Talk:Intelligent design/Archive44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

1 "Claim"
2 Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals
3 Intelligent Design FAQ?
4 List of peer-reviewed scientific journals
5 The judge wrote theory.
6 Consensus
7 Identity of the designer
8 What's the explanation for all the criticism again?
9 Time for WP:DE?
10 Archiving
11 NPOV and other issues
12 Consensus References
13 Userfied
14 Self-contradictory polls
15 This just in...did you see this article about how biased we are?
- 15.1 Breaking news?
- 15.2 Waste of time even talking about it
16 Jargon
17 Introduction / definition section
18 recommended reading
19 Time to deal with the disruption
20 Scrolling reflist
21 Readability
22 Explore evolution
23 Identifying the source of trolls
24 Article on the origin of ID
25 sentence 3
26 Image nominated for deletion
27 New book
28 Fair use review

"Claim"

The word "claim" is listed as one of the WP:Words to avoid. I don't think you can start the article with it. What is wrong with the word "concept". That is what ID seems to be, a philosophical concept that, as the article says, goes back to Plato. Steve Dufour 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA appears to only seek the avoidance of "claim" as a verb, not as a noun. Additionally, it is only a "part of the Manual of Style", not a hard and fast rule. The problem with "concept" is that it gives no indication of how controversial and controverted ID is, thus white-washing it. ID is not a well-formed or legitimate "concept", it is a baseless and frequently-equivocated "claim". Hrafn42 17:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case it probably should have a shorter article. :-) Steve Dufour 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

concept- 1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.

2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan

2 easily fits. --Xiahou 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So you tell me to see the talk page, which I do. I read it. I look up both words in a dictionary. Wiki has a rule that you interpert for one usage of it. Also you feel the word should show controversy (aka pov). I want to add a word that is netural that doesn't show pro or con just says its an idea, aka a concept. Taking no sides. Your opinion of ID doesn't belong on wiki. Its your POV. My opinion doesn't belong on wiki its pov. But the word Concept using the definitions provided are netural not saying its a fact or not just an idea. So tell me again how my netural addition would be wrong for wiki and npov? --Xiahou 02:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ID lacks the consistency or coherence to be considered a concept. You might also like to read WP:UNDUE. ID is a claim made for purely political ends. End of story. ornis (t) 02:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

you must have the wrong book for it to be the end of story. I got a dictionary and it says what I said above. Its an IDEA. a simple controvery tag and the netural text would take care of this. You as the other editor are adding your 2 cents on your belief of the topic. I am discussing word usage not my feelings on the topic. Big difference. Right away you show your bias of the topic how can your view been seen as anything but NPOV? I am trying to change a word for wanting it to show controversy to netural. NPOV. and with wiki thats the end of story (cheesy but its what you did). --Xiahou 02:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So... you say ID is an "IDEA" but you want to describe it as a "concept" - and you accuse others of having a POV. Hmmm. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that the lead has described ID as a claim for at least two years now, in which time the article has undergone massive revision, expansion, copyediting, discussion and two FA reviews, both passed. Clearly the consensus is that ID is a claim. ornis (t) 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

read the definitons [[1]] what are we arguing about I don't want pov. the editor who changed it admits he wants the word to show controversy. Idea is netural. click the or here
1. any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
2. a thought, conception, or notion: That is an excellent idea.
3. an impression: He gave me a general idea of how he plans to run the department.
4. an opinion, view, or belief: His ideas on raising children are certainly strange.
5. a plan of action; an intention: the idea of becoming an engineer.
6. a groundless supposition; fantasy.
7. Philosophy. a. a concept developed by the mind.
b. a conception of what is desirable or ought to be; ideal.
c. (initial capital letter) Platonism. Also called form. an archetype or pattern of which the individual objects in any natural class are imperfect copies and from which they derive their being.
d. Kantianism. idea of pure reason.

8. Music. a theme, phrase, or figure.
9. Obsolete. a. a likeness.
b. a mental image.
6 covers those who don't and 7 covers the middle pro con ground.

on the issue of concenus for claim. That line of logic doesn't click. By saying that you could apply that at any time to any part at your will to keep it as is. So far including myself we have 2 editors who have changed it from claim and the topic here is less than 24hr old. As the wikipedia page on concensus says it can change. Here iam trying to add a netural word rather than one that by an editors own statment is to push for controversy while in the same statement saying they don't believe it. While I am trying to make the article start out neutral and let the reader make their opinion which is what the NPOV page says even reading your undue weight part supports that. --Xiahou 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So now you (ConfuciusOrnis) revert again without discussion then place a 3rr on my talk page (which I gladly added to yours, don't quite know the point of shooting your own foot there) I am here suggesting someting neutral even compromises of other words that have a npov tone to let the reader decide and you just up and undo it without more discussion or any compromise towards concensus all the while touting your personal feelings on the issue which have no relevancy on the article, nor should they. Notice not once i have said this, how I feel about the article personally. I am trying to follow wiki rules and procedures. I've discussed this shown other choices and been bluntly rv'd with no explination. Please follow your standards and wiki rules and give me the same courtesy.--Xiahou 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am here to agree with ornis. The word claim is perfectly appropriate in this article, in this context, and as near as I can tell, the consensus states that it stays.--Filll 03:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Xiahou, you seem to be implying that it is somehow a violation of wiki guidelines or principles to portray ID as controversial. Yet the name of one of the DI's major campaigns is "teach the controversy". This is a controversial topic. When controversy exists around a subject, it is accurate and neutral to describe that in the article. It would be more misleading to portray ID as something non-controversial, or even a topic which has long-standing academic respect. That is why the editors with experience of this article react so unfavorably to suggestions that ID is "a philosophical concept that... goes back to Plato". Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When they say "teach the controversy", I believe they mean controversies about the Theory of Evolution. "[I]ntelligent design theorists, by and large, do not support the mandating of intelligent design in public schools." Have you read, The Myths Surrounding Intelligent Design at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3275 ??? --Yqbd 05:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Teach the Controversy" .... dave souza, talk 09:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A while ago I suggested: "Intelligent design is the speculation that 'certain features of the universe...'" Your initial reaction might be that "speculation" sounds biased, but think about it for a moment. What exactly makes ID more than a speculation? Unless you can present evidence which would push ID past the speculation stage, which by the way would shake the foundation of modern biology (it could happen in principle), then I suggest that we call a spade a spade. Xerxesnine 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's more like calling a spade an ostrich. A speculation is by definition subject to change should evidence to the contrary arise. ID like all other forms of creationism, takes the existence of a creator as an article of faith and is most definitely not subject to change. It's a claim, a political tactic, nothing more. ornis (t) 12:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood my meaning. To me, "speculation" connotes less authority than "claim". But to you the reverse is true? I also don't see your point about changing/unchanging definitions as particularly relevant. We just use the given definition of ID and say that's a speculation. Xerxesnine 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with authority. A speculation is a guess made in the absence of sufficient evidence to form a hypothesis. This doesn't apply here because there's ample evidence, it just contradicts ID... and yet ID is still held to be true as an article of faith... but they've shorn it of overt religion to make it look sciencey, so what you are left with is a couple of vague claims, about complexity and design. ornis (t) 13:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I only said "authority" in the context of the connotation of the words "claim" and "speculation". I could have used other words, like "powerful" or "strong" or whatever. You appear to be arguing against a point that I'm not making. I'll ask again, Do you believe the word "speculation" sounds stronger, or more powerful, or more assertive (or more "authoritative") than the word "claim"? I think "claim" sounds stronger, which is the reason I suggested using "speculation" instead. Xerxesnine 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ornis, but in the given context, "speculation" would appear less neutral. A speculation is something that is made in absence of data, but the claims or conjectures ID is making are made in spite of the evidence. Reinis^talk 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it's inaccurate, that's all. Arguments about how "strong", "powerful", "forceful" or "well-adapted to survive in a sub-arctic environment" either term is, are frankly irrelevant. ornis (t) 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Thanks for clarifying. Xerxesnine 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> I don't think any of the alternatives suggested above reflect the 'pushiness' of ID. It is not "thrown up for discussion" like a speculation, it is not "submitted to testing" like a hypothesis, it is not "refined" like a concept. It is shoved brutally forward like a bulldozer with little or no regard for honesty, accuracy or consistency. Therefore it needs a noun that reflects that 'pushiness' -- 'claim', 'contention' or 'assertion' would seem best, but 'proposition' might also be acceptable. Hrafn42 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just brainstorming (c/o m-w.com) --- credo, credence, creed, doctrine, gospel, ideology, philosophy, belief, conviction, tenet, theology, axiom, precept, principle, hope, insistence, opinion, notion, sentiment, view, faith, perception, attitude, assumption, presumption, presupposition, concept, conception, idea, thought, position, stand, surmise, suggestion, outlook, perspective, point of view, slant, standpoint, viewpoint. Xerxesnine 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the words "proposition" and "assertion" were discussed at several points before in this context; "concept" had been used in the first sentence for at least a year until earlier in 2007, I think. So what we ended up with is "claim". Some people obviously thought words like "concept" and "proposition" are too nondescript in light of, for instance, the legal manipulations involved of ID and how it flew in the face of virtually the entire scientific and science education communities and a federal court decision where the judge essentially said "ohh, pllleeease!, this ain't science, it's religion!", and felt compelled to note the deceptions he encountered from the ID camp in the trial (though Behe spoke truthfully). I personally don't happen to agree that a word like 'claim' is necessary, and think any of the above would work in its place, 'contention', 'assertion' , 'proposition', even 'concept' or 'premise' and probably a couple others that Xerxesnine pointed out immediately above. But, having said that, 'claim' is OK too, IMO. It can be interpreted neutrally, and also can be interpreted as implying something more forceful than a mere 'proposition', 'concept' or 'premise'. In this regard 'claim' has more in common with 'contention' and 'assertion'. ... Kenosis 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> This version was the outcome of a lot of discussion and work, and received a significant degree of approval. However, the discussion was reopened again, and after an immense amount of argument which can be found in the archives for the months after that point, the term "claim" was reintroduced as part of a re-write and expansion of the lead. The earlier version is cited from s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 24 of 139 "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God", "Concept" had difficulties because the "concept" of a designer applies to all forms of theistic and deistic religion, including theistic evolution which has no problems with evolutionary science. Page 28 of 139 notes that "ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition", but the consensus seemed to be that this was not as good a word as "claim". .... dave souza, talk 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the use of the weasel word 'claim' also. I propose that the first sentence contains a little more reality by saying:

Intelligent design is a form of creationism that has been obfuscated by the notion 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."

