed and the article presently locked in that position). So, we get complaints from all "sides" of this controversy, which is in the nature of a controversial topic such as ID. ... Kenosis 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Xerxesnine concludes his highly perceptive statement above with: "In my view, this appears to be an open-and-shut case. Wikipedia should not allow any phrase or definition which mischaracterizes the opposing point of view without duly acknowledging said mischaracterization. And especially not in the first sentence of an article." The problem here is that the opposing point of view is what follows the presentation of what ID is said to be by its proponents. Under the words "intelligent design" the proponents' cited statement of it is the pro point of view, and not the opposing POV. There is plenty of coverage of the opposing point of view in the passages that follow in the article. That said, perhaps more coverage should be considered, if it can be cited properly to WP:reliable sources, about clarifying common misconceptions about what evolution by natural selection actually is understood to be by biologists rather than by commentators who misunderstand it in the ways that Xerxesnine points to. ... Kenosis 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding the quote below so new readers are clear on what we're discussing - added the [sic] as it partly addresses some of the concern. Morphh (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected [sic] process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.

I wonder if we could get away with Of Pandas and People's definition: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." [4] Adam Cuerden talk 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, if only... :) I'd support _this_, of course, and (more seriously) it _does_ seem to have influenced the Britannica definition ("more or less in their present forms"). But I think it might go too far the other way. :) Tevildo 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, there's lots of other possibilities....


  • "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." Of Pandas and People, quoted in Kitzmiller
  • Intelligent design is a scientific theory that proposes that some aspects of life are best explained as the result of design, and that the strong appearance of design in life is real and not just apparent. Behe, Kitzmiller
  • ...intelligent design is the proposition that some features of living things are too complex to have been produced by the process of evolution and therefore they must be attributed to the creative work of a special intelligence or designer who creates these pathways, these genes, and these organisms and operates in ways that stand outside of nature and therefore by mechanisms which cannot be scientifically investigated. Dr Miller, ibid

Q. Could you pull up Exhibit P-343 please, Matt? And do you recognize this cover here? This is a cover from one of William Dembski's several books, "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design." And is this a book you have read? A. Yes. Q. Could you turn to page 19 of this book please, Matt? And could you just illuminate the passage that Dr. Pennock highlighted? Could you read that into the record? A. So this is Dembski writing, "Nonetheless," he says, "there is good reason to think that intelligent design fits the bill as a full scale scientific revolution. Indeed not only is it challenging the grand idol of evolutionary biology, Darwinism, but it is also changing the ground rules by which the natural scientists are conducted. Ever since Darwin the natural sciences have resisted the idea that intelligent causes could play a substantive empirically significant role in the natural world. Intelligent causes might emerge out of a blind evolutionary process, he says, "but they were in no way fundamental the operation of the world. Intelligent design challenges this exclusion of design from the natural sciences, and in doing so promises to remake science in the world." From Kitzmiller

I think that very much could be done with the second half of Behe's quote, which gets to the core of the matter. Miller agrees with it as far as he goes, Dembski agreesAdam Cuerden talk 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Behe definition is that it doesn't state the primary thesis of ID - natural processes are insufficient to produce the "strong appearance of design", it can only be explained by the actions of a creative intelligence. The Miller definition has potential, though: paraphrasing slightly, "Intelligent design is the proposition that some features of living things are too complex to have been produced by natural processes, and therefore they must be attributed to the creative work of a special intelligence." Tevildo 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're free to pick and choose phrasings, so we can mix and match a bit more than that if we like. Still, that looks a lot better than what we have. Could we replace "proposition" with "claim", to make it clear that dispute exists over the accuracy of the proposition's axioms? Adam Cuerden talk 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What about a blunt and forthright statement which references the DI definition but without the two canards I mentioned earlier:

  • Intelligent design is the claim that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe.[1]

Simple and to the point. Obviously the article already discusses the various ID arguments, so it seems unnecessary to make a hasty "drive-by argument" in the definition. I agree with Adam that "claim" is better than "proposition". Also, "proposition" has a logic/mathematical connotation which I find unsuitable. Actually my preference would be "speculation". Xerxesnine 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to use both the words "intelligent" and "designed" in the definition for intelligent design, but I like it other than that. Perhaps "outside force" for "intelligent agent"? Adam Cuerden talk 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Outside" is, perhaps, going a little further than we should. The DI and the "leading proponents" all believe that the designer is, indeed, an "outside force" (viz, God), but the formulation of ID itself doesn't, in theory, exclude aliens or time-travellers. I also think, if we go down this route, we'll need something like "designed and implemented" - the proponents of the unadulterated teleological argument of whom RBJ is so enamoured (Plantigna, Polkinghorn, Bell-Burnell, etc) can claim that the universe as a whole is designed, without requiring God to suspend His natural laws to create the "certain aspects" that ID relies on. My preference at this stage is still to use the Miller definition as a basis. Tevildo 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
i didn't refer to Plantigna or Bell-Burnell anywhere although i know who Plantigna is and recently had an email conversation with him. i did mention Polkinghorn. how is it that you've deduced anything about my amour for persons or positions i haven't even mentioned? how is it that you've deduced any position that i have taken about those i have mentioned, when that reference was only to refute the very exceptional claim that every proponent of ID who was of any note was affiliated with the DI. i just wanted to show that an extraordinary claim (the preclusion of any possible exception to the claim) is less safe because all it needs is one counter-argument to disprove it. i still don't think you guys know or understand my personal opinion (i've been trying not to make it an issue at all, but i have alluded to it when i've been ignorantly and knee-jerkily accused of being a Creationist - what will they accuse me of next, being a Republican Bush apologist? a ditto-head?) and am curious as to why you assemble a speculative position on all of this that you ascribe to me? i don't get it. i'm not trying to be hard on you, Tevildo, i just want you to support your speculation. r b-j 06:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You claimed - or, at least, you appeared to claim - that Polkinghorn was a "leading ID proponent". My point was an attempt to bring out the essential difference between ID proponents and proponents (such as those persons I mentioned) of the teleological argument. ID may be a _version_ of the teleological argument, but the teleological argument is _not_ ID - this is a point you don't seem to grasp. I'm sure we'd make more progress if you devoted the energies you channel into invective to actually improving the article, but, this world is not ideal. Tevildo 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
i know what ID is and i know what the teleological argument is and i've been the one saying that they are not definitively the same (which is why i had objected to any definition of ID as the teleological argument). i know the difference quite well. what i am saying is that there are authors who point to some concept of ID as a philosophical justification of the teleological argument, essentially arguing that it's not such a bad explanation of origins, that these guys write books (so that elevates them somewhere on the notable proponent list), and they have nothing to do with and want nothing to do with DI. it is a successful counterexample to the strong claim that all leading proponents are DI, because "leading" is not all that well defined (are these self-appointed leaders recognized as such by every or even most proponents?) and there are at least notable proponents of some argument of evidence of design and that these notable proponents are scientist that are well respected and that they don't affiliate (and do not want to) with DI. you guys complain about "weasel words" all the time when someone tries to tone things down. well "leading" is a weasel word. we do not know, objectively, which persons belong in that class and which do not. r b-j 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Toss this out... Spin on Darwin's definition in the lead with some of Adam's sentences from above and a brief complexity argument. I know.. another version... but I figured hopefully someone will toss out something, everyone can agree with. Morphh (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design attempts to demonstrate that certain complex features of living things could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and are best explained by an intelligent cause. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), designed as an attack on evolution and other established scientific theories developed after Edwards v. Aguilard forbade the teaching of its predecessor, creationism, in public schools. Whereas creationism was explicitly religious, intelligent design instead claims that 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.

Interesting, but I would have a hard time accepting this. There is not one fact in it that is either unimportant or false - but it conflates the proposition and the intent of its proposers. If you cut from ", designed as an attack on..." to "was explicitly religious" (and the "instead" of the next phrase), then I could live with it. However, do we really need to be defining evolution in this much detail in the lead of the ID article? Tomandlu 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So something like this for the second sentence? 'It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), which claims that 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.' I'm open to whatever changes can give whatever lead some consensus. I figured it was time to start tossing out new ideas. Morphh (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is certainly something we can work with. There are a few areas that I'd change in the inital draft:
  • I don't think we need "numerous, successive, slight modifications" (and we definitely don't need the commas - "numerous successive slight modifications" would be better, even if we do keep the wording). I'd prefer something more general - "natural processes", perhaps, or "the process of natural selection" if we need to be more specific.
  • "... the action of an intelligent cause" might be better. ID not only requires _design_, it requires _active intervention_ by the designer, and "action" makes this clearer.
  • I would be happy to keep the section that Tomandlu would delete, although I don't think it's essential. I would prefer "scientific creationism" to "creationism", as _that_ was a response to Epperson in its own time. We need a comma after "theories", too.
  • "some functional parts and systems" might be better.
Still, I do think we're making progress here. Tevildo 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's completely unnecessary to introduce specific arguments for ID like irreducible complexity in the intro when none are so central that they can't be dealt with farther down in the article, as they already are. Odd nature 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that the article on ID should at least lay out some basic statements for what ID argues in the lead. The lead should summarize the article, so to say that the arguments are dealt with in the article seems to avoid the point that the lead should summarize them. That's why I've stated in the past that I think it doesn't comply with FA 2a, as it does not summarize the article. You should have a statement for each header in the article. If half the article describes the arguments of Intelligent design, then at least of a third of the lead should be stating those arguments. Morphh (talk) 12:44, 01 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irreducible complexity

{{editprotected}}

I proposed that the following (or variant thereof) be added or worked into the section on Irreducible complexity. "One precursor to the concept of irreducible complexity is found in The Origin of Species, where Darwin wrote, 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.'" I'd do it myself, but the page is protected. ImprobabilityDrive 08:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reference for this, it would be useful. Otherwise, it smells like quote-mining, frankly.--Filll 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I did mine the sentence from the article on Irreducible complexity. Here's the ref from the other article. <ref>[[Charles Darwin|Darwin, Charles]] (1859). ''[[The Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species]]''. London: John Murray. [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=207 page 189, Chapter VI]</ref>
From memory, Behe has cited this or a similar statement from Darwin as an inspiration and precedent for ID. It would be worth finding Behe's statement as it should be cited at the Irreducible complexity article to avoid WP:OR, but while a brief mention may be appropriate here, it's a bit much detail for this article. .. dave souza, talk 08:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's in the other article. I shall not delete it. ImprobabilityDrive 03:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of adding this quote? If Behe cites it as an inspiration, then it might be worth mentioning that in the DBB article. But how does this expand anyone's understanding of IC? Guettarda 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"But how does this expand anyone's understanding of IC?" It did for me. The two concepts appeared to me to be related, and it was like a light bulb went off in my head, "ah, that makes sense." Whether or not Behe is aware of it. But are you saying that if a cite of Behe commenting on Darwin's quoted words above that it would be suitable for inclusion? To state it another way, what is your criteria, here? A cite? Or do I also have to convince you that it expands someone's understanding of IC, everyone's, or yours? Because I might not be able to prove that it expands yours. You might not believe that it expands mine. And it is really quite subjective, short of a poll of users "Does Darwin's quote expand your understanding of IC?" to state that expands other's. So is it safe for me to assume that you would simply accept a cite of Behe or some other ICer commenting on Darwin's quoted words? Please help me understand, in advance, what precisely your criteria is. Thanks for your comment. ImprobabilityDrive 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be consensus yet to make this change. Please put up the editprotected flag only after the change has been discussed and there is clear consensus to make it.

[edit] positive feedback on the work that's being done...