Pasado 05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Denied. Reinis^talk 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Very accurate, but it has NPOV problems.

Also, "claim" as a noun is not a weasel word; as a verb, on the other hand, it can be. •Jim62sch• 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok...restore the consensus noun 'claim'....take out NPOV issue word (which I assume is 'obfuscated') and we have:

Intelligent design is a form of creationism modified by the claim 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."

We have many reliable, verifiable cites for the 'Intelligent design is a form of creationism' statement. The big quote is the DI's own words, so that part is their definition. Pasado 17:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that DI and ID are mere attempts at injecting creationism into public schools, social debate etc., but this article does strike me as biased. I'm biased against ID, so I imagine that if I'm struck by its bias, the writer's antagonism, however unwittingly, probably is apparent to others. I doubt I could write an unbiased, thorough characterization of ID, so I can't help but wonder: who should, and who can? Proponents of ID are probably irritated that their ideas are often attacked, and are thus likely to write an equally biased article. Given the veneration, deserved or not, that Wikipedia has engendered, an article should be available on ID, but it, beyond most other articles, must be presented without ideology lurking in its verbiage. Who can possibly write such a sterile article?˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldhenk (talk • contribs) 08:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Further, how could such a sterile article comply with policies, specifically NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" as linked in the "Please read before starting" box at the top of this talk page? .. dave souza, talk 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals

See Talk:Intelligent_design/Yqbd's_peer-review_arguments for text. •Jim62sch• 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design FAQ?

Does anyone think that a summary of previously raised issues similar to Talk:Evolution/FAQ might be useful here, to avoid rehashing old debates? ornis (t) 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice thought but I don't believe it would work. There's already a whole list of links to archive contents, and if people won't click on those, I don't think they would click on FAQ links. I guess I fail the AGF test :-( but that's how I see it. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 04:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I was suggesting was basically just a summary of those indexed discussions, signed off on by the major contributors. While I agree with you that most won't read them first I think it's useful when someone turns up and wants to exhume the foetid remains of a long dead horse and give it a kicking, to be able to say in effect, "This has already been discussed, consensus was reached, the summary of that is here: talk:Intelligent Design/FAQ#Is ID Science?". ornis (t) 04:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already said I liked the idea, e.g.: "Please listen to the following options, as our menu has changed. Para español, marque dos. If your question is "why isn't intelligent design a scientific theory?, press 3", etc., etc. Unfortunately I was notified that WP doesn't do this sort of thing. I should note that a modified form of FAQ-links is already included at the top of this page. Geez, the basics are already included in the article lead. Maybe how about an RSVP FAQ?, like "have you read the article yet?" and if so, "how far have you read?" and "did you check any of the sources?", etc. FAQs? For what? All the responses are already in the lead section of the article, IMO. Always open to new possibilities though. ... Kenosis 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree. Three things were done on evolution that helped. First, the evolution FAQ; I wrote the first version. Second, a well-indexed and easy to use record of past discussions. Third, a baby daughter article, such as Introduction to evolution; I helped with that baby article. Also, removing the misunderstandings and controvery sections from evolution helped, but that option is not available here. Now, evolution really is not been near as unstable as it was 8 months ago. Maybe some combination of these would help this article. It is worth a try.--Filll 04:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put together a draft FAQ from material taken from the talk page, the article and elsewhere. I think if nothing else it will save editors from answering the same questions over and over again, and clearly states when and why, disruptive posts will be archived, userfied or deleted. Thoughts? ornis (t) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good ornis. I do however think that the 'Is ID really creationism?' section could do with further strengthening, to counter the more bone-headed ID-partisans. It may be worth while also including the following quote from Jones from the decision, where he directly equates ID to creationism: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." It might also be worth while to strengthen the point that proponents believe that the designer is God with Haught's point (quoted in the 'Identity of the designer' section below) that "anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God". Hrafn42 06:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll look into that, it is just a rough draft after all. Do you think there are any sections missing? I see the archived discussions cove things like: is it a theory, is it falsifiable, isn't no more debatable than evolution, but to me they pretty much boil down to: is it science? ornis (t) 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>One that immediately comes to mind is the recent "ID is a claim"/"what to call ID"/WP:WTA discussion. This is bound to come up again, I suspect, but we may need to wait until it's been archived (unless you can track down previous discussion on this topic). More can be added when we think of them, or (more likely) when they raise their ugly head again. Hrafn42 06:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I did actually consider the claim thing, but figured since there wasn't such clear and obvious consensus, (given recent discussion ) that I'd leave it out, though a note about use of terms "theory" and "hypothesis" may be in order. ornis (t) 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

New stuff in User talk:ConfuciousOrnis/FAQ is good. I would however suggest copying from the editing-window, so as to get the embedded links/wikifications within the 'DI not a RS' piece. Hrafn42 09:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of peer-reviewed scientific journals

See Talk:Intelligent_design/Yqbd's_peer-review_arguments for text.--Yqbd 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The judge wrote theory.

Please do not feed the troll

As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory."^[1]

The judge wrote theory. Are there objections to using the word theory now? --Yqbd 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The judge also wrote: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Hrafn42 03:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Then ID is at least a theory, but not a scientific theory according to the judge. --Yqbd 03:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But if it is not a scientific theory, then it must be merely a theory in "the “colloquial or popular understanding of the term [‘theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable observer ... only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’”" To avoid this confusion, we only use "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word in this article. ID, as you have admitted, is not a scientific theory, so it will not be called a "theory" (see the notes at the start of this talk page & WP:WTA#Theory). This is, I believe, all that needs to be said on this issue. Hrafn42 03:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"not a scientific theory according to the judge" --Yqbd 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

... and also according to the scientific community, and the science-education community, and the mainstream press, at least in the US. In the UK, Australia, the Netherlands, most just laughed, and "alternative placements" were quickly found for the advocates in each of those three sovereign nations. Turkey remains to be seen. ... Kenosis 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, Hrafn42's quote, "ID, as you have admitted, is not a scientific theory", should be "ID, as the judge wrote, is not a scientific theory". --Yqbd 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

::::So, if the judge says it is a theory then that's a good argument for Yqbd asserting it's a theory, but then when other editors say it is not a scientific theory, they are wrong because the judge ... agrees with them? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) This is pointless. User:Yqbd has shown no sign of wanting to discuss improvements to the article, nor of anything other than debating a particular Discovery Institute talking point. That is not the purpose of this Talk page. Further, the debate is being carried out in an argumentative style which is disrupting and provoking other editors. Finally, responses to certain criticisms and challenges are very reminiscient of User:ProtoCat, who was banned as a sock-puppet of VacuousPoet, who in turn was a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo. All in all I don't think talking to this user will achieve anything positive. Sorry to have had two AGF failures in two days, guys, and I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 04:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you go about fact checking "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals"? --Yqbd 05:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:RS. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 06:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Would it be a reasonable statement of the consensus of editors of this article that attempts to re-open issues on which a consensus has already been achieved that lack support from either:

new evidence from a reliable source; or
a relevant policy change,

...will generally be regarded as disruptive editing and may be summarily moved to a subpage or deleted?
If so, I think a statement to this effect in the notes at the start of this talkpage would be a good idea.Hrafn42 05:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - we have to cut the newbies some slack. An awful lot of people charge in here with bold proposals, edits, or arguments, and still turn out to be surprisingly reasonable when called on it. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest a modification of this statement that would exclude 'legitimate newbies' from being affected but would still allow reasonably prompt diversion of newbie trolls? The reason I'm suggesting that we need such a statement is because we're doing something like this anyway (perfectly legitimately), so it would be a good idea to have it codified (and thus avoiding any appearance of arbitrariness and/or capriciousness). Hrafn42 05:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments. I'm concerned that the wording at present leaves no room, for example, for the principle that "consensus can change". It's also a bit, well, growly. I will think on it. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 06:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on the flip-side we would want to avoid trolls asking "has the consensus changed yet?" every five minutes. Hrafn42 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Identity of the designer

A mysterious designer yesterday.

The paragraph just above the heading "Origins of the term" states:

"Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation — it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god.[34][22][35] Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case."

The above statement contains a popular misconception about the identity of the designer. ID leaders have indeed named the designer.

The article's reference #34 above is to Dembski's 1999 Touchstone article in which he says that "intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." When Dembski said that, he was identifying, indeed defining, the designer as not only God but Jesus Christ, to which "Logos" refers in the Gospel of John, as Barbara Forrest points out on pp. 3-4 of her paper http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf.

See also the article's reference #142 at pp. 39-40 of "Is It Science Yet? Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution," at http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf. Note here also that Phillip Johnson also defines ID as requiring God when he defines it as "theistic realism."

So it is clear that it is more than "a personal view of many proponents" that the designer is the Christian God. Pasado 05:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be more accurate to say that certain ID advocates have made a point of avoiding to describe the designer, when such avoiding is (how to put it?) politically convenient. --FOo 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

FAQ: What is the Identity of the Designer? --Yqbd 05:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85).
...
Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)).