I have not read the whole article yet, but wow, it is impressive that it is so NPOV (at least the sections I did read). Sure, I found something to quibble about here and there, but still, it is really very good. When this is unprotected, a postmortem should be done to see what in your process was most beneficial for generating a well presented entry on such a controversial topic. My guess is that it takes a benevolent dictator. I was recently thinking that wikipedia needs a class of "editors" (as opposed to admins and contributors), and that while in some cases this would be beneficial, it might also lead, a la Animal Farm, to editorial abuses. But in this case, the results are looking great. Keep up the good work. ImprobabilityDrive 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for editors, try http://en.citizendium.org Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's worth adding that, in time, it may become apparent that the citizendium varient (or similar) is the only long-term viable option. In some ways, it would be a shame, but, AFAIK, no completely democratic society has ever prospered (or, at least, not for long enough to have a recorded history :), but that's a different talk-page... Tomandlu 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Our version will only resemble the Citizendium article after the USA has been officially declared a theocracy. Unfortunately, I don't think either event is impossible... :( Tevildo 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
after the 2004 election, there was this new political map that merged the blue states with our neighbor to the north which was called "The United States of Canada". the remaining red states were renamed "Jesusland". i thought, after that, that anything is possible. r b-j 20:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How so? I just reread the citizendium article (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_design), and, dull and lacking refs as it is, I fail to see cause for such a gloomy prediction. It is a dry but explicit rejection of ID as science IMHO. Tomandlu 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Now http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design on the other hand... :) Tomandlu 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the Conservapedia article is better. It's a simple presentation of the DI position from a site that takes a definite stance on such political matters. The Citizendium article accepts the DI position just as uncritically (see, especially, the "Distinct from creationism" section) but equivocates and puts up fig-leaves of "objectivity", and, worse, claims to be neutral. HOWEVER! We are not them. We're better than they are. Let's keep it that way. :) Tevildo 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Citizendium's intelligent design article is a shameful white wash. Wikipedia's ID aritcle is far more complete and accurate. Odd nature 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A shameful white wash seems overly harsh - primitive, yes, but it cannot be read as anything but a pretty severe trouncing for ID IMHO. I am not for a moment suggesting that it should stand as a model for this article, but I'm confused by it being described as a "white wash".Tomandlu 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
haven't seen 151 answer this, but i imagine it's the same reason that the American Heritage dictionary and Encyclopedia Britanicca are also shameful whitewash. r b-j 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Citizendium. "B." Nothing here that isn't found in Wikipedia, except a soothing introduction to William Paley's watchmaker concept (The thread about "Imagine walking on a pebbled beach..." was a nice meditation, but very slow in character development--I got to thinking about golf for some reason. Then I felt as if I was back in the early 19th Century. Nice perspective there, but slow to get to the point. Slow in plot development too--could have gotten to the relevant points much more quickly after the introduction. I would like to have heard more about the precedents to Paley's version--Cicero, Voltaire, etc.) Introduction also follows the same model as Wikipedia. I'd like to see this apparent student of Wikipedia present something a bit more original than a 1,2,3 breakdown of the issues (1, what's intelligent design?, 2, what's the scientific community say in response to its claim to be scientific, and 3, what's its current legal status, which is Wikipedia's approach). Issues could be more thoroughly articulated. Presented as if it were not a controversial topic. Several sentences read more or less like they were picked from Wikipedia, but well short of plagiarism. Good grammar in general. A bit lacking in organization and syntax in the latter parts of the article. But generally OK. Nice work on a tough topic.

Conservapedia. "A-minus." I bumped it up a grade-and-a-half for creativity and solidarity to the far-right party line (Please, no hate mail-- I know, I know, it's not "far-right" but "mainstream 'middle-American' conservative"; but it's been characterized as "far-right" by the liberal media--sorry). My compliments on the new Conservapedia logo.

Wikipedia. "A-minus." Very informative. The minus is for syntax that reads like sentence-structure-by-committee. Come to think of it, the whole thing reads like article-by-committee. Introduction could be a bit tighter. Overall, well done; nice research. ... Kenosis 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about a "a shameful white wash," but Citizendium's intelligent design article is woefully fatally lacking in detail. It's hard to imagine being anymore incomplete and vague on the topic, that is, unless you're the DI. Citizendium's ID article would fail the undue weight here due to the glaring ommissions. FeloniousMonk 05:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider this (a story written by the anti-science crowd complaining about how I dealt with user:Chahax a few weeks ago) the most positive feedback of all :) Raul654 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to troll or anything, but you're my hero!!!! I think we Evolutionists should give you the Stalin Atheist Legion of Merit or something!!! That made my day. Orangemarlin 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Lest any readers of the linked-to article above jump to conclusions, I would like to know if User:Chahax, or whoever wrote the thread in www.evolutionnews.org, has permission of the Discovery Institute to use the Discovery Institute logo in making her/his presentation on the page cited by User:Raul654? My quick inquiry fails to disclose any direct disclaimer that www.evolutionnews.org is not permitted to use the DI's logo or that the views presented on it do not necessarily represent the views of the Discovery Institute, or other relevant "fine-print". If someone else has information that would clarify or refute this implication of a direct relationship between www.evolutionnews.org and the DI, I think it would be helpful to disclose any such information on this page, particularly in the context of this discussion immediately above. ... Kenosis 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by what you're inferring. First, I thought this blog was a Discovery Institute one, although I see no copyright information. Are you saying that evolutionnews has nothing to do with DI? And that User:Chahax is posting on that blog? What are you implying? Orangemarlin 02:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to Orangemarlin, I'm not implying anything. What I'm inferring is that the lambasting of User:Raul654 in response to his implementation of duties as an unpaid administrator of WP is directly attibutable to a source that carries the DI logo. My quick search did not disclose any indication that the DI asserts that this site is not directly affiliated with it (where have we heard this before?). I'd prefer to know if the DI has any disclaimers that would indicate that the DI asserts the information put forward on www.evolutionnews.org is not necessarily representative of their views--i.e., that any crackpot who cares to check in can put material on this site without any responsibility on the part of the DI. They have, I presume, lawyers, or at least one lawyer, to figure out the legal implications of all this. So my question is, Is this an official position of the DI?, or just a blog that attracts whoever may want to put forward their POV for possible further discussion?. ... Kenosis 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The whois information for evolutionnews.org shows it's registered to Matthew Scholz of the Discovery Institute. Raul654 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Evolutionnews.org is the DI's official blog. FeloniousMonk 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh this is so amusing, deceptive and typical. So, this is their official statement. Orangemarlin 04:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten similar high praise as Raul645 from the DI this month as well: Wicked Wikipedia by DI founder Bruce Chapman, April 3, 2007. FeloniousMonk 05:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Oooh, you two are naughty! Imagine requiring that editors abide by policy! The articles are by names familiar from pro-ID websites: the first by Casey Luskin seems to be arguing that anons should be free to disruptively insert a mis-definition which even Luskin thinks is wrong, the second by Bruce Chapman (no less!) notes other Wikipedia cases as guilt by association, but all it can say about FM is "The pen name is shared by a number of people on the Internet, so this one clearly is in hiding. But he doesn't shirk from making sure that a factually untruthful picture of Discovery Institute is posted on Wikipedia, no matter how we try to correct it." Looks like a clear admission they're trying to edit this article - who could that be? . .  ;) . . dave souza, talk 08:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As an amusing aside, the citizendium talk page has an early reference to A better intro than WP] with the statement that "The corresponding Wikipedia page has been the cause of bitter disputes and allegations of heavy bias to the point that the article is now protected and can only be edited by regular wikipedians. If Citizendium is to succeed where Wikipedia has failed, I am guessing this will be an interesting test case.", followed by interminably long discussions showing they're having just the same difficulties. Shame their article's so unbalanced. .. dave souza, talk 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article is still locked

And we haven't gotten anywhere. Orangemarlin 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentum ad populum

Should this article have a few words about the logical fallacy that many people commit when trying to refute ID, i.e. the "appeal to people," or in Latin the argumentum ad populum? A common example of this fallacy can be found in the 2nd paragraph of this article: "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science."

The gist of an appeal to people is that we should accept a belief as true because it is widely held or believed by certain people. As the WP article says, "[An ad populum argument] is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong."

I think this information should be included on this page in order to increase its neutrality and to reduce the fallacious implication that ID is false because most scientists say so. --Rockymountains 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains

Well I personally could care less is ID is false or not (OK, I do care). What's more important is the issue that the Discover Institute is engaged in a deceptive, and what I have to believe is also a cynical, process to show it is scientific and not inherently religious, so it get taught in schools. So far, they have failed miserably. Orangemarlin 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not commenting about the deeds and motives of the Discovery Institute. Back to my original question, I would like to see some consensus (for WP sake) on whether or not we should include a differing view for the ad populum argument that is committed in this article. --Rockymountains 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains
Wikipedia should not be making an argument in the first place. That would violate WP:NPOV. Pointing out something that might be used in a fallacious argument is not the same as using said argument. i kan reed 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a bunch of the editors believe that the Discovery Institute has attempted to set up a facetious argument that it is science and not religion. Some editors think that the NPOV is that we parrot what DI is saying about itself, which is really a POV statement. There are another group of editors who believe that court rulings (Kitzmiller), evidence (the Wedge Document and teach the controversy), statements in court by DI officials, the AAAS and other scientist's description of ID as being junk science, etc. etc. is sufficient to state that ID is in fact a religious argument for the existence of G_d. We're getting nowhere. Orangemarlin 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way i kan, what argument would violate NPOV? Orangemarlin 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Any. Presenting an argument without noting first that it's an argument given by person or group X, is a violation of NPOV. By arguing for anything, including the most sensible thing in the world, reflects a point of view to one extent or another. The point was if the overwhelming majority of the scientific community supports evolution, then stating that fact is not POV. Using that statement to assert anything whatsoever is POV and probably a violation of OR too. i kan reed 04:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Rockymountains, the consensus of the scientific community is manifestly not an Argumentum ad populum; nor is it the logical error commonly called the Appeal to authority. When there are actual knowledgable experts on a subject, their position is generally called Informed, or Expert, information or opinion. Finally, while it is commendable that you are exploring logical fallacies and their application (and I encourage everyone to do so), unless and until a notable party to this actually states that scientists offering an expert opinion on ID is an Argumentum ad populum, to attempt to insert this into the article is a violation of no original reasearch, in addition to being simply plain wrong. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not making an argument. Therefore it is not utilising a logical fallacy. (Did I create a fallacy there). --aside--Fallacies are easy to point out, but not everything that resembles a fallacy is wrong, nor innapropriate to use.--ZayZayEM 02:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia simply presents what the most notable views are on a topic, not their worth or validity. Nor is there any requirement for counterbalancing the various views. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
dunno what FM means by that. of course WP:NPOV requires that we "represent fairly and without bias all significant views". that is fundamental. if that does not have anything to do with balancing or counterbalancing the various views, then FM and i have a semantic difference over the meaning of such words. r b-j 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
r b-j, which parts of "significant" and WP:A don't you understand? ... dave souza, talk 06:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
none. r b-j 16:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> To the extent that the "fallacy" is applicable, it comes up with ID proponents repeatedly claiming to have "over 700 scientists" supporting their cause. Which is explicitly discussed in Project Steve, and possibly led to the Kitzmiller verdict making the point so strongly. .. dave souza, talk 08:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Instances of logical fallacies are arguments. "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is..." is a statement. If after this statement it was written, "Therefore, intelligent design is not a science," we would then have an argument and could begin discussing whether any informal fallacies were committed. The article doesn't do that. It makes a (sourced) claim about the consensus of the scientific community. Simões (talk/contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, the article has never equated the two. Simões (talk/contribs) 05:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The issues of "ad populum", in my opinion, have a lot to do with "scientific consensus", as differentiated from popular opinion. Without getting into details at the moment, if popular opinion equals "science", then what is, if I may ask, the usefulness of the word "science"? Or, to put it a bit differently for the present, what is the point of exhausing one's self researching matters at hand, when any opinion will do? Just a thought, for consideration of those presently involved in paricipicating in the discusssion on this page... Kenosis 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative ID

In reference to this previous thread.

While 68.109.234.155 (why don't anon IPs get an account?) and I obviously disagree on this topic, he does make a valid point insofar as there is a certain ID-like approach which may be considered legitimate scientific speculation. Such an approach, call it Speculative ID (SID), might be motived by the directed panspermia hypothesis as suggested by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.

Here is a sufficient (but not necessary) condition which would thrust SID from speculation into full acceptance. Someone finds an algorithm which takes DNA strands as input and produces mathematical expressions as output. It is a relatively simple algorithm, and may be freely examined by anyone interested. Furthermore, when we feed any sort of DNA into this algorithm, we obtain Maxwell's Equations, the Dirac Equation, and an additional set of partial differential equations (and corresponding Hermitian operators) which we do not recognize. After years of hard work, physicists discover that the latter equations are a peculiar generalization of Quantum Electrodynamics which admits General Relativity, QCD, and EWI as special cases — an apparent Grand Unified Theory. Later, experiments are carried out which verify this new theory.

It might be fun to consider other sufficient conditions. Perhaps a decoding algorithm which produces the Torah, matching nearly exactly to the oldest sources we have. Or, like Carl Sagan's Contact, gives us a blueprint for wormhole-based technology.

Now what are the chances that SID could produce these kinds of results? Or, failing that, even something remotely useful? Highly unlikely, I presume most people would say. While SID seems like a complete waste of time to me, I can't rule it out a priori; after all, the other origin of life hypotheses are speculative as well (though clearly more plausible, in my opinion).