-- Dover Decision Hrafn42 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the explanation for all the criticism again?

Please do not feed the troll

What were the reasons for this article having the amount of criticism it has? --Yqbd 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the note entitled "Please read before starting" at the top of this page. Hrafn42 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So you don't see any NPOV problems with the article? --Yqbd 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Hrafn42 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been said over and over again; NPOV doesn't mean that shouldn't be criticizing pseudoscientific ideas like ID. The current view of the scientific community is that ID is pseudoscience, so it's the POV taken by this article. So no, there's no NPOV problems. If, one day, the ID movement produces several articles supporting their view in serious peer-reviewed journals, then we'll have to change the article. But for now they are more interested in convincing the public (in other words people with little understanding of science), so I doupt a major revision of the article will be needed. -PhDP ^(talk) 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To correct Ph comment slightly, the POV of the article is not that ID is pseudoscience, but rather that that view, which is the scientific consensus, is given appropriate weight. JoshuaZ 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for WP:DE?

I see that that a particular editor is ignoring past discussions and the consensus that resulted from each by flogging a dead horse and edit warring, and that it's become disruptive. Having been blocked once already, he shows no sign of letting up. If this continues, we follow the steps set out at WP:DE and seek a topic ban. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. There is only so much that we should put up with. And since it seems to continue, in a disruptive fashion, and the editor in question seems to be unwilling to behave in a noncontentious and nonabrasive fashion, then steps probably need to be taken. To do otherwise is to encourage this kind of behavior, and the page will quickly be engulfed in nonsense and destroyed. This is particularly true given the stated objectives of the DI, and reported efforts at recruiting trolls and POV warriors to attack this article at IDEA clubs etc.--Filll 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would likewise support this. The editor in question has been given ample opportunity to either make a substantive contribution to the discussion, or at very least confine their disruption to a subpage -- they appear interested in doing neither. Hrafn42 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it's three blocks in three days, by different admins, each time due to actions on this article or its talk page. However, we cannot ban a user by consensus. Perhaps a user RFC is the next step. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You can completely block a use by consensus, though. Given a single-purpose account like this, there likely wouldn't be a difference. If you want to request this, perhaps make a post at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Time to archive. FeloniousMonk 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Ec5618 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and other issues

I was surprised when I tuned into the article because it was so one sided. Really, assuming that someone has never heard of intelligent design before and they go to Google and type the term in and take the Wikipedia link they expect to be told exactly what Intelligent design is and who its major proponents are. Instead you get a full page of various quotes in order to prove that it's not scientific. Okay, we get it; the majority of scientists don't accept it. But can't you readjust the order of the article so that the more interesting portions are at or near the top? 190.43.195.158 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes this article seems very biased. Now a judge said it was a theory but here they are saying that a theory is not a concept (an idea; often used specifically of philosophical ideas.) And they have said that ID is a philosophical idea so it IS a concept. Seem like they are pushing their agenda here. BarretofWeldon 00:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When one goes to google and types in "intelligent design" one finds 8 articles that attack intelligent design, one article that is pro-intelligent design, and this one, which has both pro and anti-pieces. And the criticism pieces are quite prominent because it purports to be science, and in science it is viewed as nonsense. To maintain WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, the article is written the way it is. Also, WP is the result of consensus of hundreds of individual editors. What you see is what you get.--Filll 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the order of this article. The lead starts out by describing it, and the first two section also serve to describe its claims. Only after that is the criticism section. I really fail to see where you find a problem with the order. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem may be that different readers find different things interesting. It isn't possible to lay out the article so that everyone who reads it can find what they want at the top. Our only hope is to (a) provide a well-laid out contents section to allow people to get to the section/s they want to, and (b) try to provide a well-laid out article, as described by Infophile, ideally using the same sequence of topics that other articles use. To be fair, the "quotes saying it's unscientific" do follow on from the introductory paragraph saying that ID's proponents claim it to be a scientific theory and intend to fundamentally change the principles behind science. After reading that, one can hardly be surprised if wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight indicate that we give prominence to the consensus views of worldwide scientific organisations on the subject. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus References

Looking for archive for "hard-won consensus verion", "modified to avoid".

It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.^[2]^[3]

03:45, 9 August 2007 SheffieldSteel (Talk | contribs) (132,740 bytes) (Undid revision 150112439 by Yqbd (talk) restored hard-won consensus verion, please discuss before changing) (undo)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yqbd (talk • contribs)

I'd suggest you start looking at the link entitled "First archive of 2007" and surely it will be somewhere between there and the archive entitled "April - early May 2007, including work on lead." I know, it's a lot of pages - that's what "hard-won" means. Happy hunting! Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Userfied

Anti-evolution screed moved to User talk:Myles325a. ornis (t) 05:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-contradictory polls

Where a single poll presents levels of support for directly mutually-exclusive positions that exceeds 100% (which has happened with a few cited polls in the recent past), I would suggest that either the percentage for both these positions be presented, or (preferably) neither. Presenting just the percentage for one side violates WP:NPOV, as it creates the (logical but incorrect) presumption that the support for the mutually-exclusive position is, at most, 100% minus the first sides' percentage. Given that the support levels add to greater than 100%, this gives the suggestion that the poll is in some way unreliable, at least on that particular issue (hence my preference for the "neither" option). Hrafn42 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess as to what happened is that the designers of the poll allowed people to choose more than one option, and didn't realize that the options were mutually exclusive. The people reading this also didn't realize this and some chose contradictory options. Just a guess though, we'd have to look for more data on each individual poll. If we can't find more data, we should probably not use that particular poll. If we find out that more than one response was allowed, it might be appropriate to note this. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The polls that I've seen with this problem are Harris and (at the Creation Museum article]) Gallup. The problem appears to be that the poll asks about Creation and Evolution in separate Yes/No/Don't Know (or "Definitely true", "Probably true", etc) questions, and gets inconsistent answers to the two questions. Hrafn42 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A common trick that the DI and its associated organizations plays is to lump theistic evolution in with other forms of creationism and intelligent design in polls when it suits them, to inflate the numbers. I found this out when I was looking at polls that had been performed of Physicians and Surgeons when I was writing the article Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism. The polling organization produced a press release titled "Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design" (HCD Research press release, May 23, 2005) and the DI described it as "New Darwin Dissent List for the 60% of U.S. Doctors Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution: List Involves No Commitment to the Theory of Intelligent Design" (Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, May 4, 2006). So how did they do it? Just by playing with the statistics and lumping categories together, just as is done here. Pure cheating and dishonesty.--Filll 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that the dishonesty that Filll mentions occurs, but the Harris & Gallop polls illustrate a different problem -- we have people (at least 10% of the survey) that are agreeing with both of these statements:

"Yes, apes and man do have a common ancestry."
"Human beings were created directly by God."

When people give such blatantly contradictory responses to surveys, it's impossible to work out what they think about such issues. Hrafn42 14:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A poorly designed poll, obviously.--Filll 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So is someone going to add the problems of the 2005 Harris poll like the flaws of Zogby polls in the Polls section?

Not unless we have a source for the problems no. Nil Einne 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Hrafn42 says there is direct evidence according to the post.

The 64% is unreliable because it is directly contradicted by the 46%. The 10% is not directly contradicted, so we have no direct evidence that it is unreliable. Incidentally, the problem is primarily with the people polled agreeing with contradictory viewpoints, rather than with the poll itself. The poll is only at fault to the extent that (with more careful and searching questions) it could have resolved these contradictions. Hrafn42 07:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you agree with Hrafn42, then we should add the problems of the 2005 Harris poll like the flaws of Zogby polls in the Polls section. If you don't agree with Hrafn42, then Hrafn42's reason for not adding the 64% in the Polls section is not acceptable. --Yqbd 03:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that I never stated that the entire poll was unreliable, merely the statistics that expressed directly contradictory opinions whose total exceeded 100%. I am quite happy if wording, narrowly restricted to this point, is included in the Polls section. Hrafn42 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

By narrowly restricted to this point, do you mean pointing out the problem with question "WHERE HUMANS COME FROM" "Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be?" --Yqbd 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not -- I expressed what point I was making, perfectly clearly, in my above comment. I have no interest in discussing the matter further with someone who seems focused purely on nit-picking and twisting others' statements and not on substantive discussion. Hrafn42 04:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you want to add narrowly restricted to this point? --Yqbd 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that there is partial overlap between the 64% and 10% and that part of the 64% that believe "Human beings were created directly by God" also believes "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them."? If you do, then the 10% is also affected. --Yqbd 06:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"I have no interest in discussing the matter further with someone who seems focused purely on nit-picking and twisting others' statements and not on substantive discussion." Hrafn42 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid question. Don't ignore it, but if you don't want to answer then I'll just give the conclusion. There is partial overlap between the 64% and 10% and part of the 64% that believe "Human beings were created directly by God" also believes "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." Therefore, the 10% is also affected and should be removed from the Polls section or the 64% should be added to the Polls section. --Yqbd 08:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd, you've been advised already that your interpretation that some of the 64% might support ID is unacceptable original research by yourself, and goes against the interpretation presented by the source. The fact that ID proponents claim creationist support while denying being creationist is an inherent contradiction in ID, and it's not our place to second-guess how the poll should have been constructed to deal with that or how it should be interpreted. .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This just in...did you see this article about how biased we are?

Take a look at[2]--Filll 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dog bites man, news a six. Casey Luskin has long competed for the title of most pathetic excuse for an ID-advocate ever. Why the Disco Institute keeps him on staff, I don't know -- a random essay generator could create more convincing propaganda. Maybe they thought his IDEA activities ruined him for any job in the real world, so they had to toss him this bone. Hrafn42 13:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." (Colbert '06) They've been doing this a lot, actually, and this is one of the tamer examples. Michael Egnor once actually compared me to Stalin when I removed an unsourced statement from the Reverse Engineering article. In this case, many of the complaints have been addressed on this talk page ad infinitum, and I wonder if some of the current trolls are taking complaints directly from that article (or its sources). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that some of these trolls either work for the DI, or are members of IDEA, or have been recruited by one or both of these.--Filll 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC)It's like "teach the controversy" in miniature. If you can't convince anyone that ID is even close to science, you send a sock here to kick, scream, edit war and troll till they get indef blocked, then churn out articles exposing the bias of wikipedia, run as it is by a bunch of hell-bound evolutionists, bent on destroying ID at all costs. ornis (t) 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll -- the trouble is that there's so many potential troll recruiting sites (e.g. blogs, religious right groups, etc, etc) that tracking down the origin of trolls (unless they're dumb enough to give the game away) is virtually impossible. Hrafn42 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, Egnor is in Wikipedia? Reinis^talk 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope -- not yet. Hrafn42 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll -- why did you wikify my mention of Casey's name? Do you actually think that this bottom-feeding brain-dead nobody deserves his own article? If we gave him one, his competitors for the title, Davescot & Sal Cordova, would be livid. ;) Hrafn42 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I'm going to dewikify Egnor. I'll leave it up to you for Casey. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say all the trolls here are from the DI; plenty of people believe in creationism or are convinced by ID, and of those, a few are going to be nuts about it on their own. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You caught me. The reason I wikified Casey is that I wanted to know if he had an article and that was an easy way to do it. If he had had one, I was going to go there and do some choice edits :) --Filll 13:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why the Gods of Wikipedia invented the 'Show preview' button -- to allow you to test wikifications without leaving embarrassing traces. But even these Gods aren't capricious enough to allow an article on that idiot. :D Hrafn42 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, sometimes you can be so idiotic you get an article simply due to that fact. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gene is idiotic on a far more grandiose scale than Casey, whose greatest ambition appears to be boot-licker to the Disco boys. Hrafn42 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A reminder that this page is for improving the article, not bashing people with whom one disagrees. Also please note that responding to Luskin's criticisms by insulting the man on this page will simply make his criticisms look more justified. JoshuaZ 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad article. It tries to be fair and balanced in its presentation of what various parties are saying. I recommend that other editors give it a read through, and think about if there are improvements we can make to present this article more fairly and neutrally. Constructive criticism is always worth a careful evaluation. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why I posted it. I disagree that this article is biased, but I understand his frustration. On the other hand, we cannot give in either. So...--Filll 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the Christian Post piece mentions a source from Paul Kurtz, but I wasn't able to find any such in the article. Does anyone know what Luksin's talking about? JoshuaZ 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news?

This just in... an article dated May. 09 2007?? We're falling behind here, with all these trolly distractions. There's still no mention on this article of The Edge of Evolution which recently attracted some interesting comments,[3][4] and we don't seem to have covered Explore Evolution which has been around for ages as Explore Evolution, oops not that one, this one which was mentioned as a forthcoming attraction in March[5] and is now getting reviews. I've been meaning to tackle these points, still a bit bogged down elsewhere so others may wish to get these on the go... dave souza, talk 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. We just are not able to keep up and keep all this family of articles in reasonable shape, add new material and new articles. Many of the daughter articles to this one are in sad shape. I have been rewriting many of the articles on petitions and now am working on rewriting Level of support for evolution. Creation museum is not in great shape. Carl Wieland is a mess. And so on...let's pull up our socks and stop basking in the glory of this defended FA. Fighting trolls is not that productive, to be honest.--Filll 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A short paragraph on Explore Evolution (book) appears in my article Bernard d'Abrera. d'Abrera's company, Hill House Publishing company is apparently the publishing company for Explore Evolution.--Filll 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Explore Evolution isn't for sale on Amazon, or any of the other major online booksellers, so I can't find an ISBN for it. The DI may be avoiding mainstream publicity for it (promoting it purely through friendly outlets like Biola University), to avoid its use getting noticed by First Amendment activists. Hrafn42 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The only mention of Explore Evolution from the mainstream media is this brief mention:[6]

As evolutionary science accelerates, however, antievolutionists are pushing back -- and exploiting the questions that recent discoveries have raised. A new high-school textbook from the Discovery Institute, "Explore Evolution," claims to teach students critical thinking but instead uses pseudoscience to attack Darwin's theories. The National Center for Science Education, which tracks trends in schools, has compiled a frightening list of bills and local proposals intended to open the door for creationist teaching in science education. In a survey published in Science magazine last year, 39 percent of American adults flat-out rejected the concept of evolution.

One thing we'll have to consider in both the case of The Edge of Evolution & Explore Evolution is where they fit into the article. The article does not presently have a section specifically on ID books, neither book appears to advance any named ID argument (IC, etc). Hrafn42 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, we will probably have to produce an article just focusing on Books on intelligent design. There are quite a few of them, and quite a few more than we have not covered yet, like "By Design or by Chance?" by ARN associate Denyse O'Leary [7]. Reading a bit of her blog convinces me she is completely biased and does not have a clue about what science is. --Filll 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Denyse O'Leary doesn't have one blog, she has dozens (including a co-authorship of Uncommon Descent). And it's unsurprising that she knows next to nothing about science, her main 'exposure' to it was covering the science beat for a minor Canadian religious rag. She's a religious journo who pretends (rather ineptly) to have half a clue about science. Hrafn42 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing we would need is a rough hierarchy of ID books, from seminal ones (which typically have their own extensive articles already) e.g.: Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, Of Pandas and People, through intermediate ones (which would typically have a stub article) to ones so minor that few have heard of them (By Design or by Chance? would probably fit into this category). Hrafn42 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a List of works on intelligent design -- Guettarda appears to be its main maintainer. Hrafn42

Excellent. I added the three books we mentioned here to the list.--Filll 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For information, there's a red link at Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#The campaigns: "the most recent centered around the new intelligent design textbook, website and slogan "Explore Evolution". " It seems to be the replacement for Pandas, with the innovation that instead of calling creationist arguments ID, it now "seeks to put as many old-time antievolution arguments into the science curriculum as possible, without explicitly mentioning their preferred alternative. This, they hope, will make their text the basis of widespread lawsuit-free K-12 instruction."[8] Exploring Evolution | Who is This For? gives a glimpse of their hopes that teachers and parents will take to it, particularly in states that have required or encouraged teachers (1) to help students "to critically analyze" key aspects of evolutionary theory or (2) to teach both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories such as neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory... The other one, The Edge of Evolution, is Behe's black box mark 2, and merits a brief mention at the end of the IC section, if only for introducing the exciting news that The Designer has directly produced malaria and AIDS. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We need more neutral sources about EE before we can write much about it. JoshuaZ 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably true. I did contact both the DI and the publisher for information about the book, and they were quite worried that I might be contributing to a review of the book and where it might appear. I didn't tell them of course. I don't need to get into a pissing contest with these guys. Sooner or later the book will be available and we will be able to access professional reviews in WP:V sources.--Filll 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a start on an Explore Evolution Companion. Notice the Quotations section; this is aiming to get complete coverage of all quotes deployed in the book. Over on Panda's Thumb, Paul Nelson mentioned the possibility of looking into the feasibility of perhaps starting an open discussion forum concerning EE on a Discovery Institute server; I had an open forum set up within an hour or two of that. Paul has contributed a few comments himself in that thread. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why they don't complain about Britannica and Encarta being biased too. :) Reinis^talk 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the answers are obvious (1)they cannot interact with the authors and editors on EB and Encarta and (2) there is no possibility that they could anonymously edit EB or Encarta, whereas there is at least the promise of being able to edit WP, if they can get consensus.--Filll 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just checked, The Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't flatter ID too. [9] The most critical of these seems to be Encarta, though. [10] ID there is a subhead in Evolution, and the article with the title ID simply redirects to creationism. Reinis^talk 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Waste of time even talking about it

So a highly opinionated, religiously-centered, agenda-driven publication says Wikipedia is bad because we don't allow their highly opinionated, religiously-centered agenda onto the encyclopedia? What else would you expect people like that to say? DreamGuy 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In some ways I think it is a good sign. If they are upset, we are doing a good job, frankly. Because it means they have been unable to push their narrow POV agenda on us, and are frustrated and angry about it.--Filll 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