These scenarios are concocted as extreme examples of what would indisputably take the "speculative" out of Speculative ID. In other words, SID could in principle produce scientific results. So what would be a not-so-extreme example? Has there been any evidence which might be considered sufficient? Nothing of which I am aware.

Needless to say, ID as promoted by the Discovery Institute et al is not the Speculative ID as discussed above. Namely, proponents of Speculative ID would fully understand and acknowledge its speculative nature (hence the name), and would never pretend otherwise. This attitude is entirely opposite to the approach taken by the Discovery Institute, in nearly every way I can imagine.

Every ID proponent I've read is intent on changing the rules of evidence or the rules of science in order to compensate for the amazing lack of evidence. If one day ID produces something useful (a verified GUT being the extreme case), do you think ID proponents would for a single moment bother with trying to change the definition of science or accusing scientists of dogmatism? No, they wouldn't; if they had the evidence, then the evidence would speak for itself.

We need to differentiate ID with SID, if only for practical reasons on this talk page. Speculative ID arguments pop up sporadically whenever ID is discussed, and this totally confuses the issue. We need to identify those arguments and say, "No, that's not what we are talking about here." In other words, can we explicitly agree to talk about Discovery-Institute-ID, if only to remove these SID red herrings from the conversation? Or if we mention SID, to be careful not to conflate it with DI-ID?

As for the article, are there any notable persons who are honestly engaged in something like Speculative ID? And if so, do they deserve mention, given that the ID as promulgated by the Discovery Institute produces 99.9% of the noise?

Xerxesnine 07:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, Margaret Thatcher's government used the slogan "Ask Sid" on billboards when selling off state assets, "Sid" symbolising a dodgy dealer advising you to buy the shares. Any notable persons engaged on such as pursuit don't call it ID, which is why this article is about the DI version. The nearest equivalent I can think of is SETI, which gets dragged out every now and again but, as its proponents have stated, is very different from ID. As always, a WP:V verifiable source explicitly making the connection with ID would be needed. ... dave souza, talk 07:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Creating an entity known as "SID" (or anything) as a wikipedia article without any third party references to back up it as a genuine terminology for a genuine phenenomenom violates WP:NOR.--ZayZayEM 11:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You may have misunderstood my intention. The only reason I gave SID a name is so that we can agree not to trot out that canard here, for the purposes of this talk page. Despite the agreement that the article should be about the Discovery Institute's ID, there are still other kinds of ID arguments being made here, which is a distraction. Xerxesnine 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

<Reduce Indent>

  • Intelligent design is not an evangelic Christian thing or a generally Christian thing or even a generically theistic thing...Intelligent design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world--without appealing to religious authority--William A. Dembski, 2004
  • Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient...The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.--William A Dembski, 1999
  • From Jerry A. Coyne ( Brockman, John (editor) (2006). Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement. Vantage Books. ISBN 9780307277220. ): Well, which is it? Is intelligent design merely a sophisticated form of biblical creationism, as most biologists claim, or is it science--an alternative to Darwinism that deserves discussion in the science classroom? ...you won't find the answers in the writings of the leading advocates of ID. The ambiguity is deliberate for ID is a theory that must appeal to two distinct constituencies. Toe the secular public, ID proponents eprsnt their theory as pure science. This, after all, is their justification for a slick public-relations campaign promoting the teaching of ID in public schools. But as is clear from the infamous "WEdge Document" of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank in Seattle, and the center for ID propaganda, intelligent design is part of a cunning effort to dethrone materialism from society and science and replace it with theism. ID is simply biblical creationism updated and disguised to sneak evangelical Christianity past the First Amendment and open the classroom door to Jesus. The advocates of ID will admit this, but only to their second constituency, the sympathetic audience of evangelical Christians on whose support they rely.

Herein lies the problem. The NPOV would be to represent not only what DI is "saying" but they are "doing". We must show the duplicitous nature of ID in the lead. Orangemarlin 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First two paragraphs revisited

A lot of the preceding discussion is about the problems with using (most of) the DI's "definition", and the valid point that the content of the article should be summarised in enough detail to indicate the main lines of argument. Once again I've tried to summarise the whole picture, without having first checked out sources for each statement. This is a suggestion, if it has potential such sources could be sought and the proposal amended to accurately reflect the sources:

In theory, intelligent design is the proposition that aspects of the complexity or improbability of life and the universe cannot be explained by conventional science, but can provide scientifically testable evidence for intervention beyond the reach of science which can only be defined by philosophy or religion. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer, though its leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God. They claim 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 point to examples of what they call irreducible complexity and specified complexity which they claim cannot be explained by natural processes and therefore must be explained by undetectable intervention. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not science; The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

The Discovery Institute states that "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Opponents contend that this misleadingly uses "theory" to mean "conjecture" rather than scientific theory, and mischaracterises natural selection which is continually directed or ordered by the environment of the organism, though not by the supernatural direction they propose.

No changes proposed to the Kitzmiller paragraph. If nothing else, I think that it's worth considering just using scientific consensus instead of hiding it in a piped link in "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community". .. dave souza, talk 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Strike out "in theory" at start .. dave souza, talk 18:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Morphh (talk) 14:07, 01 May 2007 (UTC)
it is okay. i still think that, rather than one composed by any particular WP editor that someone on some side might accuse to be a partisan on the other side, that for the very first sentence, a dictionary definition would be more bullet proof. if anyone from any side comes out of the woodwork and says that the definition is skewed to far to the anti- or pro-ID side, we can tell them to take it up with Merriam-Webster or American Heritage or the OED. but i won't object to any defining lead that doesn't by OR and/or POV create, "out of whole cloth", a definition that has nothing semantically in common with verifiable existing definitions. r b-j 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I'm not sure I like the sound of "In theory" starting the sentence (not for any POV reasons, just because it sounds like something a politician might say). Not a big one. The biggest issue, however, is that if we're going to "quote" the DI for the first sentence, then the second sentence ought to as unweasely as possible--it is an argument for the existence of God, not this teleological stuff. Orangemarlin 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point, have struck it through. .. dave souza, talk 18:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
well, here's an example of what i was saying (except the problem is that Orange would and had, in the past, accused the dictionary definition as taken right out of the DI playbook. but no one can, at least reasonably, dismiss the dictionary definition as DI. that's why we should use it. r b-j 16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you had read more carefully, I was wiling to concede that the DI propagandists can have their little blurb. But the NPOV and verifiable description of their duplicitous intent must follow in the second sentence. And all of the other sentences too. Orangemarlin 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
why give the DI propagandists any blurb at all? there is no reason for it. their duplicitous behavior can be documented as a factual description, but since the article is about ID and is not titled Discovery Institute, i see little reason include anything about such nastiness in the lead of ID. let's just put in the facts (about ID) and let the facts speak for themselves. that's the Wikipedia way. r b-j 01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly why I started the "Speculative ID" thread on this talk page. The goalpost can't be continually changing like this. Either the article is about ID as promoted by the Discovery Institute, or it's not. The Dover ruling says that intelligent design cannot be extricated from its predecessors (see cdesign proponentsists). Xerxesnine 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My initial question about this proposal is with respect to the proposed opening sentence, which reads: "intelligent design is the proposition that aspects of the complexity or improbability of life and the universe cannot be explained by conventional science, but can provide scientifically testable evidence for intervention beyond the reach of science which can only be defined by philosophy or religion. " If I read the proposal correctly, this sentence would, in the event it were agreed by a reasonable consensus to be an improvement in keeping with WP:A and WP:NPOV, replace the longstanding first sentence. (The existing first sentence is the same as the longstanding one in place for about the past year, except it's only very recently been missing the quotation marks, and presently says "can be better explained" rather than "are best explained"): "Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection."[footnote to DI website]" What are the advantages of the proposed replacement? What are its disadvantages? ... Kenosis 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In principle, the idea is having an outline description in the first paragraph then quoting the DI statement in full later on so that it can be put in context and objections to it explained, rather than omitting parts or rewording it. The actual wording is my summary of their position that "design" can be detected but the methods and identity of the designer are beyond science – see the CSC page linked as a citation for their "definition". A brief mention of their various "complexities" in the lead seems appropriate, the detailed wording is up for discussion and review. If a paraphrase of another "definition" is preferred while still citing the DI statement in full afterwards, no problem.. dave souza, talk 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Disadvantages, I can list. :)
  • It introduces a lot of new material. Remember this is the _lead_, not the entire article. And some of the new points are by no means certain - the "improbability" (or otherwise) of life, let alone the universe, is a question which is still well beyond the reach of science - ID attacks evolution, an area where the science is much firmer.
  • "...scientifically testable evidence for intervention beyond the reach of science" is self-contradictory, and, even when interpreted favourably to the author, isn't accurate - the thesis of ID is that analysis of such intervention _is_ within the reach of science. Similarly, "defined by philosophy or religion"? "Intervention" can be defined quite well by lexicography alone. Unless it's "science" which is the definendum...
  • The third sentence is OK, mainly because it says what the article already says. I think it's trying to combine too many points into one sentence, though: (a) ID is a version of the teleological argument, (b) ID does not identify the designer, (c) All leading ID proponents are members of the DI (d) All leading ID proponents believe the designer to be God.
  • The fourth sentence is, again, too long. We can mention the specific ID concepts ("irreducible complexity", etc) later on. And "undetectable" is just plain wrong - ID claims not only is this intervention detectable, but they have detected it.
  • The fifth sentence is OK - but I thought we'd decided to put the NSA objections before the "pseudoscience" reference.
All in all, I don't think this is an improvement, and would prefer either to work from the Miller definition or from Morphh's proposal above. Tevildo 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing DI definition

Since we're talking about it, how about:

"Intelligent design is the proposition, asserted to be a scientific theory, that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection."[1] It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] believe the designer to be God.[5] Intelligent design's proponents claim that as a scientific theory it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[6]

The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;[7] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[10]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[11] During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals[12]

Only the first paragraph is modified so the statement that it is asserted to be a scientific theory is placed right at the beginning. That is, after all, what virtually all the fuss is about (i.e., is it a scientific theory such that it can be taught as science?). Once one gets past the assertion that it's scientific and can or cannot be taught as science, the rest is all academic and religious philosophy, a relatively uncontroversial teleological argument.

I would also advocate that the "overview" section start out with a clear description of how this all came about, such as: " Intelligent design was introduced following the 1987 United States Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard, which struck down a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, the Supreme Court held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.". In 1989, all the uses of "creationism" and words containing the root word "creation-" were replaced with the words "intelligent design" in the creationist-oriented biology textbook Of Pandas and People.[cite to Kitzmiller or other appropriate reliable sources.]" ...Kenosis 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i have advocated the same (the inclusion of Edwards in the lead), and in fact have included that in the lead (along with the dictionary definition of ID) but one of you guys reverted it. r b-j 01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't think that's ideal, I can't see any major grounds for objection, unless any use of the DI definition is forbidden. I think that "overwhelming scientific consensus" (rather than "overwhelming consensus in the scientific community") would be better, and (again) I think we should put the NAS objection before the "pseudoscience" references and drop "hypothesis" from Behe's statement, but, other than that, it's acceptable. I still _prefer_ Morphh's. Tevildo 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we get rid of that whole statement about the teleological argument? Let's call it what it is, an argument for G_d, probably a Judeo-Christian, if not in fact just a plain old every day Christian one. If we have to be all mealy-mouth and put in the DI definition (as if they really believe it's science), then let's call it for what it is using reference sources (of which I have a few dozen sitting on my desk). That's a compromise for me. Orangemarlin 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What if one reverses the use of "assert[ed]" and "claim[ed]" as follows:

"Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection."[1] It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] believe the designer to be God.[5] Intelligent design's proponents assert that as a scientific theory it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[6] " ... Kenosis 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's pretty good! I still don't like the "teleological argument" verbiage. Just shorten to ..."is a modern form of the argument for the existence of...." Then short of some uncivil remark from Rbj, and hopefully a buy-in from Morph, we could move on with this very long process. Orangemarlin 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Which might, after further discussion (recalling that some participants insisted on precision in using the one extra word to call it "teleological" in the intro), bring it to something like?:

"Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection."[1] It is a modern form of the ancient teleological argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] believe the designer to be God.[5] Intelligent design's proponents assert that as a scientific theory it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[6] " ... Kenosis 23:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Still hate teleological, but this isn't bad. I presume the ... will be followed by the standard statement that this is not really science, they lost all the court cases, and etc.? Orangemarlin 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"teleological" is just a word with an already defined meaning. dunno what's the matter with it. losing the court cases is a matter of fact (we do not need to attribute the fact that they lost Kitzmiller to anyone, it is a matter of record), but "that [ID] is not really science" should be attributed to the particular scientists or identifiable organizations that say so. then it's an opinion converted to a fact as spelled out in WP:NPOV. r b-j 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If one looks at the article, rather than just scanning the talk page, it immediately becomes clear that the WP article already cites many of the major scientific organizations that've put forward their unequivocal opposition to the notion that ID is science or scientific such that it can legitimately be taught as biology. The article also gives an explicit breakdown of examples of organizations and prominent individuals who have termed it pseudoscience, and that a number of prominent scientists have termed it junk science, with explicit citations. ... Kenosis 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose that the second and third paragraphs remain the same, unless there's a proposal out there for something that can be agreed to be an improvement. ... Kenosis 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"leading" is a weasel word. what qualifies one as a "leading proponent" of ID? and, again, it is not factual that all leading proponents are affiliated with DI (i've cited counterexamples), unless you establish that axiomatically. r b-j 01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "leading" in this context is not a weasel word or even a leading word. Rather, it is a descriptor that includes in it the concepts "original" and "principal", and was the best, most accurate descriptor that the editors here could find. A number of "linguistic positivists" have disagreed with this usage, as have those who tend to advocate letting the Discovery Institute getting away with the shell game of sharing the same funding sources and operating through the DI as its clearinghouse, while maintaining the appearance that it is somehow "free market" science. It is not "free market" science consisting of genuinely independent researchers associated with genuinely independent institutions or genuinely striking out on their own in pursuit of scientific discovery. The Kitzmiller v. Dover court didn't buy it and made this fact quite clear in its decision; and neither are we who are participating in this WP article obliged to buy into any such misdirection or deception about the facts of the matter. And the article, in making this plain to the reader, is not in the least being "weasel". Quite the opposite, it is being direct to the reader. For lack of a better word to concisely express the DI's role, the preponderance of WP editors who've participated in this have agreed to use "leading proponents", with suggested alternatives split up into various suggestions, none of which have gained acceptance to-date among the participants in this article.

In the interest of continuing to pursue possible alternatives that might be sufficiently agreed to be a superior alternative by consensus or compromise on a controversial issue, I would personally also recommend considering something like the following concise replacement sentence" "All of its original proponents, as well as all of its principal proponents today, are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] and believe the designer to be God.[5" ... Kenosis 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

actually, there is a lot that you say that is neither disputed nor pertanent to the subject. "leading" is a weasel word (see below) nearly by definition. and one construed meaning of the word is most certainly contested (and is semantically undefended). to qualify as a "leading proponent of ID" is not by definition the same as saying that one is a member of or affiliated with the organization known as the Discovery Institute. it's not an axiom. r b-j 02:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And in the interest of fairness to all participants, I need to take responsiblity for the erroneous quote of the DI which I took in part from the presently altered version of the DI quote in the article. I noticed the "better explained" was not in the original passage (which says "best explained") but failed to notice the use of "rather than natural processes such as natural selection" (when in fact the DI quote says "not an undirected process such as natural selection.") My sincere apology on this lapse, particularly to Morphh, who also failed to notice and rendered a preference below based upon my erroneous presentation of the quote. ... Kenosis 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see some merit in your suggestion and appreciate your concession as to that passage. Such matters as ID can be tricky to pin down unless accurate quotes are introduced from both sides of the debate. And when there is a deeper pool of quotations and advocation from one side than another, an accurate scholar will provide sufficient weight by the selection of quotations and the framing word structure without shifting the article's intent errantly.Mister Fax 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 08:54 2 May

Such a replacement sentence as just proposed might cause the first paragraph to read something like:

"Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, 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] It is a modern form of the ancient teleological argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] All of its original proponents, as well as all of its principal proponents today, are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] and believe the designer to be God.[5] Intelligent design's advocates assert that as a scientific theory it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[6] "

Under this proposed approach, the second and third paragraphs would continuing to read more or less as before:

The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;[7] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[10]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[11] During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals[12].. Kenosis 08:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, though I still think the third paragraph should be rephrased to mention Pandas being pushed into schools before talking about the trial – as proposed below. If we're rephrasing the description at the start, then my suggestion of drastically changing it and giving the full quote later seems better to me. .. dave souza, talk 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the claim that it's a scientific theory is mentioned at the outset, the first paragraph could end thus:
"Intelligent design's proponents assert that what they call irreducible complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, so must be the work of an intelligent designer.[6] "
That provides a direct link to intelligent designer instead of piping it as intelligent cause as at present. ... dave souza, talk 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I would support this as well. The double use of "natural" in the first sentence has been discussed and I think several editors prefered if the first "natural" was dropped to just state "processes such as natural selection" but this is very minor and only a suggestive comment. Not sure I really like the word "ancient" in front of teleological argument. To Orange's thought, I could go either way with having the word teleological in there, so long as it links to teleological argument. I think I prefer it though. I'd like Dave's addition to the end of the first paragraph mentioning the ID arguments of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. These each have headers in the article, so some brief mention of them is appropriate to summarize the article. Sounds like we might be getting some where.  :-) Morphh (talk) 15:28, 02 May 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, through all of this process, that lead looks good, but can I complain one more time about teleological. That's a philosophy term that's fairly unfamiliar to a wide range of educated individuals, let alone the casual reader. Once again, why weasel it, just say it's an argument for G_d, and move on. But I like it. Orangemarlin 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A couple of minor points - if we're putting the quotes in, we need to use the DI's word, "undirected". Pace Oragemarlin, I think "teleological" is essential - assuming that "argument from design", its usual trivial name, isn't going to be acceptable. I would still like to see the NSA's refutation before the "pseudoscience" references, but I won't push this point any further. Ditto on "hypothesis". Other than that, I think this is probably the best we're going to get - considering especially that it only differs by one or two words from the current version, and the more radical improvements suggested earlier seem to have been rejected. Tevildo 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I mostly gave up. It's going to be a whitewash for DI's duplicitous propaganda, and several have pointed that out, but it's with Rbj's uncivil comments and Morph trying to get a decent compromise, it's probably the best we're going to do. Orangemarlin 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I still like Morphh's, starting with the Darwin quote. But, if we're admitting defeat... Tevildo 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there is not a double use of the word "natural" in the DI quote, but rather that this was an error made in the last flurry of edit warring, which is mistakenly still in the presently locked article. The correct quote is as follows, here factoring in Orangemarlin's advocacy of subsuming "teleological" into a link rather than stating this relatively obscure term in the first paragraph.

"Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, 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] It is a modern form of an ancient argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] All of its original proponents, as well as all of its principal proponents today, are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] and believe the designer to be God.[5] Intelligent design's advocates assert that as a scientific theory it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[6] "

... Kenosis 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just formally registering my opposition to the removal of "teleological". We _do_ have "argument from design" which is already redirected; if "teleological" has to go, can we at least have a _reason_ for not replacing it with "argument from design for the existence of God", rather than merely "argument for the existence of God"? Tevildo 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to comment with respect to Morphh's objection to the use of the word "ancient". This could readily be replaced with a phrase like "a modern form of a traditional argument for the existence of God. . ." Either way, these are not major issues here. ... Kenosis 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
* smiles * - Every single word in this article is a major issue. I don't think that's a particularly negative aspect of the situation, though. Tevildo 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Picking up both Morphh's points, including the preference for providing links for IC and SC, we could have:

"Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, 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] It is a version of the design argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] All of its original proponents, as well as all of its principal proponents today, are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] and believe the designer to be God.[5] Intelligent design's proponents assert that what they call irreducible complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, so must be the work of an intelligent designer.[6]"

In my opinion this gives a clearer idea of their argument. ... dave souza, talk 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Along the way, I need to take responsiblity for the erroneous quote of the DI in the section immediately above, a quote I mistakenly took in part from the presently altered version of the DI quote in the currently locked version of the article. I noticed the "better explained" was not in the original passage (which says "best explained") but failed to notice the use of "rather than natural processes such as natural selection" (when in fact the DI quote says "not an undirected process such as natural selection.") My sincere apology on this lapse, particularly to Morphh, who also failed to notice and rendered a preference just above in this section based upon my erroneous presentation of the quote. ... Kenosis 01:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We may want to consider putting [sic] after "undirected" to address some of the concern with this word useage. Thoughts... Adam.. what's your take on this intro - I know you've been against using the quote. Morphh (talk) 1:29, 03 May 2007 (UTC)
For my own part, I've no objection to the use of [sic], though I definitely don't think it's needed. The point of the DI statement is to make clear their view that nature is not undirected, but has a director involved. All these are, again, very minor issues with respect to the article. Among the things that WP:Consensus is and is not, it most certainly is not equivalent to unanimous agreement on every little point, nor is it equivalent to the cessation of argument on a topic. ... Kenosis 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary. [sic] should be used for _errors_, not merely to express disagreement. And, if I may say so, "undirected" is the word I would choose, as a disciple of Gould. Tevildo 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Augh! Use the consensus second paragraph (see below), please. It was one of the few changes that got through without difficulty. Adam Cuerden talk 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third paragraph

Thinking about it, some of the confusion seems to arise because the third paragraph presents the Kitzmiller trial out of context. As the introduction of the term is crucial, here's a suggestion:

Modern use of the term was first introduced in the school-level textbook Of Pandas and People which presents creationist arguments with the Creator described as an intelligent designer. When a public school district introduced a requirement that this book be presented to science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution the case was taken to court, and in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Note that this clarifies the "teaching" requirement a bit. .. dave souza, talk 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate why I think it's necessary to state at the outset that ID originated in a school textbook, Citizendium shows that even "experts" can fall for the DI's current disclaimer. The third paragraph of the intro is similar to ours:
In 2005 a case was brought against a United States school board for requiring the reading of a disclaimer in Biology classes which mentioned Intelligent Design as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design is not science, and essentially religious in nature.[6]
However the relevant section opens with the DI disclaimer:
Teaching of Intelligent Design in schools
Several leading proponents of Intelligent Design have stated that Intelligent Design should not be taught in the science curriculum, and the official position of the Discovery Institute is that it should not be taught in schools. Instead the Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture have called for students to learn about the difficulties with the theory of evolution by natural selection as published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
No mention that at Kitzmiller the DI crew were defending Pandas as a school textbook, and after half of them pulled out they tried to rejoin the action to support the publisher's claim – for the losses due to not being able to sell the book to schools! ...... dave souza, talk 17:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the issue of how published use of the words "intelligent design" started in 1989 in response to Edwards v. Aguilard should be included either in the third paragraph of the lead, or at least at the very outset of the "overview" that follows. This issue is so central to the topic that I think it would be remiss to avoid stating it early in the article as succinctly as possible. The next question, of course, is how, if at all, to state this in a way that can achieve consensus on its inclusion. ... Kenosis 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