Both the article and the talk page is filled with a lot of jargon. I don't know what DI or ID means. I guess that ID means intelligent design and DI means the disco institute (like dancing?!) What does that have to do with anything? I think the first paragraph of the article should tell us what intelligent design is without using complicated jargon like telogicalism, which I didn't understand at the time and probably still don't. I didn't go to college. I think the article should be written on a 10th grade level, which is the level appropriate for most people. 190.43.195.158 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"DI" doesn't seem to appear in the article, "teleological argument" is linked to its respective article, and it's not possible to dumb down the language and still provide good coverage with these types of subjects. Reinis^talk 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article covers numerous topics typically addressed at university level, I feel that demanding that it be written at a tenth grade reading level is unreasonable. Hrafn42 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested an elementary version of this article repeatedly, but it has not been met with a positive response. However, dear anon, since I have a pretty good idea of who you are, do not think that if there is ever an elementary version of this article, like Introduction to intelligent design that it will not be written in exactly the same tone as this one. In fact, it might be even more damaging to your pro-ID case since it will lay bear the fact that the DI is nothing but liars and dishonest cheats, and that there is NO, and I mean NO evidence whatsoever that supports ID. But it will just tell it in easy to understand language so more people can get that point, that your entire viewpoint is based on falsehoods and lying. Would you prefer that?--Filll 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt you know who I am, unless you spend a lot of time in Perú and never told me. At any rate, there's no need to get all in a huff about it. I just wanted to point out that I took the first paragraph of your article and put it into the Flesch-Kincaid Readability index and it told me that it was written on a 17th grade level. Now I'm sure you can do better than that. 190.43.195.158 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a feller I met somewhere before. Well g'ol dang!... There y'go--third-grade level. oops, lost my audio... anybody there? hello?.... hello? .... Hmm -- they must'a hung up. ... Kenosis 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC) To IP 190.43.195.158: Sorry, your IP address came up as similar in geographic location to someone who was quite disruptive not too long ago, but it now appears you are not the same person. Unfortunately, most of the jargon that drives the readability index up to college level or beyond is invented by the leading proponents of intelligent design. Words like "teleological" and such are terms that describe the type of arguments that are involved, and are needed to explain the topic. I put in the introduction and it came up as grade-level-15 with a readability index of 19. if you take out words like "teleological" and a few others that are not explicitly what the intelligent design proponents have said, the reading level only goes down to 14 and the readability index only goes up to about 21 (as compared to "legalese", which would expect a readability of something like 10). I doubt there is much that can be done here without sacrificing accuracy and completeness. Thank you for the suggestion, just the same. ... Kenosis 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's really only one way of seeing if a project like that would yield useful results -- have a crack at it and see what happens. I know I couldn't do it, but then I'm not you. :) Hrafn42 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How I often start on these sorts of articles is to use the Simple Wikipedia article as a starting place. And here it is: [11]. In fact, it is in such sad shape that I suggest it might be valuable to actually clean it up a bit, keeping in mind the Simple Wikipedia rules; it has to be written with about 1000 basic English words as a vocabulary. I might start there. Anyone who wants to help is welcome.--Filll 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a few adjustments to the text and arrived at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of 13 with a readability index of 27. The proposed text is...

Intelligent design is the claim 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 traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, which is also known as the argument from design. The argument has been modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute, all believe the designer to be God. Intelligent design's advocates say it is a scientific theory. They also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

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. This is because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association has termed it pseudoscience. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and others have concurred. Some have called it junk science.

190.43.195.158 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence definitely needs "modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer" - as this is what differentiates ID's neo-creationism from traditional creationism.
I see no reason to drop the "all" from the third sentence -- it is after all monosyllabic, and strengthens the connection between ID & the DI.
I am however not against shorter sentence length, as long as this doesn't weaken the meaning.

Hrafn42 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is going to sound wrong, but for the first time ever in these contentious articles, an anonymous editor proposes a change that makes sense. I agree with Hrafn's suggestions, but the the suggested changes sound much better. Now anonymous editor, why don't you get a real name and help on the whole project? :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It gets my vote as to the first paragraph, but not for the second proposed paragraph above. The first proposed paragraph I accept, wiith one very important exception, which is that the fourth sentence should read "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, all believe the designer to be God."
.......Anyone care to put wikilinks into a copy of the proposed first two paragraphs so we can see what it might look like after it gets wikified? ... Kenosis 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=150477158

190.43.195.158 22:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction / definition section

Sorry, I demur from the general approval of the candidate introduction. The Edwards v. Aguillard decision warned of shams, where a religious doctrine masquerades as legitimate science. At a minimum, the second paragraph needs to be expanded to include the information that in the legal sphere, the Kitzmiller v. DASD decision specifically identifies IDC as just the sort of sham that the Edwards decision warned about.

I think that the first sentence in the first paragraph is problematic; it is one statement of what IDC is chosen out of a number of mutually inconsistent statements emitted over the years by IDC advocates. Some indication of the definitional problems that even its advocates have is in order, which means that even if one is going to credulously repeat definitions by advocates, one needs a sentence construction that incorporates the concept that IDC is not agreed upon to be any one single, easily stated concept. For example,

Intelligent design is described by its advocates variously as the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"; "the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God"; and that intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory", among other things.

Passing off the single statement given in the first sentence of the first paragraph above as THE definition of intelligent design is seriously misleading right from the start.

Further, one can analyze "intelligent design" creationism in terms of the set of arguments it comprises. When this is done, as it was in the trial record of the Kitzmiller case, one finds that IDC is simply a subset of antievolution arguments previously labeled as "creation science". This concept should also be incorporated prominently in an introductory section. --Wesley R. Elsberry 10:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the direction of this change. It also integrates the lead with the rest of the article better. Pasado 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Support these ideas: ID was initially defined as "abrupt appearance of living things, birds with feathers, fish with scales" as I recall. A section setting out the definitions verbatim with comment on their meanings/implications would avoid the problem of quoting most of a favoured definition while missing out "theory" (for good reason). There was a potential suggestion for the lead sentence by a recent disruptive influence during his RfC, perhaps a better approach would be to describe ID as the assertion that a designer beyond nature has left empirical evidence accessible to science and that this can be found in the complexity or improbability of natural objects. ... dave souza, talk 10:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC) modified 11:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

While discussing the lead, the point that the Discovery Institute was formed in 1990, a year after Pandas, is a bit irrelevant as these references[12] [13] show that the DI's involvement began when Chapman met Myer in 1994. Also, Johnson only appears to have taken up ID in the mid 1990s[14] – his first mention of "intelligent design scholars" appears to be in May 1995[15], and in November 1994 the WSJ reported his dismissive comments on Pandas[16], though in December 1994 he wrote to the WSJ saying it wasn't really dishonest for them to deny being creationist. There's a lot of misunderstanding about Johnson's role before he became involved in forming the wedge / IDM strategy around 1995. My feeling is that we need to begin the overview with a brief history, not just Aguillard as at present, with the origins of the concept and term forming subsections of that, followed by a Concepts (or Arguments) section which would include Irreducible Complexity etc. and note that they've now moved on to presenting the antievolution arguments without mentioning ID, in Exploring Evolution .. dave souza, talk 11:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to deal with the disruption

As I proposed before, and found support for, it's time to follow WP:DE and seek at least a topic ban for Yqbd; his disruption shows no sign of abating despite warnings and a previous block. He's clearly reached the limit of the community's patience at this article with his endless objections that misrepresent and ignore sources and facts and edit warring.

In the meantime I suggest we userfy all the new sections with tendentious objections he's created here. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Please, list examples of your problems and what you think are disruptions. --Yqbd 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

FM, you have the patience of a monk. The time for me passed a week ago. Pasado 05:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Way past time indeed. ornis (t) 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No surpise, that. Your user page is a testament compiled by a wide range of others to your disruption, you're yet again simply choosing to ignore it. You've clearly met 3 of the 4 hallmarks of a disruptive editor:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

At this point you still a have choice: accept consensus and community input that your objections are baseless and drop them and move along, or continue to ignore it and continue on as you have. The former will allow you to continue contributing to the 1,946,095 other articles at Wikipedia; the latter likely will not. You choose. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are your examples and reasons? --Yqbd 06:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DE is the reason, and your contribution history shows all the pattern of disruption that is necessary, as does your block log [17] and your user talk page, which is where you'll find the examples have been moved to. FeloniousMonk 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong in the examples? They are valid discussions with responses relevant to the article including a response from you. --Yqbd 06:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How many other editors have already shown you through sources here and at your user talk page over the past that your objections are baseless and tendentious and that you need to read the archives and accept the consensus since you present no new evidence or sources? Six or seven by my count at least. Possibly more.

How many other editors telling you this will it take before you accept consensus and stop disrupting this article?

And how many times do you intend to revert your fruitless discussions being userfied?

Please let us know as it will help the community more easily make a decision on how best to stop your disruption. FeloniousMonk 06:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is disruptive about the examples? You're just asserting they are without support. --Yqbd 08:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've userfied the more recent and baseless objections in order to free up this talk page for more fruitful discussions that may actually lead to improving the article. Anyone who wants to continue those discussions can find them at User_talk:Yqbd#Userfied_discussions_from_Talk:Intelligent_design. FeloniousMonk 05:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with these discussions you've "userfied" and on what grounds do you move them? --Yqbd 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of the regular editors here have been expressing that your objections were disruptive because they are tendentious and ignore and misrepresent existing sources and were endless, being made, answered and then re-made again and again. Looking them over the other day and today I agreed. Moving disruptive discussions to user talk pages is supported by Wikipedia policy, guideline and convention, and one of the jobs of admins such as myself is to minimize/stop disruption. FeloniousMonk 07:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're still not specific enough. Let's go through each of the discussions and you tell me what is disruptive. It looks like you're just helping out your friends that are losing arguments. --Yqbd 07:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Community ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Yqbd FeloniousMonk 06:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

~~it seems someone at the that page felt this was best dealt with here. So can we consider him community banned from editing this page or is there some other avenue we need to explore?~~ ornis (t) 08:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that'll teach me no to spend time putting together some diffs. Yqbd was indefblocked at 09:04, 12 August 2007. ... dave souza, talk 10:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling reflist

I would suggest that this recent innovation is a bad idea. Embedded scrolling is messy at the best of times. Leave it to the main web-browser scroll-bar. Hrafn42 17:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also against it. -PhDP ^(talk) 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's messy, but just pointless, as there is nothing below that list anyway. It only adds a few pixels to the scrollbar button and makes the references harder to overview. Reinis^talk 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE explicitly forbids scrolling reflists,

"Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers."

Abecedare 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Readability

Now that the above-mentioned user has been blocked, I'd like to redirect the conversation to readability issues in the first paragraph. I thought that a group consensus had been been reached with regard to the first paragraph, at least, for improved readability, while sticking to the above-mentioned "all of whom..." phrase. However, when I attempted to implement the first paragraph it was reverted and even if the first paragraph hadn't been reverted the second paragraph was never resolved. 190.43.195.158 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

After it was reverted, I looked again more closely. I do not see that its readability is significantly improved on the whole. The proposed revision read roughly as follows:

Intelligent design is the claim 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 traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, also known as the argument from design. The argument has been modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, all believe the designer to be God. Intelligent design's advocates say it is a scientific theory. They also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

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. This is because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association has termed it pseudoscience. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and others have concurred. Some have called it junk science.

In particular, IMO, there's no need to break the present last sentence of the first paragraph into two. As to the second paragraph, there's no need to eliminate the "The" at the beginning. Also no need to say "This is because" in the second-third sentence, when one combined sentence works just fine. And there's no need to break off the last sentence. In short, IMO, it's not really an improvement-- not necessarily worse, but not an improvement either. This article just went through a Featured Article Review, and while there were a number of points of disagreement about syntax, footnoting, and other things, the readability of the lead section was not among the issues raised. My own POV is that I'd be most comfortable leaving it more-or-less as it presently is. ... Kenosis 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I favor leaving this article as our most sophisticated article on the subject, and augmenting it with an easier-to-read daughter article like Introduction to intelligent design for younger people, people with lower reading abilities or non-native English speakers. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can cater to all different needs with different articles. After all, Encyclopedia Britannica has several different product lines serving different types of readers, with different levels of sophistication, all the way from beginning English readers to postgraduate level. Wikipedia does have Simple Wikipedia, but we really do not have enough material that fills the intermediate needs between the Simple articles and the high-end regular Wikipedia articles. Some can be done with simpler LEADs, but on some articles, like this one, concensus is that even the LEAD be written at a pretty sophisticated level. --Filll 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think 190.43.195.158's problem is not that their changes are being reverted (there is no record of this), but that the article is semi-protected, meaning that they won't be able to edit it without first having registered, and being registered for five days. Hrafn42 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposed revision was implemented here , and reverted here . ... Kenosis 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On an article like this, with so many editors involved and so much controversy, things have to be talked out very fully before a change is attempted. And anyone who insists on being an anon is immediately suspect here in any case. --Filll 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh! It was submitted under a different nick, no wonder I couldn't find it. I don't like splitting off "...modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer." into a new sentence -- it makes the whole thing sound rather staccato, reducing rather than improving readability. Hrafn42 17:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My complaint was that the article wasn't designed to be readable by the average person who tuned in. Most people who hear about Intelligent Design are probably made aware of it by its proponents or due to a controversy in the news. From there they may do a search on Google and decide to visit the Wikipedia page for more information. They probably want to know what Intelligent Design is and who its main proponents are. I suggest elimination of the word teleological or, alternatively, a definition in the text of what the word means. Others complained that the word teleological couldn't be eliminated, that I was a troll, that they knew who I was, and that I could forget about the article being rewritten. I personally thought it violated the No Personal Attacks policy, but I refrained from saying anything because I'm new here.

For the record, I also object to the word "unequivocal" as being unnecessarily complex, besides which it doesn't add anything. I recommend (in this order) A. nothing B. clear or c. unambiguous. I also object to the phrase "consensus in the scientific community" and I suggest replacing it with "scientific consensus". Perhaps the second paragraph could instead read: (The) Clear scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not science.... 190.43.195.158 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your complaint. But the answer might not be to try to change this article, which is the product of an arduous consensus building process over years by many people. The answer might be to write a new article that is aimed at the target audience you are referring to. --Filll 18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This version which I rather like began with "Intelligent design is an [[Teleological argument|argument for the existence of a God]," reflecting the source more closely than the technical description of it as the Teleological argument, and making it more accessible to most readers. Other possible changes can also be reviewed. By the way, it would help if 190.43.195.158 could please log in with a user name, as well as providing better privacy. .. dave souza, talk 20:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I also personally favored that version. However, these arguments over wording went on for months and months, if not years. And sometimes, you have to concede that your favorite version is going to lose. And that is what happened here. --Filll 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Explore evolution

This book is getting a pretty heavy sales pitch. Here is what I found on the DI website [18]:

“Explore Evolution brings to the classroom data and debates that already are raised regularly by scientists in their science journals,” emphasized science education policy analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D. “Exposure to these real-world scientific debates will make the study of evolution more interesting to students, and it will train them to be better scientists by encouraging them to actually practice the kind of critical thinking and analysis that forms the heart of science.”

Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary school and college levels.

The textbook looks at five areas of biology that are typically viewed as confirming the modern theory of evolution: fossil succession, anatomical homology, embryology, natural selection, and natural selection and mutation. For each area of study, Explore Evolution explains the evidence and arguments used to support Darwin’s theory and then examines the evidence and arguments that lead some scientists to question the adequacy of Darwinian explanations. Each chapter concludes with a section called Further Debate that explores the current state of the discussion.

It sounds good enough that I would want to read it. Unfortunately, I suspect I already know the quality of material within.--Filll 22:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, information's starting to trickle out.[19] .... dave souza, talk 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite old, though. Reinis^talk 07:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything better?--Filll 12:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, didn't notice the date: #Breaking news? above gives some newer sources, particularly in relation to the August Biola University’s “Science Teachers Symposium” entitled “Teaching Biological Origins.” There's a pretty good overview in Barbara Forrest's Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals., so that's a reliable source that could form the basis of an article, filled out with details such as the list of who it's aimed at. Will aim to focus on my current project and get onto this in a few days. .. dave souza, talk 12:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute seeks to cloak ID and introduce ID into school curricula indirectly though their Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plans, and justify doing so by trotting out irony-laden and thought-terminating slogans such as "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" and "Teach the Controversy". Now the Discovery Institute accomplishes both in one stroke: "Explore Evolution" is both a thought-terminating cliche and a textbook. We already have it mentioned at Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Perhaps it merits its own article? Odd nature 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, anyone notice in "Explore Evolution" that the DI uses a bait-and-switch between ID and evolution, simply calling the former a subset or compatiable with the latter? Dovetails with their history of misleading and confusing lables for evolution such as "naturalistic evolution", "biological evolution", and "Darwinism". Worth noting if it gets its own article. Odd nature 18:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd, a single-sentence sideswipe at Explore Evolution in the Boston Globe ("A new high-school textbook from the Discovery Institute, 'Explore Evolution,' claims to teach students critical thinking but instead uses pseudoscience to attack Darwin's theories."[20]) led to a lengthy letter to the editor from the DI's Stephen C. Meyer.[21] It would appear that they are nervous about getting bad press for the book from the mainstream media. Hrafn42 10:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

People can inspect an early draft of an article about Explore Evolution on Wikipedia. It is very hard to get ahold of the ISBN number for the book and I called the DI itself to get it. They were extremely nervous about why I wanted it and wondered if I was going to be writing a review of the book and where it would appear.--Filll 12:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Quotations" looks into its creationist tendency to misuse quotations, and Meyer's letter is an example. He argues that:

we describe the main evolutionary mechanism much as Lehrman herself does as "natural selection acting on random mutations."...... Perhaps she is unaware that skepticism about the creative power of natural selection and random mutation is common in peer-reviewed scientific literature and in the scientific community. No less an authority than the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences published a recent paper stating: "Natural selection based solely on mutation is probably not an adequate mechanism for evolving complexity."
"Explore Evolution" not only tells students about such skepticism, but offers the evidential basis for it......

While she does say "The theory turns on the idea of random variation -- mutations in our genome -- that can enable a population to adjust collectively to the environment in which it finds itself.", she goes on describe continuing research and new insights – "While geneticists until recently thought that random mutations in the genes drove adaptation, they are now cracking windows onto processes outside of the DNA that can change gene function for generations." Could that be what the NAS paper discussed? Can Meyer read and understand a whole article? ... dave souza, talk 16:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the source of trolls

Per earlier discussion on identifying where trolls may be coming from, wikiscanner may prove a useful resource. Hrafn42 06:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of WP:BEANS I won't go too far into this, but, much of the biased editing that can ultimately be traced back to the DI comes from the DC/VA area, home of their PR firm and the location of a former DI staffer. FeloniousMonk 06:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I understand the DI staffer, the one in the DC/VA area that I think FM is referring to, has been suffering some fairly serious physical health problems. Intense disagreements aside, I want to wish him the best possible stable health. ... Kenosis 06:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone provides me IP ranges connected to the discovery institute or their PR firm(s), I'd be happy to do regular checkusers on them to discovery any conflict-of-interest edits they make. Their history in this area (of targetting specific criticism at Wikipedia for exposing their lies) makes me strongly suspect they're not the kind of people to voice their criticism from a distance. Raul654 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that some of the trolls and POV warriors here and on related articles are from a small group that produces sock puppet after sock puppet, or recruit meat puppets from a similar IP address. I wonder if we could be more efficient at identifying and blocking these disruptive elements earlier and easier than our current methods.--Filll 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys going after User_talk:66.47.51.78 from the NSCE? 21:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, why do we not go after your employer again? That seemed to work pretty well. Lets shut them down. After all, that was quite entertaining.--Filll 21:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Article on the origin of ID

Nick Matzke has an article up on Pandas Thumb on 'The true origin of “intelligent design”', in particular discussing the formative influence A.E. Wilder-Smith had on ID:

A.E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) was a European “creation scientist,” now deceased, sometimes described (pre-Kitzmiller) as inspiring pieces of ID. He was active from the 1960s to the mid-1980s. It is true that Wilder-Smith discusses “information”, “design”, “Design”, Paley, etc., a lot (as well as human tracks next to dinosaur tracks, Noah’s Flood, and other extremely embarassing creationist nonsense). But I have never found the actual phrase “intelligent design” in his work. However, in early 2005, I did come across this, in a 1968 work by Wilder-Smith, discussing a certain oh-so-amazingly-complex organ. For some reason the IDers don’t cite this example as a precursor:

To deny planning when studying such a system is to strain credulity more than to ask one to believe in an intelligent nipple designer, who incidentally must have understood hydraulics rather well.
(pp. 144-145 of: Wilder-Smith, A. E. (1968). Man’s origin, man’s destiny: a critical survey of the principles of evolution and Christianity. Wheaton, Ill., H. Shaw. Italics original, bold added.)

intelligent nipple designer Who want's to write this one? FeloniousMonk 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody who, to employ the vernacular, doesn't mind "making a tit" of themselves? ;) Hrafn42 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... I fear that including this material might be in violation of WP:POINT... Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

sentence 3

Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be God.[7] Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory,[8] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[9]

I would like to suggest some changes. First some questions:

what is meant with "primary"? Are they the most fierce, or the most respected?
isn't it obvious that it is a scientific theory?
is "accepting a supernatural explanation" equivalent to "redefining science"? Is it not really expending the scope of science, turning what was previously labeled "supernatural" into "ill-understood science"?