It's sad that this discussion hasn't gotten anywhere, despite at least some measure of good faith effort by every single editor here. Obviously the areas of disagreement are too deep to be resolved. Gnixon 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a proposed solution? Let all the principle parties to this dispute simply agree to walk away---permanently. That includes RBJ, 155, Orange, Kenosis, myself, CBD, Adam, and everyone else who has commented at length in the last few weeks. This group is getting absolutely nowhere. Why not roll the dice and hope for better from whoever shows up next? Sure, maybe sockpuppets or meatpuppets will dishonestly return, but I think most people here are honest enough to stay away if they say they will. I realize this is similar to either #3 or #4---Adam's facetious suggestions---but maybe it's the only hope. Surely none of us has such special knowledge of the topic that we can't be replaced by others. Surely another group has at least as good a chance of getting somewhere cooperatively. At this point all we're doing is collectively blocking progress. Gnixon 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of what others choose to do, I'm done with this article. Just look at all the finger exercise that's been wasted on this talk page in the last month. The only result has been to lock the lead to its 2005 version. I would respectfully submit that, for any one of you, this article cannot possibly be worth the effort you've invested----even in terms of the result you hope for, let alone what's actually been achieved. Why don't we all shake hands (or not), walk away (or run), and hope another group can do better? Just my 2 cents. Sincerely, Gnixon 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Great ideas. Thanks. Orangemarlin 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice idea, but, unless I've misunderstood Orangemarlin's comment, it's been slain by an ugly reality... How about we rotate the lead? The let-the-facts-speak-for-themselves crowd can have the lead Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the nail-in-the-coffin crowd can have Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, and the DI can have Sundays ;)
Right now, I'd be happy with any reasonable lead - POV, NPOV, whatever - I'm tired and bored and I really resent the fact that wanting, rightly or wrongly, a fact-based, non-conflationary lead means that one gets characterised as a creationist or ID supporter by some people.
I would like to edit some other sections (e.g. fine-tuned universe), and perhaps add a section regarding those scientists who refuse to engage with the debate to avoid legitimising ID... Tomandlu 11:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think OM was being sarcastic. I certainly wasn't. Gnixon 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I was sarcastic. Orangemarlin 14:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to propose drastic remedies, how about one that doesn't require superhuman self-restraint on behalf of the interested parties? We decide on the lead, as we're doing now, keeping the article locked. We change the lead to whatever consensus emerges, and unlock the article. After that point, _any_ changes to the lead, no matter how trivial, no matter how much of an improvement they may be, get instantly reverted - no ifs, no buts, no discussion. We say: "This the lead. It will not be changed. Do not attempt to do so, or attempt to discuss this policy." That would enable development of the body of the article, and prevent the fruitless arguments we've been having, which have _solely_ been about the lead. Tevildo 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect changes to any part of this article would arouse almost the same amount of controversy. I think we just have to accept that controversial articles on Wikipedia will probably always suck. Gnixon 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This tendency to attract vociferous disagreement has always been present with this article, and I think will be likely to remain for some time to come. ... Kenosis 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC) And these are not major changes that are being proposed. The only significant change is the one that Dave Souza just put on the table above, which I support (though I don't think we have our hands on the needed language quite yet either in Dave's proposal or mine). That proposal has to do with the mention, more conspicuously up-front in the article, of how ID's first published use was in 1989 in the book Of Pandas and People two years after the US Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguilard. ... Kenosis 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This article and other controversial articles does not HAVE to suck. The phrase "intelligent design" has been around for decades, but really was not widely used until the last 20 years or so. Now when the phrase "intelligent design" is used, it is almost always understood to refer to the movement lead by the DI and its associates. Endless nitpicking about issues that have been the subject of the the Wedge Document publication or are contained in the federal court findings should be met with immediate dismissal. If an editor repeatedly brings up the same issue in direct contradiction to the facts found by the federal court or revealed in the Wedge Document or other DI writings and pronouncements in an attempt to block useful work, then this editor should be the immediate subject of administrative action, in my opinion. If we cleared out some of the people impeding progress, then things would progress. And it would not take very much.--Filll 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Filll, it all makes so much sense... if there is ever a difference of opinion on something, just clamor to get everyone who disagrees ejected from the forum, then presto -- no more diffrence of opinion. Heck, it worked in '33... 70.105.16.153 12:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I'd like to point out that a great deal was discussed and decided upon in the above discussion. Everyone keeps losing track of this due to a few bits that were slow to achieve consensus.

Therefore, I've assembled the lead as discussed. All parts with strong consensus (as far as I can tell) are in bold, those with reasonable consensus, in normal text, and those that still need a little work in italics, with the best option (in my opinion) used.

Intelligent design is the claim that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe. Its leading proponents, who are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity [term used in source], and claim 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.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. A public statement by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association described it as a pseudoscience, other public statements have agreed or called it junk science.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.


Other options for the opening sentence include:

  • Intelligent design is the claim that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe. Its leading proponents, who are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity [term used in source], and claim 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.
  • Intelligent design is an attack on evolution and other established scientific theories developed after Edwards v. Aguilard forbade the teaching of its predecessor, creationism, in public schools. Whereas creationism was explicitly religious, intelligent design instead claims that certain features of living organisms show evidence of design that cannot be explained without presuming some unspecified intelligent cause at work. Its leading proponents, who are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity [term used in source], and claim 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.
  • Intelligent design attempts to demonstrate that certain complex features of living things could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and are best explained by an intelligent cause. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), designed as an attack on evolution and other established scientific theories developed after Edwards v. Aguilard forbade the teaching of its predecessor, creationism, in public schools. Whereas creationism was explicitly religious, intelligent design instead claims that 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.
  • Intelligent design is the claim that aspects of the complexity or improbability of life and the universe cannot be explained by conventional science, but can provide scientifically testable evidence for intervention beyond the reach of science which can only be defined by philosophy or religion. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer, though its leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God. hey claim 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 point to examples of what they call irreducible complexity and specified complexity which they claim cannot be explained by natural processes and therefore must be explained by undetectable intervention.


We have it down to a few, well-thought-out, options for the first paragraph, and fairly good consensus on the rest. Adam Cuerden talk 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh'hmm. These are nothing more than Adam Cuerden's already expressed preferences. While it is true that no strong consensus emerged from Mr. Cuerden's forced "vote" on a number of options for the opening sentence and on the "proponents" sentence, the above is by no means representative of what did emerge. Indeed if anything at all emerged from the "vote" on the first sentence, it plainly was a slight preference for the longstanding version (the one quoting the DI representation of what ID is and citing to it-- I think it ended up being called #6 part-way through the "voting" process). Possibly it is appropriate at this stage to request some additional administrative assistance in this process. ... Kenosis 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ack! I forgot the italics on the first sentence! Sorry! Adam Cuerden talk 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
i think you were quite accurate in identifying the things that are essentially undisputed and those that are disputed. that is commendable. identifying the designer as God should be attributed (who is identifying the designer as God) and even more so if the article would say the "God of Christianity" (which is still an unrecognized term within Christianity). despite denials from Kenosis (that i was unable to respond to, until now) the word "leading" is a weasel word. who is a leading proponent of ID and who is merely an unleading proponent? that is not well established. are we defining axiomatically, that to be a "leading proponent" of ID, one is, by definition, affiliated with the DI? is that the root meaning of "leading"? this one sentence you wrote Adam for that does offer a little space for accuracy: Its leading proponents, who are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute believe the designer to be [God|G_d|god|Allah|Jehovah|Flying Spagetti|Invisible Unicorn]. if interpreted as "the proponents of ID that are also affliated with DI", that is an accurate, sourced, and citable fact. again if it is interpreted as the "leading" proponents (however "leading" is defined) are both affiliated with the DI and believe the designer to be God, that does not meet such a standard. i might suggest rewording it as: The proponents of ID that are closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute believe the designer to be God and cite it. that qualifies such proponents as those that are DI and it does not make the controversial and unnecessary implication that every proponent of ID that takes on some "leading" role (like writing about it) is affliated with DI. it is unnecessary to make that claim in this supposedly NPOV article. also, i fully agree with the other suggestion (i had actually done this for the article, but it was reverted) that the Edwards case be included in the lead. even though the term "Intelligent design" existed before Edwards, it most certainly is the case that the usage of the term as a proxy for the term "Creationism", which is banned from public schools in the U.S., came into play after Edwards. r b-j 21:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, i meant to point out that this lead (which actually went in the article for a short time): "Intelligent design is an attack on evolution and other established scientific theories developed after Edwards v. Aguilard ..." is still good for a chuckle. nothing POV or OR in that one. r b-j 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It did seem there was some consensus around this lead: Morphh (talk) 0:38, 04 May 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, 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] It is a version of the design argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] All of its original proponents, as well as all of its principal proponents today, are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] and believe the designer to be God.[5] Intelligent design's proponents assert that what they call irreducible complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, so must be the work of an intelligent designer.[6]"

I know there is still a bit of dispute on the first sentence (I think Adam objected), so we could probably run through some of the other options and see if it is still the prefered or another emerges as acceptable to all. I do like RBJ's rewording of the "proponents of ID". Morphh (talk) 0:38, 04 May 2007 (UTC)


i don't even know what i think of the first sentence. it really should not be about what i think about ID but what an independent and supposedly authorative arbiter of the lexicon would say about it:
Intelligent design is " the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes."
there are semantic elements that are identical with
"Intelligent design is the claim that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe."
are they the same statement? universe <--> physical, biological <--> biological, intelligent agent <--> intelligent being, claim <--> assertion. they both say that ID says that this unnamed (but it's pretty obvious who it would have to be) intelligent being designed something about the physical universe and (eventually) biological life. i think they're essentially the same sentence. i cannot see (and never could) how anyone can claim that the current dictionary definition (of a reputable and easily checked dictionary) is biased. so there's nothing wrong with Adam's lead sentence as far as i'm aware. (but i still think that Tomandlu's just-the-facts-ma'am version of the lead sentence was the leanest and most indisputable other than copying the dict. def.) whatever. r b-j 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
one thing that i hadn't been careful about is that, while i don't think that Adam's def contains any elements that aren't in the dictionary definition, there are a couple that the dictionary has that Adam's does not. Both have this positive claim but Adam's does not have an alternative (what ID is not). i think it's okay to leave it out or put it in, but i just wanted to point that out in case others have an opinion. r b-j 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
i since formed an opinion. leaving out a portion of the dictionary definition can be construed by someone (i dunno on which side that someone would be) as a POV trimming of an authoritive and citable source. so probably something that is semantically equivalent should be in there. ("... rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.") r b-j 02:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I'd just like to point out that if you say "Discovery Institute" here in Australia (and, I suspect, anywhere outside the US), people will say "What's that?". Yet if you talk about intelligent design, we'll know what you mean. Do, for example, this Google search for Australian pages that mention ID (47k hits at the time of writing) and this one ("Discovery Institute" search - 258 hits). Wouldn't that indicate there are more proponents of intelligent design than _just_ DI? (Yes... that or they have manage to get ID mentioned an awful lot here without having their name mentioned). I'd therefore suggest that it say something like "leading proponents in America". NigelCunningham 01:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't think that even the "nail-the-coffin-shut" crowd suggests that all of the proponents of ID are American, but this "leading" word is still (despite the big river in Eygpt) precisely a weasel word. it is not necessary and it has meaning that can be construed in different ways that are meaningfully different (so there could be contension around some subset of those construals). but the point is still important. identifying a set of people such that it is a subset of people affiliated with DI, identifying those people as such a subset is forming an equivalence. "leading proponents" \subset "DI". however "leading" is defined, if there is one element of the set "leading proponents" that is not in the set "affiliated with DI", that assertion has failed. i am saying (and not the first time) that making such a strong assertion (when we don't have definite control of the information) we do not know, unless we define it by fiat, the complete defined set of "leading proponents". then making such a strong statement is not safe. it needs citable proof that an independent definition of "leading propenents" is equivalent to or a subset of "affiliated with DI". r b-j 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We have multiple reliable sources backing up the claim that the leading proponents are associated with the DI. Until we get any sources which suggest otherwise, it stays in. Furthermore, if one looks in detail at the above Australian links, most of the people who are mentioned are proponents are affiliated with the DI anyways. If one looks at related searches for example, [ http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Intelligent+Design%22++Behe&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU "Intelligent Design" + Behe] gets more Australian hits than "Intelligent Design"+ "Nelson" (Brendan Nelson was the education minister who briefly advocated the teaching of ID in Australia. And even this picks up a fair number of hits due to "Paul Nelson" who is a DI fellow. So we not only have no reliable sources but even a careful examination of the google hits doesn't support the argument JoshuaZ 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
then attribute those sources. to qualify as being in the class of "leading proponents of ID" does not mean that one has to join the DI and pay dues. or identify themselves with DI. or use their logo, or link to their website. it is not a true statement by definition. so if someone says it, then attribute that to this someone in the text. that is converting an opinion into a fact as per WP:NPOV. that is the Wikipedia way. r b-j 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We have a large number of such sources from a variety of different neutral observers. Please look at the supporting footnotes. At this point your comments are appearing to be tendentious. In fact, we could easily increase the number of sources. JoshuaZ 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
i have looked. but it still should be attributed in the text. you have not spoken to that. it is a strong associative statement that is not definitively supported. to say that all elements in this one set (when you don't have the definitive list) are elements in another set, where the semantics of the definitions of the two sets ("leading proponents" vs. "affiliated with DI") have nothing in common, to say that is an opinion. it may be the opinion of a lot of various people that can be cited (as well as attributed), but it is not defined fact. i am being reasonable, Joshua, and the converse position is not. r b-j 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I must be missing something since you seem to be claiming that anything that is less than an a priori truth must be attributed explicitly in the text to a specific source.
if it's contentious i do. and especially if it makes such a strong assertion (an equivalence). i think that George W. Bush has been a cocain user (because when given an opportunity he clearly avoided denying it which i doubt a Republican who was innocent of such would leave to question). there are many people (Molly Ivins for instance) who would say the same thing. but it is not definitively true. saying it without attributing it would be pretty irresponsible.
This is ridiculous as both a common sense matter and a matter of Wikipedia policy. The statement is supported by multiple, independent reliable sources. You seem to be forgeting the Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. Whether I or you can practically list or access the list of all major ID proponents is irrelevant. The sources we have make the statement. Semantic claims (which seem to be more an issue of a priori v. a posteriori than semantics per se) are irrelevant. If you disagree with the statement find reliable sources that disagree. JoshuaZ 02:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
it is neither ridiculous as common sense and it is Wikipedia policy. it is Wikipedia policy that we convert opinions into fact by attributing them. r b-j 02:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, first in regard to your edit summary- amusing if arguably uncivil. I had actually thought of making a joke about that in my own edit summary but was going to title it "Semantics are irrelevant. Resistance to WP:V is futile". Second, please in the future do not intersperse your comments within other editors comments. It can make it harder for other editors to follow the conversation and although I do not mind it, some people react very negatively to it (and I think you've had enough issues with editing other peoples comments for now). Now to the meat: your cocain analogy is flawed for at least 4 reasons: first, that would be a BLP issue and so has by nature a much higher burdern. Second, you will not find neutral reliable sources that make the assertion. Third, we again have multiple reliable sources. If we had a witness who was accepted by a federal court as an expert witness on the life of GWB and that witness testified that GWB did cocaine and that witness's testimony was found to be unimpeachable(not sure that's the legal term but you get the idea) by the court, and you have multiple reliable other than the witness who said that GWB did cocaine, then the fact would be sufficiently well documented such that we wouldn't need to say otherwise. Do you really think that policy requires us to say that "According to the expert testimony of Barbara Forrest in the Kitzmiller trial, and according to the New York Times, and according to the Boston Globe, and according to the Science and Theology News and according to American Association for the Advancement of Science and...(three more sources) all the leading proponents of the Intelligent Design movement are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"? Furthermore, note that as far as the Discovery Institute is concerned, this claim is not a contentious one. For example, see DI fellow David Klinghoffer's peice in Moment Magazine August 6, 2006 "Why Maimonides Would Not Have Sided With Darwin" where Klinghoffer says "The Discovery Institute, which drives much of the debate about Darwinism" and see DI founders George Gilder's "Evolution and Me" in the July National Review talking about "the writings of the leading exponents of the concept, such as the formidably learned Stephen Meyer and William Dembski (both of the Discovery Institute)" This claim isn't contentious to the DI. JoshuaZ 03:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
the issue is not that it unimpeached testimony in or legally accepted finding by a court. the issue is that it is a broad statement, that without exception includes every thing in one set into another set where the set definitions simply are not the same. it is saying that one is defined as the other, or part of the other. it is both contested, it is not definitive fact (if you don't like the word "truth") like "apples are fruit". it is a fact that someone (who could be attributed) says that these persons, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski, are in the set of "leading exponents of the concept" which is semantically the same as "leading proponents of ID" and, geee, when we look their name up on the DI list, amazing, these two persons are on the list. that's a fact. but that is not the same fact that every "leading" proponent is on that list (or some other list you can come up with that defines all persons that are affiliated with DI). you are not speaking to this. r b-j 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. The presence of universal quantifiers as opposed to existential quantifiers statements of correlations have no bearing under WP:V or WP:NPOV as to how we should cite the statement. Wikipedia policy does not look at the logical form of the statement, only whether it has reliable sources backing it up. The times we need to cite opinions are when they are generally when they are relevant but not from reliable sources. Please refamiliarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. You also seem to have ignored my point about how ridiculously long your phrasing would be. I also suggest that you also take a look at the article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster where an almost identical argument has been repeatedly made about calling it a parody religion. Mental excercise- are the circumstances the same, if so, where do you draw the line, if not why not? JoshuaZ 03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
no, i'm not the one missing (more precisely avoiding) the point. Flying Spaghetti Monster is fine. it's a parody religion (would be silly denyint that it is a parody) but Henderson's point still stands. it has as equal legitimacy being taught in Biology class or Astronomy class as does ID. fine. but the policies you cite still say that we convert opinions into fact by attributing them. it is actually a fact (if you get Shrub) that Molly Ivins opines that George W. Bush has been a cocain user. it doesn't belong in the lead of George W. Bush but it could conceivably be an attributed statement somewhere in the article. but if it was put in unattributed, that would be, in any case, irresponsible. r b-j 03:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for once again not addressing my other points such as the problem of what the article would lead like and what everything would need to read like if you were correct. Even the point that you did address you seemed to again shall we say miss the point. If you look at the talk archive of that article we have something very similar to what is going on here. In that case, about once a week we have someone get very huffy that its cited as a parody and argue that 1) Henderson's webpage never says so or 2) That they are a sincere believer in the FSM and they find it being marked as a parody offensive (some of these people seem to be serious, others seem to be trying to make some sort of point about the nature of religion. At least 3 seem to have been serious). Now, how is that situation any differen other than that you personally find their opinion silly? If anything, the case is stronger here because the DI has made statements that support the claim. The bottom line is that once something is in reliable sources, unless other reliable sources disagree, there is no policy or other reason to explicitly attribute the statements in the text to who said them. Such attribution is only an issue when the comments come from sources which are not reliable but relevant. Thus, in both this article and the FSM article, all we need to do is have the citation to the New York Times and other sources. JoshuaZ 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
RJB is wrong in every respect. (A)The fact that they are all associated with the DI is propoerly sourced, and (B) whatever RJB thinks, there is no requirement that it be a textual citation. Raul654 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
is that your judicial ruling, Mark? r b-j 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's my superhero ability to interpret plain English sentences: Inline citations (references inserted into the text) may use one of the following three systems: Embedded HTML links, Harvard referencing, Footnotes - Wikipedia:Citing sources. Notice that it doesn't make any mention of in-text sourcing as a requirement. So claiming that they are required by Wikipedia policy is plainly false - you are simply making up requirements. Raul654 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
i am claiming that it is Wikipedia policy that opinions be converted to fact by attributing them. please don't convert that into me claiming something else. r b-j 03:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong again. You said, on this very page: "i have looked. but it still should be attributed in the text." To which someone replied: I must be missing something since you seem to be claiming that anything that is less than an a priori truth must be attributed explicitly in the text to a specific source. To which you replied: "if it's contentious i do." Your claim that it must be sourced in the text is plainly false - it's a requirement that you have simply made up. Raul654 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) RBJ said, "if there is one element of the set "leading proponents" that is not in the set "affiliated with DI", that assertion has failed."

I think this is an excellent summary of the situation. So, why hasn't the assertion failed yet? Why has no one put forward one reliable source showing a leading proponent that is not affiliated with DI? That would answer the question once and for all.

Until such time as we have such a source, it's my contention that the statement should stand. It's not as if it would be difficult to correct it in the future. SheffieldSteel 03:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i have. (Polkinghorne, Dyson, Gingerich) but the instant response is that "they're not leading.", so one has to ask, is the definition of "leading proponent of ID" that one has to be a member of DI? it doesn't seem to be in the text of such. it's the converse that is required, if you're gonna say that ALL ID proponents of note (that's a little less weaselly since "noteworthy" or "noted" is less weaselly than "leading" - who are the "leaders"? who decides the "leaders"?), you need to list all of the ID proponents of some note and show that they are also on the list of DI affiliates. that's where the burden of proof lies with such a broad and all-encompassing statement. r b-j 04:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What, lost your trousers? ;) We have reliable sources making the statement, you're trying to produce original research using your own definitions to try to refute their statement, without a reliable source making that refutation. Sleep well, .. dave souza, talk 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Dave) First, there's massive OR in your above comment. Futhermore, if we want to play the OR game (never mind that Wikipedia policy doesn't let us do so), then google doesn't support you much as any of these being major proponents at all. For example, "Intelligent Design" + Polkinghorne returns about a tenth as many hits as "Intelligent Design" + Dembski. One gets even worse results for Gingerich and Dyson gets almost as bad results (The Dyson number is also inflated due to hits for Esther Dyson discussing ID and for many pages which happen to mention Freeman Dyson and ID separately). Second, my impression is that none of those three people even are proponents of ID. For example, Gingerich's views are very complicated and he is certainly not proponent of Intelligent Design. He accepts "neo-Darwinian evolution" and he said that he believes in "intelligent design, lowercase 'i' and 'd.' But I have trouble with Intelligent Design" He has also said that the questions of whether a Deity has intervened are beyond the purview of science. Similarly, the strongest statement Dyson has made is that "My opinion is that most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe, and this belief is entirely compatible with science. So it is unwise for scientists to make a big fight against the idea of intelligent design. The fight should be only for the freedom of teachers to teach science as they see fit, independent of political or religious control. It should be a fight for intellectual freedom, not a fight for science against religion." This is hardly the ringing endorsement of a major proponent. The bottom line is you have no sources that any of these are major proponents and indeed, if anything a 5 minute examination shows that it isn't even clear that they are proponents at all, and you have no reliable sources which assert that they are proponents. Are we done yet? JoshuaZ 04:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Polkinghorne, Dyson, and Gingerich... They're not even close to being leading proponents. Period. The article already has sources that state who the leading proponents are, and I have about a dozen other sources that all say the exact same thing if needed. For about the fifieth time, this is a dead issue; drop it and move along. FeloniousMonk 04:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
FM, you keep saying that, but no one listens. I moved along about a week ago, but there are certain editors who won't stop until they win or call in Jimbo to help them out. Orangemarlin 05:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
we heard it. "Period" is a thought-terminating cliché so it's not very persuasive (except to people who don't think).
John Polkinghorne, Freeman Dyson, Owen Gingerich, these guys are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. they are all physicists affiliated with pretigious institutions: Cambridge, Princeton, Duke, Harvard. they all write books. they are notable. people buy and read these books. if they say something in these books and readers go "yeah, right", then these guys have a following. they have followers in some sense of the word, then, in the same sense of the word they are "leaders". but "leaders" is, in this case, a particularly ill-defined word. unless you conveniently define "leaders" of ID as belonging to DI, you got a problem with it. if you were to say instead that "all notable proponents were affiliated with ID", that would be decidedly wrong because exceptions can be cited. to say it with the weasel word instead is so problematic from a factual basis that such an opinion must be attributed as per Wikipedia policy. the Wikipedia way is that we "convert opinions into facts by attributing them".
BTW, i hadn't bothered Jimbo about content disputes, only when admins go so far out (like an indefinite block because i undeleted someone's note left on my own talk page) and i have no choice. then i contact Jimbo (there were three different episodes so far) and each time, without exception, Jimbo did the right thing and reversed the action of the mistaken and/or abusive admin. (in one case, i imagine the admin left such a bad taste in Jimbo's mouth, that when this admin later took on Jimbo in a wheel war, he quickly got desysopped and subsequently banned. it's not easy getting Jimbo's attention, but he doesn't seem to countenance abusive admins.) r b-j 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And playing the Jimbo card is an even bigger thought-terminating cliché. Whenever someone plays it it pretty much means they have no argument worth making or hearing. Odd nature 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
who's "playing the Jimbo card"? Orange brought it up in such a context that i know his meaning. so i responded that, even though i had (been forced to, IMO) contacted Jimbo about nasty admin action against me personally, i explicitly said that i never contacted Jimbo nor tried to about content issues. so, in response to Orange bringing it up (with some insinuation), i made it clear that i was not "playing any Jimbo card" about that. say, if JoshuaZ had blocked me indefinitely for not being contrite, i would have sent an email to Jimbo. but it has nothing to do with this content dispute and i never brought it up in such a context. so try to wind back the "misrepresentation" (since calling it the three-letter "L-word" that it is gets nasty repercussions). honesty really is the best policy, 151. r b-j 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
arg. in the interest of honesty, i wanted to check what i first said about it. the fact is that admins "abus[ing] their authority or us[ing] such with a sense of entitlement in content dispute" does get me "worked up", but it is only when some admin did something really nasty (like blatent incivility and threats (Karmafist), improper blocks, or not granting the right to exit) did i contact Jimbo (and in all three cases he did right by me, but not always as quickly as i would have preferred). both get me "worked up" but only nasty admin action has prompted me to contact Jimbo. that was not stated clearly in that edit and the two could be conflated. r b-j 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this for the leading proponents section: "Its proponents, led by the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory..." Yes, it contains slightly less information, but this is a lead. It doesn't have to contain everything, and it's not just the leading/primary proponents making the claim. We keep losing sight of the second half of that sentence. Adam Cuerden talk 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Adam. Morphh (talk) 14:14, 04 May 2007 (UTC)
It's inaccurate and imcomplete. The fact is that all of the leading ID proponents *are* affiliated with the Discovery Institute. The article already has sources that say this. To say anything else in the article is to mislead the readers. Odd nature 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
only if you define "leading" in such a way. that's why it's a weasel word. if you define "leading proponents of ID" as such that they are by definition affiliated with DI, then you can get away with making such a broad and exceptionless statement. but the obvious problem with that is that it is a parochial definition of "leading proponents". "leading" is a bad word here. who determines who are the "leaders"? it is also unnecessary. there is no reason that the article needs to make this artificial connection, defining arbitrarily that "leaders of ID" are also DI. ID \ne DI. (but there is a relationship in current times.) r b-j 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"Leading" a weasel word? Bull. A leading proponent is one who is most published on the topic, and who's work is most often cited by others. Both easily verifiable and consistent with the article and sources. And if we're feeling generous wou can even expand it to include those who most often publicly speak on the topic and are quoted in sources, and yet again it is consistent with the article, its sources and is verifiable. we already have sources that establish who the leading proponents are and their connection to the Discovery Institue and reading the archives, I see there is broad consensus on this, so it's time for you to accept the fact all leading ID are connected to the Discovery Institute and move on. 151.151.73.168 17:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for rushing here, as I'm busy elsewhere and am just quickly checking in at the moment. But this is not what the reliable sources say about how the words "intelligent design" came into contemporary discussion, but rather is simple avoidance of a plain, verified issue about how ID started and what is the class of persons responsible for injecting the words "intelligent design" into modern discourse that can be stated in one word, "leading". What those sources say are as follows: "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." "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." "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." "All of the leaders [of the intelligent design movement] are [involved with the Discovery Institute]". These are already provided in the article footnote.

If I read correctly in my quick scan of the discussion above, JoshuaZ just offered to provide two more sources for this same basic aspect of intelligent design. Not one non-DI-affiliated proponent who can be reasonably characterized as a "leading" or "original" or "primary" or "principal" proponent has been proffered on this talk page in many such discussions about this issue. I recognize that it is somewhat counterintuitive at first glance. But it is not necessary to state a disclaimer in the lead, such as "we recognize this may be counterintuitive to many, but..." What Adam Cuerden is proposing here, after having just gone through his forced "vote" and having failed to re-consensus just about anything significant thus far, is to just skip the issue. Moreover, the argument Adam Cuerden gives just above is a basic error in logic that surprises me, which is that because there are other persons making the claim too does not, contrary to what Adam was arguing, make those additional advocates notable or worthy of mention in this article, per WP:notability. And there is a disambiguation provided to clear up any residual issues about this matter. Thus the term "leading", far from being "weasel", is being quite direct to the reader about what the relationship actually and quite verifiably is between the Discovery Institute and the words "intelligent design", according to the reliable sources about the issue.

Having said that, if a consensus can be legitimately achieved after reasonable discussion for the proposal Adam Cuerden just made, ("Its proponents, led by the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory..."), I'll proceed to support it. For the moment, I object to the change, as it does not represent an improvement to the article. To date there is no notable proponent or set of proponents who are advocating "intelligent design" that is not asserted to be scientific, which is what the whole scuff has been about. The whole point of the movement from the beginning, as now, has been to try to meet the standard set in the US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard so creationism (cast as "intelligent design" of course) might be taught to biology students in the US as an alternative to evolution.

Gotta go. Talk with y'all this weekend if I can. ... Kenosis 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is so problematic because it strikes at the heart of intelligent design. The problem is that design arguments have been around forever. Until about 1990, creationists threw them around about as often as they threw around any other argument. However, in 1990, Phil Johnson came out with books that were wildly popular with the increasingly disenfranchised and stagnating creationist movement that argued explicitly for "intelligent design". Johnson coordinated with Dembski and Behe to put forth a popular-level argument for ID that was eventually subsumed and coordinated by Meyers in the CSC. This weird history of the movement and the fact that creationism in terms of reliable and (quasi)-academic publications is entirely coordinated by a singluar group of people is not surprising considering that science moves quickly and these ideas are as old as Darwin itself. We spend a great deal of time describing this minority position and, in so doing, lose sight of the fact that this is the result of a rather concerted public relations campaign coordinated by a singular group.

What has happened in the meantime is that political candidates, amateur web-publishers, and preachers have jumped on the anti-science pro-religion bandwagon in the next incarnation of neo-creationism. However, in a strictly historical (and that would be recent history, folks) sense, intelligent design is led by this small group of DI people who have their ideas parroted -- even though these ideas are much older than DI itself.

--ScienceApologist 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the information I cut, but it was inserted into that sentence in such a cackhanded way that made the sentence without the clause at best far too overly specific, and at worst: incorrect "Its leading proponents claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that blah blah better than evolution." No, its proponents in general claim that. I proposed this version because it actually works as a sentence, whilst giving the most important information: that the DI is important. Adam Cuerden talk 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We aren't getting anywhere this fight. We have gone round and round. What can we do to get independent arbitrator to get a resolution. If I walk away from the computer there must be another 5 pages of posts here. Sheesh. Orangemarlin 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Only 5? You must take really short walks.  ;) •Jim62sch• 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't arbitrate accuracy or completeness; either the intro is accurate and complete based on available sources or it is not. And there has been strong consensus voiced here that the intro is accurate as it stands. It's only for the minority who disagree to acknowledge and accept that. Odd nature 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


It doesn't sem to me that OM or I were arguing the contrary position, so I'm a little confuddled and befused by the comment. •Jim62sch• 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Odd nature, well, I agree with you to a very minor extent. Most people agree that the lead from approximately April 2, 2007 should be the correct version. But there are a few voices here and there in other directions, so it's confusing. It's funny that someone who registered on April 27 is so familiar with Wiki rules. Hmmmmm. Orangemarlin 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Accuracy is one thing, but there's minimum standards of writing. This sentence, as it stands, fails them. Adam Cuerden talk 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from above: "We have multiple reliable sources backing up the claim that the leading proponents are associated with the DI. Until we get any sources which suggest otherwise, it stays in. Furthermore, if one looks in detail at the above Australian links, most of the people who are mentioned are proponents are affiliated with the DI anyways. If one looks at related searches for example, "Intelligent Design" + Behe gets more Australian hits than "Intelligent Design" + "Nelson" (Brendan Nelson was the education minister who briefly advocated the teaching of ID in Australia. And even this picks up a fair number of hits due to "Paul Nelson" who is a DI fellow. So we not only have no reliable sources but even a careful examination of the google hits doesn't support the argument JoshuaZ 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)"

That's not true. The ID search for Behe returns 84 hits, that for Nelson, 464. CMI (Creation Ministries Internation - AIG renamed, AFAIUI) gets 680.NigelCunningham 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ho hum. If we do a search on "Intelligent Design" + "Sam Brownback" (a senator running for president we get 32,100 hits. And? It does not prove that Brownback is a leading proponent, but that he is talking to his political base, (as was Nelson) a base that just happens to be creationist.
On another political note, a search for "Stem cell research" + "George Bush" gets 813,000 hits. Does that make Bush a proponent of stem vell research? No, it just means that when a head-of-state talks reporters write. Copiously. Get a grip. •Jim62sch• 12:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also Nigel there appears to be a difference in counting. As you can see from clicking on the above counts, I didn't look at distinct hits but rather total hits, in which case the statement is true. Jim also makes a good point in any even. JoshuaZ

[edit] Yet more sourcing. Wee!

As one can see from the section above, I have two more sources for the claim that the the major proponents are from the DI. I believe that these sources should be added because they are a new form of source for the claim: fellows of the DI. Would anyone object to the addition of these two sources? JoshuaZ 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but I have to say that, as I said above, the conflation of that information with the rest of the sentence's information is so awkward that we really ought to move that part. Adam Cuerden talk 16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Does it make for a complex sentence? Yes. And? •Jim62sch• 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anything about Raelian Movement?

It is Raelian Movement an Intelligent Design position? They adfirm that the life on Earth was enginereed by intelligent beings.

So they are literlly a form of creationist (relatively life on Earth). In this case, they have to be enlisted in the page about ID.

If not, the exclusion would need an explanation (for instance, that ID needs a theological, non-material demiurge).

(Anonymous) --80.183.134.210 08:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They're covered by the link at the top of the page to Intelligent design (disambiguation). They'd only get more coverage in this article if verifiable sources show sufficient use of the term Intelligent Design in referring to them to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV regarding undue weight. ,, dave souza, talk 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the ID POV pushers actually believe in their propaganda, then we ought to throw in little green aliens being a part of ID. In fact, let's throw in Zeus, Thor, and Starfleet's Genesis Device. That's how absurd this "theory" is. If they want to deny that they have anything to with G_d, I then say throw in everything including the kitchen sink!Orangemarlin 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I must admit to being partial to Odin. •Jim62sch• 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, for NPOV and undue weight purposes, we can throw in Odin. Thank you for the suggestion. Orangemarlin 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Mange takk!  ;) •Jim62sch• 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR archived

Please read the instructions at WP:FAR, and re-approach FAR if issues aren't resolved by May 23. I've removed Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answers In Genesis

The comment about DI being virtually unknown outside America has gone off into other issues, so let me try again. Here in Australia, if you asked me who to go to for material on Intelligent Design, I'd say Answers in Geneis - guys like Jonathan Sarfati and Ken Ham. Is there some reason - apart from the fact that they're perhaps not as well known in America - that they're not considered 'leading proponents' of ID? From my perspective here, I'd hear at least as much if not more about them than Michael Behe and so on. This is why I was suggesting that if you want to say DI has the leading proponents, it should be the leading proponents in America, not leading proponents full stop. NigelCunningham 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AiG and Ham are explicitly creationist, and from memory I think you'll find them commenting on ID as a rival, not something they're leading. There's a group promoting ID in Britain which was suggested as non-DI leaders, but on investigation it was found that what they were doing was sending out to schools information packs and DVDs made by the DI. There are sources in the article for the statement, and we can't start saying it's untrue unless we've a reliable source explicitly describing people not associated with the DI as leaders of ID. .. dave souza, talk 06:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
We also need to bear in mind that proponent as used in this article has two concurrent definitions, with the first being the primary: 1. a person who makes a proposal or proposition, and 2. a person who espouses or supports a cause, etc. Thus the definers of ID, the "theory" (I use that term very loosely), the strategy, the volksaufklärung, etc., are truly leading proponents while mere jumpers-on-the-bandwagon are not. •Jim62sch• 13:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Atheists: Learn from the new wiki

Here is the way wiki was intended. Not all the spins on "undue weight" that the infidels.org atheists have done here, but this is how to write a neutral article on pseudoscience and still uphold the undue weight principle (as it was meant to be) http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Its biased articles like this wikipedia entry strictly controlled by a small band of atheists who are on a dogmatic mission that caused the founder of wiki to create citizendium. Citizendium is proof of the terrible flaws on this site.

I am very happy with the stunning neutrality of this article: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_design It is amazing how much better something can be when it is actually written NPOV, rather than a bogus claim to NPOV with massive spin. You could learn alot from reading citizendium articles. Note how the ID article there opens. It simply states the ID claim, mentions the scientific communitie's objections, and presents a neutral, unbiased article. You can't do that, can you my atheist friends? It is so hard, far beyond your capability.

I am also very happy that agenda-driven atheists like those here have no control over citizendium. Its a great work over there, and one day will supplant this chaos at wiki. So you hawks here who hover over your precious little "intelligent design" article which has the #1 google spot, you have your day now, yes, but it won't last. Real NPOV cannot be stopped. You cannot suppress NPOV, the internet is too large for that, in the end, you will fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 20:10, May 4, 2007

I am sorely tempted to feed this troll, but I am all out of troll food. Can't this comment be deleted? Orangemarlin 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the author is deviating from the official party line here. Wikipedia is a place where a diversity of views may be found. So to prove it, we should block him and remove the post before someone might read it. 70.105.16.153 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this Larry Sanger doing some advertising? ;) Joke, joke, just don't feed this troll. .. dave souza, talk 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I forgot to mention that the Atheist Society is meeting over at Darwin Hall this evening. Dave you were in charge of the sacrifice of a vestal virgin. Please don't forget. Orangemarlin 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The natural objection is of course that citizendium treats intelligent design as much like academic nonsense as the wikipedia article does. Objections about the nature of NPOV should probably be brought up in Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view rather than here. The rest of you guys, assume good faith, and treat this person's post as ignorance and not intentional trolling. i kan reed 06:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
We've been doing this long enough to know when someone is trolling. When someone starts the sentence by describing editors as a "small band of atheists", you can probably move right away to assuming bad faith. This is a troll. Orangemarlin 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup. I'll be back in a bit to archive the useless yet uninteresting post by the anon. •Jim62sch• 13:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, maybe this little diversion should just continue as before. Among other things, it gives an opportunity for our fellow participants overseas to get an idea what the socio-political atmosphere is really like in the U.S. these days. Shall we call it "more than occasionally putrid, with a thin veneer of civility and religiosity"? I particularly appreciated the "agenda-driven atheists" comment above, This, of course, is the sort of thing that happens when political forces co-opt the language of faith. It's something our friends in the UK have been through before, and they may not fully understand that significant and influential segments of the populace in the US do not equally well grasp the importance of making certain the king doesn't also get to serve as the director of religious education, and of making sure that the director of religious education doesn't also get to serve as the director of science education. So far, this separation of duties has managed to remain somewhat intact, though as can be seen, it's not without vigorous controversy. ... Kenosis 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While I don't appreciate the language, I did appreciate the pointer. As a proponent of creationism/ID, I don't have any problems with that article. I think it clearly describes what ID and the objections to it without going overboard in either direction. What, if anything, do others find problematic with it? If we can agree it's a good article, perhaps it gives us a better idea of what to work towards.NigelCunningham 23:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Citizendium article is grappling with this issue of how to state the issues too, as evidenced on the talk page for it's article on intelligent design. Thus far they have opted to avoid stating verifed facts that might be subject to criticism, and have not been anywhere near as thorough as the WP article. My own point is mainly that the debate in the US, perhaps unlike that in Australia and the UK, has been quite vocal, politically charged, and not infrequently quite negative or even vicious in tone, and that this kind of manifestation of the controversy is reflective of certain aspects of the contemporary socio-political climate in the US, with which many persons overseas may not be as familiar as persons living in the US. ... Kenosis 23:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but I don't think it's an acceptable excuse for Wikipedia article itself adopting a quite negative or vicious tone. The Citizendium article is much better precisely (IMHO) because it avoids those problems.NigelCunningham 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The Citizendium article is great. but if you compare the length of the two articles you7d notice that the wikipedia wiki contains far more information (and far more wikilinks, w00t). With a longer article, comes a longer (and more complex) lead.--ZayZayEM 01:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Difference in length are fine by me. I'm more concerned with the difference in tone. NigelCunningham 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed one of Kenosis' key points: "Thus far they have opted to avoid stating verifed facts that might be subject to criticism". •Jim62sch• 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw absolutely zero difference in tone. All I noticed was citizendium was a lot less specific, which could be an accusation of weasel words, but probably more comes down to that they don't have an article entitled Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. As I can see from the tone/direction of the citizendium article, if it had the resources (i.e. wikilinks) that wikipedia have it would be practically identical.--ZayZayEM 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Any objections to going through mediation on this? Adam Cuerden talk 11:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on what? A bit more specificity would be nice, as well as reasons why you think "this" should be mediated. •Jim62sch• 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Adam, I contend that if you put the version of the lead from April 2, 2007 (give or take a few days), it would be the one most acceptable to the widest range of editors. Two, yes only two, editors have pushed back on that lead. The original lead was direct, verified, well-written, and provided evidence of the duplicitous nature of ID. Orangemarlin 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
'Duplicitous'? Yeah, that's gotta be neutral, since it's generally agreed that those who disagree don't count, are insignificant, and must not be given any voice here. 70.105.16.153 18:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to accept that a version that uses DI propoganda as the lead sentence's definition is the only appropriate version - presuming you mean the version you've said you prefer. As well, there are parts of that lead that were very poorly written, and which progress was made upon, such as the second paragraph. I'm... actually rather worried by a "no changes are ever acceptable" statement: It... well, it's what cost Evolution its FA. certainly, we shouldn't be changing it outright all the time, but I do think that there are genuine problems in the old lead, and just denying they exist is no way to get a lead acceptable to all.
I think that if we can agree on a trusted mediator, and be bound by his or her decision after they hear the arguments, it would work better. Someone with good writing skill and a commitment to fairness. Adam Cuerden talk 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey wait a second. It's a well verified fact that intelligent design is a response to the US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard, implemented by the DI affiliates, Charles Thaxton, Phillip E. Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Bruce Chapman, Michael Behe, William Dembski, along with others who played less visible roles. Substitute "intelligent design" for creation science so a creation-based model can be taught to biology students. What are we supposed to do, pretend this is not the case and substitute our own definition of ID, one that is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute? Why, so the article doesn't get criticized? I predict it will continue to get criticized if it follows such a route, but in such a case it will get criticized for avoiding the issue it purports to report to the reader, which is the topic of "intelligent design", words which were not adequately significant to even merit an article on Wikipedia prior to the engineering of the intelligent design movement and the wedge strategy by the Discovery Institute affiliates. ... Kenosis 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Kenosis, you seem a bit prone to misunderstand me. I meant, not that it mentioned the DI, but that uses a direct quote from DI propoganda, and does not identify this as such. Orangemarlin is very fond of this version, but I cannot feel it's appropriate. Adam Cuerden talk 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with taking that next step. I think we've made some great progress thus far and should be down to just a few variations that could be worked out. I think the largest challenge for us has been the first sentence. I would not support the intro suggested by Orange above (that states ID is God as fact). I think we all know that it is not just two editors that have objected to that statement but that two editors have stuck it out to debate it. ID is the most intensely debated and aggressive topic that I've ever participated in - it's like a war zone on this talk. However, I think we've made some progress with compromises that addresses most of the issues. With regard to the first sentence - it just a matter of agreement on the best definition and if it should be a quote. I think we've agreed on the second sentence, which addressed my issue with the first sentence. If we've got the strengh, one more round - with assistance from a outside mediator should do it. Arbitration would be our final step but I think we should be able to agree before that. Morphh (talk) 19:51, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
it's not even two of us "sticking it out" to debate it. there was Gnixon (who said he movin' on) and Tomandlu (who founded the "just-the-facts" party and named the "nail-the-coffin-shut" party). then there were objectors like User:Philip J. Rayment and other's who were accused of being DI. dunno if he is still around. i think it was Gnixon who itemized about a dozen different objectors to the purported neutrality of the article. r b-j 03:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
FWIW User:Philip J. Rayment has not edited here for over a month, and seems to be very active in his new position as a sysop on Conservapedia --Michael Johnson 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
By my understanding, this is not the purpose of mediation. Not too long ago, after a period of stability, along with a thorough WP peer review in the context of a featured-article candidacy culminating in granting of "Featured-article" status, and the (apparently temporary) departure of many of the longer-term editors familiar with the details of this topic, a number of complaints were rendered that WP:Consensus is not permanent and can always be revisited. What, may I ask, do the advocates of mediation propose to tell such editors in the future? That "I'm sorry, this article is now closed, as all disputes have been properly mediated???" ... Kenosis 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The purpose is to get a version that is acceptable to all, and thus allow us to unlock the article without another edit war. Future changes should, of course, be judged on their merits, but we should be able to draw a line in the sand and say that simple reverts back to versions from before this time are right out. Adam Cuerden talk 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The main reason there are edit wars in this article is that the topic is inherently controversial and agenda driven (specifically to teach a creation-based model to biology students as an alternative to evolution, a set of teleological arguments cast as science and attempting to redefine science to include theology-- of course it's controversial) . Are you asserting that you will not unlock the article until you have decided that controversy over the language has ceased? You just proposed language above that has virtually no consensus, in order to replace language that has already achieved consensus previously, language which is the least contested thus far among the various proposed alternatives put to a "vote" earlier on. Surely you are not expecting that controversy will cease after a limited set of editors agree to stop arguing over it on the talk page-- or are you? What gives here? ... Kenosis 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> It seemed to me that the version Kenosis developed with some refinements at #Proposal 08:54 2 May was looking promising. The #Third paragraph ideas looked useful, but need more work. Bit tired now myself, but fairly soon it would be worthwhile showing these and other proposed or preferred versions in a new section for discussion. The idea of line by line voting helped with coordinating comment on some earlier versions, hope we're near the stage of having complete intros or at least alternative paragraphs ready for discussion. ... dave souza, talk 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, did you actually read my reply a bit above? Because you seem highly prone to misunderstanding me completely. Adam Cuerden talk 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Adam, yes, I do see the response above. I also see a set of proposed possibilities for a rewrite of the lead at the beginning of Talk:Intelligent design#Lead that appears to not necessarily represent what came out of the "vote" that occurred on this page earlier, all of which is much too much to describe in full detail at the moment. And I also see a proposal in this talk section that the issues be brought before a mediator, presumably so the substantive issues might be resolved.

Speaking for myself only, I have no objection to the proposal for the first sentence to read: "Intelligent design is the claim that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe." But I do not see a great deal of agreement for this proposal, yet, as a replacement for the longstanding first sentence. If such agreement can be gained by discussing how and why it might be an improvement over the longstanding language quoting the DI website, I would support it. But that's not what I see as having happened thus far. And I fail to see how mediation would resolve this and the other points of contention about the article lead.

Moreover, I think the most significant issue at the moment, given the vastly increased international participation in English WP of late, is the failure to mention early in the article the circumstances that make ID primarily a US-based issue (the Supreme Court decision, constitutional separation of powers, first published use of "intelligent design" as the name of a topic in 1989 in Of Pandas and People, etc). This is a significant issue that Dave Souza and I have both brought up recently, discussion of which is preliminary at this point, especially since the article is now locked. (And I believe r-b-j tried an edit mentioning the Edwards case, though in the very first sentence of the article, which was quickly reverted and made little or no headway among participants.) Most of the rest of this has mostly been picking nits about the syntax and other minutiae, with the present exception of Adam's proposal to rewrite the first sentence with a different definition of ID than has been used in the article for over the last year. This proposed rewrite of the first sentence is not a minor issue, and where the recent "vote" left off there plainly was a slight preference among those who participated to use the longstanding first sentence, which read: Intelligent design is the proposition 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." This wasn't even included in the presented options in the section above, but appears to have dropped off the screen completely in your (Adam's) summary of what's available for consideration at this stage. Moreover, I'm not even sure the vote was sound enough to be called a consensus process. But again, the version which did show noticeable agreement among all but three participants in that vote was a verbatim rendering or close variant of the longstanding language of the first sentence, and you (Adam) didn't even mention it among what are put forward above as the present options.

Also, as Dave Souza just pointed out, in the interim I had proposed an additional modification of this first sentence, specifically: Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, 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." As Dave also pointed out, this appeared to be making some headway and deserves further discussion as to why or why not use the concise statement "claimed to be a scientific theory" in the very first sentence.

But my main point at the moment is that these and other issues are not the kind of issues that would ordinarily be the purpose of mediation to attempt to resolve. ... Kenosis 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad phrasing, and, in that context, the quotation is probably alright. However, I can't understand this insistance on using an acknowledged POV phrasing from the DI themselves as the definition of ID, without mentioning its source in anything but a footnote. It's... very frustrating to attempts to improve the article to have people insisting on a phrasing with no other reason given than "It's the phrasing we've always had. It is inviolate." If someone could give one good reason for keeping that phrasing, maybe I wouldn't be so frustrated by it turning up like a bad penny all the time. What do people see in it?! Adam Cuerden talk 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As I see it - (a) All definitions that are not essentially the same as the DI version (such as "ID is an argument for the existence of God", "ID is an attack on evolution", etc) are unacceptable to the pro-ID editors. (b) Our choice is therefore either to keep it verbatim, with the quotes, which (at least) emphasises that it's not _our_ definition, or to attempt to paraphrase it, which would still be the same "DI propaganda" expressed in different words. And I don't think that there's been a successful paraphrase proposed in the past couple of weeks. Tevildo 02:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Adam, the DI defined ID, the strategy, the propaganda, etc. Their definition is therefore, the only game in town.
Now I'll ask you these questions: why must we go through this nonsense every few months, and what is so difficult to comprehend regarding the definition of ID? •Jim62sch• 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim, it's not Adam's fault. The POV pushers tried to make this change, and Adam is trying to find a compromise. I don't believe there is a compromise, ID is what it is. Lots of verification for it. Orangemarlin 17:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I can lend a helping hand maybe? --Cyde Weys 17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OM, yes, I suppose you may be correct, and I suppose Adam may be just as frustrated as I. •Jim62sch• 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I object. There's nothing to mediate: The article is an FA, is accurate and is properly sourced as it. It has been for a very, very long time. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to argument for the existance of God. I object to using the DI definition without saying it's a DI definition. I also think the sentence on the leading proponents is badly written, as it mixes a statement about a specific subset with the general views in such a way to obscure the difference. Adam Cuerden talk 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
So you proceed to unlock the article and by your hand save it from itself? Your edits have not been an improvement. •Jim62sch• 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)