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, there are citations for the things you are disputing. So you will have to come up with counter citations in WP:V and WP:RS sources to dispute them. Next, let's consider what might be meant by primary:

major
most prominent in the media
most active
essential
basic
first in importance

(some of these from the definition of American Heritage Dictionary). Clearly these all pretty much apply.

Next, intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It does not match the criteria for a scientific theory, out of several lists that have been compiled (see demarcation problem). The vast majority of scientists do not consider it a scientific theory. The US Federal court system has ruled that it is not a scientific theory. Are not those three reasons enough? If you want more, read the article and educate yourself a bit.

Finally, science does not accept supernatural causes, for very very good reasons. Therefore, to expand the definition of science to include supernatural causes is to change the definition of science. This was well established in a US Federal court of law. If you have an argument with it, get a few million dollars together and file a few lawsuits to try to change this precedent. However, that still would not change scientific consensus, which is what really matters. And to do that, you would find yourself involved in a far bigger enterprise.

The relabelling of the supernatural as ill-understood is what the scientific enterprise does. It is not the expansion of science that is the problem, it is the nature of the expansion.--Filll 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I might also point out that what you are suggesting, and what intelligent design proponents and other creationists are suggesting, has already been tried. The Muslim world used to be the most advanced in science and technology. Then al-Ghazali published The Incoherence of the Philosophers in the late 11th century, advocating the very same positions you do; that is, to allow the supernatural into science. And guess what? The most advanced technological and scientific civilization on planet earth went into a Religious Dark Age that it has not emerged from, 1000 years later. THAT is what "intelligent design" and the Discovery Institute will lead to. Sound good to you?--Filll 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If Filll's answer is too long, consider this: wikipedia's guidelines on the lead say it should be a concise summary of the rest of the article. The most productive way to change the lead is probably to suggest alterations in the body of the text. Also, you'll find more in-depth argument and more sources there. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SheffielSteel. Filll, I've replied to you, thanks. I am in some doubt though, that the refences given actually support the claims "most prominent". Should not the article simply reflect the debate in stead of stating who's right and who's wrong? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we will leave the article exactly as it is now. We will not teach the controversy. Raul654 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Xiutwel you seem to be confused. It has been the subject of heated discussion for years, and the current wording is the consensus of many many hours of debate. It is also obvious to anyone with a knowledge of the field that the DI is the primary engine behind intelligent design. If you have a reference in a WP:V and WP:RS publication that demonstrates otherwise, then I am sure we would be interested to see it. And the article does simply reflect the debate, and does not state who is right and who is wrong. That is all. Where does it state who is right and who is wrong? --Filll 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Xiutwel, please read the footnotes and follow the sources if the footnotes are not adequate. The Discovery Institute is the sole nexus of "intelligent design". ID is not the product of independent, separately funded academic institutions or independent, separately funded individuals. Rather, the DI and its offshoots the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID constitute the trough, so to speak, to which leading ID proponents have gone for their funding (via paid "fellowships"), and through which they have networked since the early 1990s. ( See, e.g., footnote 5) ... Kenosis 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

In response to the insistence of User:Abu badali on deleting images from this article, I left a 3RR warning on that user's talk page for the present. Abu badali, a vigorous "image deletion" advocate, has today also nominated for deletion the Time Magazine "Evolution Wars" image at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_19#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg. Perhaps one or more editors may want to weigh in at the "Images for Deletion" page. The image page itself cites reasons why it meets all 10 Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, though Abu badali has chosen to use the highly subjective NFCC #8, which reads: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.

Fact is, these images substantially increase readers' understanding by giving them a sense of the particular aspect of the topic, a visual reference with a relevant caption, the combination of which adds to the understanding in a way that merely including a verbal description of the book could not do, and which the words in the image caption could not do on their own. It gives the reader a marker of some interesting aspect of the topic as well. These basic facts of how images add explanatory power to a written presentation are widely agreed in the publishing industry. The images on the book and magazine covers -- a total of four are presently used in the article -- also give readers a sense of how the book or magazine approaches the topic by showing what the authors/publishers choose to depict to represent their slant on the topic in a way that mere words cannot possibly (e.g. the panda, the monkey and man back-to-back on the cover of Darwin's Black Box, the look of the Darwin image on Phillip Johnson's book, the illustration and front-cover presentation of the Time issue). ... Kenosis 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I know that opinions are unlikely to change regarding any aspect of this article, I might as well repeat mine. :) The book covers are now OK, as we have acceptable rationales and the article contains "critical commentary" (to quote WP:NFC) on the books. The Dembski photo is unacceptable, and always will be while Dembski is alive and people have cameras. The Time cover, IMO, should go - the article is _not_ about that particular issue of Time magazine, and does not mention it. It's a good image to illustrate the controversy over ID, I don't deny that. However, it is _not_ a free-use image, and is not _necessary_ to illustrate the controversy - it therefore is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Tevildo 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The present expectation that magazine covers be used only where the topic is about the magazine issue itself was a local consensus among users that happened to be dealing with magazine covers, and was developed with vastly incomplete knowledge of US copyright law and interpretations of fair-use by courts in the US. It is not a wiki-wide policy (unlike the WP:NFCC, for example). Thus, the local consensus decides this within the limits of WP:NFCC (assuming, of course, that the image is not deleted by consensus in a specific IfD, such as the one just nominated by Abu badali here. As to Dembski's photo, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, and am still waiting to see if the author of another Dembski photo will follow through in giving it over to a free license. In conjunction with the photo of Dawkins, I must say that IMO it gives a reasonable balance towards the idealized goal of WP:NPOV. But again, given the Wikimedia Board's statement in March 2007 as to how WP might interpret NFCC #1 w.r.t. photos of living persons, I wouldn't object if someone removed the Dembski photo on that basis. ... Kenosis 19:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This, then, will be a useful test case. I would certainly _prefer_ the Time image to stay, but my current (and doubtless imperfect) understanding of Wikipedia policy is that it can't. If it survives the IfD, then (obviously) it should remain as part of the article. Tevildo 19:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Without checking out the policy/ guidelines, the important thing is that there should be specific critical discussion of the book in the article - Pandas is covered, Behe's Black Box may need more specific mention, these can be reviewed. My recollection is that commented out rationale has to be shown along with the image: one I did earlier had  with a more detailed rationale on the image page. So that's something needing done. ... dave souza, talk 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As the photographer contributing the Dembski photo, can someone please bring me up to speed on Wikipedia policies and the apparently divergent views of those concerning photographs of living persons? I was considering reaching back into my stock for photos of many people in the evolution/creationism discussion on both sides, but if that would be wasted effort, I'd like to know it before I put more time into it. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, thanks for the image. The dual GNU/CC by SA licence is fully acceptable and recommended. Only quibble: this image can now be uploaded to the Commons for use in other projects i.e. Wikipedia in other languages etc., and it's helpful to upload to the Commons in the first place to save this having to be done later. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone need the WP:NFCC and the rationales given on the image page to be placed here side by side for easier reference? There's an entire long section entitled "Controversy" and several indications of the public controversy in several other places in the article. The Time cover-image visually illustrates a public dimension of how the controversy manifested as it came to the foreground of the public discussion. In other words, it adds explanatory power to the article, and significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Viewed the other way around, its exclusion would detract from the explanatory power of the article, and thus its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In short, NFCC #8 basically comes down to the question "Does it help the article?". If it doesn't help the article, then it shouldn't be there in the first place and we don't need NFCC #8 to dictate such a decision. That is not some kind of obscure policy mandate, but rather is a decision that must be decided by consensus. ... Kenosis 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things. NFCC#8 is much stronger than "Does it help the article?" It is rather "Is it necessary for the reader's understading of the article?" Put another way, will the reader fail to understand the article (or the relevant point) if the image is omitted? The other thing is that the NFC and NFCC are only authorized as EDP's under the WF licensing policy resolution, which cannot be overcome by consensus. -- But|seriously|folks 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. It's understandable that people who are very committed to making a very high quality article can be upset at the removal of images that improve it, but Resolution:Licensing policy "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." ElinorD (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That, it would appear, is the view of the community of image deletion advocates. Fact is, NFCC #8 (quoted at the top of this section) is a highly subjective criterion that makes sliced meat with images when the seasoned image-deleters come into town on a white horse. But it only works if no one is paying attention. If an image, or for that matter, if a textual sentence doesn't significantly help the article, it shouldn't be there. NFCC #8 is not needed to make that decision, although I will admit that it serves as a convenient cause of action for advocates of "only free content". But that is not for the vocal image deletion pollice to decide. It is of necessity to be decided by consensus. Here, the issue already has been decided by consensus. If the image-deletion specialists wish to join in in reshaping the local consensus, the welcome aboard-- it's good to have you here. ... Kenosis 18:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 3 non-free book covers, I've read through the threads concerning their inclusion in the last archive, at Kenosis' suggestion, and I'm afraid I'm just not convinced that the images significantly contribute to a reader's comprehension of the topic. They certainly make the article look prettier, but I'm afraid that's not enough to meet the non-free content criteria. Could the book covers be replaced with free images of the book's authors instead? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read them as well and I support Kenosis' summary of the issue and found a number of compelling arguments there. There's an ass for every saddle I suppose. Odd nature 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the implications of WP:NFC is that a magazine cover image should be associated with some analysis in the main text. I see a conflict or at least tension between a requirement for analysis, and a prohibition on original research. Nevertheless, I can see the point. So I have made some additions to the main text underlining the obvious implications of the controversy making front cover of Time magazine. See what you think. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The text sounded too much as weasel wording. We should avoid phrases like "many writtings say..." or "the gereral public thinks...", "Many people in the USA...", etc. And you can't simply state the cover importance with "...the nature of the public debate was graphically illustrated in the cover story...", try finding some reliable source that discussed this cover image. If you can't, it means it's not that important. Per WP:NOR, we can't be the first to estabilish it's relevance. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abu. I'll try again in a more satisfactory form. The huge irony of this is that it was a major part of the defense in the Kitzmiller trial that ID is a purely scientific theory with no religious dimension. The judge ruled otherwise, much to the dismay of ID proponents. They really don't like religion being associated with ID; except in front of a friendly audience. But you are perfectly correct I should cite it better, and I acknowledge the need for improvement. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way; I think you are really reaching with objecting to someone citing a cover story in Time as a reliable source showing public prominence of the issue. But I'll this into account and avoid expressing an original argument in the page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Another quick comment. Abu is completely correct to identify my use of "Many people" as weasel wording. So let's not have an edit war over a sub-optimal paragraph. Thanks for the support, however! I'll take restoration of my text as welcoming the intent. I am also happy to take Abu badali's advice as constructive input, and to use it as an opportunity to improve my proposed addition. Some time soon I'll put up another attempt. I've been distracted with some other matters. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My concerns for that paragraph:

"Many writings of advocates for intelligent design .... " - weasel words
"..within the general public the major concern is..." - weasel words (how do we know what the major concern is?)
"...make no mention of any religious dimension to the controversy..." - Talking about an unmentioned "religious dimension" is potentially WP:POV and orginal research (you could cite some reliable sources that discussed about this trend to avoid mentioning the "religious dimension").
"Many people in the USA have a deep antipathy..." completely weasel words.
"The nature of the public debate was graphically illustrated (...) in Time magazine on 15 August, 2005" - (and the detailed description of the cover that was recently added) - Shameless attempt to justify the use of a non-free image that was present in the article. Unnecessary information.

Since you since hopeful to save the paragraph, I agree it's better not to remove it for now. But I'm tagging the section with {{weasel}} for now. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

3. They even tried to teach it in school as a scientific theory and they still promote it as it would be a scientific theory. Cited many times in many articles. 5. - Image serves this purpose much better than any text.SuperElephant 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the paragraph, and I agree with the concerns listed above. I have put in a corrected version, and it is much better as a result of this helpful criticism.

The antipathy to linkage with animals is not a "weasel word" at all, but it was unsubstantiated. It ought to be an obvious and uncontroversial statement about views commonly held in the USA; but even so a reliable source is appropriate. A suitable source was already in the references, and I have give a new footnote marker to it... the "Evolution Wars" article in Time. Weasel words like "many writings" are gone entirely, and the text is much improved as a result. I have also added citations to references already existing in the article for the careful distinctions drawn by ID proponents between religious and scientific points.

It is perfectly true that I was prompted to add this by complaints from people that the image should be mentioned in the article. I have attempted to respond to their concerns, in good faith. I believe the image provides useful real content that cannot be replaced by text. I also think the article and the image are both enhanced by some explicit mention as provided. I see nothing to be ashamed of in this. I recognize the good faith of those providing these criticisms; and would appreciate your recognition of my good faith in the matter as well. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Although Abu Badali is doing some admirable work I am sure, I do wonder about some of his objections above. That coupled with some of his past actions, does seem to verge almost on harassment or tendentious editing. Of course there are potential wording changes that might be good. However, one of the main complaints about this article is that it is too well-cited. There are too many references and too many footnotes, to many people (you object to that weasel word? look back at the FAC and the archives.

Abu Badali is giving us a perfect example of why the article has so many footnotes with his comments above, although we certainly do not need more examples. Things that are obvious and common knowledge do not need to be cited, I might remind everyone. Did he even read the article to find the "religious dimension" ? Frankly, this is one of the most blatant examples of creationist complaint that has been levelled at this article, and continues to be levelled by creationists, many of whom have been banned and blocked after very difficult periods.

Abu Badali, do you have a strong personal POV on this topic? You do not seem to be someone who is just interested in getting rid of nonfree fair use images. You seem to have another agenda here. In fact, it is almost blindingly obvious after that comment, frankly.

Whether there was a "shameless" attempt or not to cite the Time Magazine cover in an effort to more fully integrate it into the text, partly in response to your repeated and unprovoked attacks on the article, the question should not be the motivation of the edit, but how it fits in ? I think it reads better than the previous version and makes a lot of sense. You disagree? --Filll 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding "Creationist" to the list of things I have been called due to my work with non-free images. In other occasions, my "agenda" was said to include hiding info about Palestines, hiding info about Israeli, attacking images with "too much skins" (yes, partial nudity), attacking startrek images, soap opera images... the list goes on.

But if you would consider rewriting your comment above without the accusations, the conversation may go on. (If you decide to completely remove your comment, feel free to remove this reply as well). --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said you are a creationist. However, your claim that the "religious dimension" of the article needs to be made more explicit does seem somewhat suspicious. Either you did not read the article, or you are somewhat of a denialist. Which is it? Either looks very bad, frankly. And so, at this point, I believe I will let the commentary above stand. Thanks awfully, anyway.--Filll 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By accident rather than by, um, design, I've just changed a sentence to restore the religious point: the edits by Duae Quartuncie removed the weasellies, but also made the statement vaguer. I've drawn on the Time mag. article[22], "They are also careful not to bring God into the discussion (another sore point for hard-line creationists), preferring to keep primarily to the language of science....... "All we're advocating for is that if a teacher wants to bring up the scientific debate over design, they should be allowed to do that," says institute spokesman John West". Abu badali is absolutely right to make sure that use of images is above reproach – the last thing we need is an opening for legal challenge from the publishers of some of the books illustrated. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We certainly do not need a legal challenge from the publishers. However, since the publishers in this case are American, the Wikipedia is based in the USA, and the US and Europe abide by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which is less restrictive than Wikipedia policies, we would be very unlikely to suffer legal challenges or problems from our use of these images.--Filll 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think the crux of the argument is not whether the Foundation will be sued - it's about the goal of creating content under a free license, per the Foundation's March resolution. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. And that is why this needs to be fully and carefully aired. With as much input as possible. The objections need to be stated fully and honestly. And the editors of this article have to address those objections.--Filll 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

New book

Apparently Explore Evolution is aimed at the high school market, and William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, to appear, fall 2007. is aimed at the college market. It is a rewritten version of Of Pandas and People, 360 pages long.--Filll 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the next version of Pandas is titled, "The Design of Life", primary author/editor to be William Dembski. Another major contributor is said to be Jonathan Wells. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics was still scrounging for cash to get it launched, last I heard. The DI "Explore Evolution" effort is based largely upon text by Paul Nelson. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! ... Kenosis 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When I read my post again, I realized the punctuation might have given a mistaken impression. I fixed it. Hopefully it is clearer now.--Filll 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for Nelson's primary authorship (or similar) of Explore Evolution? It'd be worth inclusion in that article. Hrafn42 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The official order of authorship is alphabetical.--Filll 13:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather expect someday to be tasked with comparing the text of "Explore Evolution" with various other source texts, for example, the Meyer essays on the Cambrian explosion, Paul Nelson's dissertation, and the John Wiester essay from the 1991 JASA. That would all be original research, mind, but if that happens, it will likely be in connection with a court case, and may be referred to in transcripts or a decision. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review

I've asked for a fair use review for the non-free book covers used in this articles. You're invited to comment, but please, keep in mind that this is not a vote. i.e., Saying "I agree with User X" or simply repeating arguments is not specially helpful. And of course, familiarity with our policy on non-free content is welcome. Thanks, --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Translated:

"this is not a vote" A majority will make no difference in the outcome if the majority's views do not align with the collective opinion of the regulars at the fair use review, see xFD and WP:ATT.
"And of course, familiarity with our policy on non-free content is welcome." It is is necessary for your comments to be revelant with the non-free content policy in order to be counted. Necessary but not sufficient, see number 1.

Odd nature 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice: The "Fair-use review is at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Intelligent_design. ... Kenosis 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should at least make a show of interest or we will have no reason to complain about when they take all the images.--Filll 00:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite the borderline-misleading assertion of certain user(s) that "this is not a vote", I believe it is important to note one's preference in such a proceeding (e.g. Keep as valid fair use or, e.g., Delete as invalid fair-use, or similar) The reason it can be important is so that an admin will be clearly notified what the positions of the participants in fact are, as the process draws to a close. And, in fact, in some respects it is a vote. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions specifically asserts that a deletion proceeding is "not just a vote ", i.e., that a reasonable substantive comment should always accompany one's statement of preference for the outcome of the review. ... Kenosis 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny how one missed word changes the complexion, eh? Reading comprehension is soooo important. •Jim62sch• 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives