Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Structured debate - Version 1

The current intro seems to be a combination of competeting versions. This is a useful place from which to debate our concerns. Here is the current intro text broken down by paragraph. Comment or propose alternatives in the appropriate section below. --Rikurzhen 19:20, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rikurzhen: this is a potentially productive format for this discussion. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I've identified two sentences below that I think we can afford to cut, one in paragraph 3 ("Critics call ID...) and one in paragraph 5 (The one about Paley). OK if I go ahead and delete them from the current draft? BTfromLA 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I made a note about Paragraph 3 below. At this stage we probably need someone or a couple someones to try to incorporate some of the comments below. It maybe easiest to do that on the talk page first. --Rikurzhen 23:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 1

Intelligent design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments that claim empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. ID adherents believe that there exist instances of "irreducible complexity": fundamental biological forms that cannot have evolved from simpler forms. Therefore, they argue, it is highly probable that these building blocks of life were deliberately designed by some intelligent entity.

I think this is a solid, concise intro paragraph. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Decent. Although, not all ID adherents argue irreducible complexity. A large number of non-Christian ID advocates instead point to complexity as akin to the "Builder's" signature. Ref: Masons Therefore, Some ID adherents believe that...--ghost 03:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Are these truly advocates of ID in the sense we are talking about here, or another breed of "scientific" creationist? ID is quite specific--I've never heard of a Masonic connection, but I'm happy to be further educated. So far as I know, there are three arguments closely identified with ID: the philosophical, anti-materialist one (Johnson--that's what got the whole movement rolling, far as I can tell); irreducible complexity (Behe) and specified complexity (Dembski). "Irreducible Complexity" seems to be the one most universally cited in the ID-related literature I've seen. Are there ID adherants (in the strong sense--let's say Discovery Institute folks--) who reject irreducible complexity? BTfromLA 04:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm suggesting something different. That there is a silent majority of non-Discovery Instutute ID believers in the "soft" or philosophical sense. The Masonic connection goes back to the foundations of the Order. "...to be a Freemason, one must: ...(2) believe in a Supreme Being, or, in some jurisdictions, a Creative Principle (unless joining a jurisdiction with no religious requirement, as in the Continental tradition)..."
There's no reason why we should allow the Discovery Inst. folks to frame the debate about ID solely in their terms. Which is my major issue with the article as it stands, since it later degenerates into point/counterpoint of Discovery Inst. issues. Why can't we take a higher, multi-cultural approach?--ghost 13:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Because ID is a specific, recent, organized movement; it is directly related to, and in large part the product of the efforts of Philip Johnson and the Discovery Institute. What you call a "higher" approach seems to me a diluted one, as if an article on the Frankfurt school focused on Marxism in general, or the Bauhaus only spoke broadly about trends in modernist design. It's true that ID fits in some broader categories as well-- such as creationism or "scientific creationism"--or, as you may be suggesting, it could be discussed in terms of a historical line of thought that sees complexity or apparent design as the mark of a supreme creator. But it seems to me that this article should focus on this particular movement and the context in which it has appeared; it should describe the goals, strategies and arguments of the movement, many of which have to do with socio-political ideology, not arguments within science. (Don't get me wrong--I agree that there is currently much repetitive and digressive stuff in the article that ought to be cut, including some of the Discovery Institute parts.) BTfromLA 15:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers: the Center for Science and Culture, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington. Claimed by its proponents to expose the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Scientific naturalism, the ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution (athough ID in and of itself does not oppose evolution), and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside the standard scientific models in public school curricula.

This paragraph seems pretty good. I think it is critical to bring up the Center for Science and Culture early in the article: "ID" did not emerge from within science, it is an outgrowth of ideological movement, and that should be indicated right away. This paragraph at least begins that process. I think it may be more accurate to replace "Scientific naturalism" (which links to "Methodological naturalism") with "Naturalism," a broader philosophy that extends beyond the practice of science. ~~
The first two sentences don't read smoothly. Is the Discovery Institute ref needed at this point? It's explored ad nauseum later in the article. And the previous user has a point. Thus: "The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers. The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US."--ghost 03:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I think ghost's edit improves those sentences. BTfromLA 04:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described ID as pseudoscience. According to those organizations, the "scientific" claims of ID fail to meet the most basic requirements of science; for example, ID lacks a theoretical basis from which testable hypotheses can be derived and it offers no research program.Critics call ID an attempt to recast religious dogma as pseudoscience in an effort to force public schools to teach creationism in schools, and ID features notably as part of a campaign known as Teach the Controversy being promoted by the Discovery Institute and other creationist political action organizations to that end. While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable, violating the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that has a simpler and scientifically supported explanation not involving outside help.

I think this paragraph could use a topic sentence--an earlier version said something like "ID has found little support among scientists." This paragraph is crucial, too--introducing the fact that ID's scientific claims are rejected by the bulk of scientists as not being scientific at all. But I there's stuff in here that can stand to be cut: the whole sentence beginning "Critics call ID..." for a start. I think it needs rephrasing to minimize pov, too, making sure to assume the journalistic position of disinterestedly reporting on the varing claims and arguments, rather than making those arguments directly. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this paragraph is terribly problematic. It starts off by introducing the NAS and NCSE as ID nay-sayers; any further nay-saying in the paragraph is instantly ascribed (in the reader's mind) to these contrarian parties. Furthermore, they aren't introduced as authorities, merely "those organizations". Specific facts (e.g. ID has no research program) become mere flak. Thus framed, the rest of the paragraph dissolves into an easily-dismissed diatribe by a partisan group.
I'd like to say what's written in the second half first - it is, after all, accurate and true (if crudely written), and transposing the order will improve the impact and meaning of the first half of the paragraph. Yes? Graft 01:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Good points. I don't know the NCSE that well, but it might also help to point out that the NAS is arguably the most prestegious organization of US scientists. So a NAS opinion could be said to represent the view of eminent scientists. --Rikurzhen 04:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the order of paragraph 3. there are two main criticisms in that paragraph (ID is stealth creationism. ID is pseudoscience.) Rather than having some "pseudoscience" criticism, then go into "stealth creationism", then finish up with more "pseudoscience" criticism, I put all teh pseudoscience criticism together at the end. FuelWagon
Good Job, Fuel. Unfortunately the thread on the usage of "pseudoscience" got lost in the shuffle. Let's switch to "not scientific(with pseudoscience link)" and follow with one of the links below. Also the new Occam's Razor sentence would be less POV if it read: "ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help."--ghost 03:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
ghost, I put those two mods in. FuelWagon 15:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

While I'm at it, are we able to document the NAS using the term "pseudoscience" about ID in some official declaration, as we imply in paragraph 2? BTfromLA 16:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There's lots of good stuff in the recent Nature issue "Correspondence" section. Jerry Coyne, et al. Graft 16:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The phrases we're looking for are "mainstream scientists" or "scientific consensus". A quick Google search finds that NAS has called intelligent design "creationism". Which is universally called psuedoscience. Some useful links [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --Rikurzhen 16:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Calling ID "creationism" isn't the same as calling it "pseudoscience," and we should be really scrupulous about such details if we want a credible article. If they don't use the word "psuedoscience," we shouldn't attribute it to them. Also, who is speaking when the NAS speaks? (Is it their president, or an unsigned editorial, or a resolution passed by a committee, or what?) There is also recent article in the New Yorker by H. Allen Orr that might include some usable nuggets[6].
It looks like it varies from statement to statement: sometimes the President, and sometimes a committee. The term pseudoscience may have been dropped by the NCSE. But ... creationism/pseudoscience ... a summary of the NAS descriptions oF ID could be straightforwardly summed up as pseudoscience. They would have likely avoided the term because of philosophical problems with defining it, but it is a good summary term/link. --Rikurzhen 17:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
So the sentence could become --Rikurzhen 17:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
The mainstream opinion of scientists, represented in statements from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education, is that ID is creationism and pseudoscience.
The NCSE is definitely a partisan group dedicated to opposing Christian efforts to destroy evolution education, and is not on par with the NAS. Also, I'd be surprised if even a single member of the Academy publicly endorsed ID. Graft 18:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
It looks like neither group uses the term "pseudoscience". This term is difficult when examined philosophically, and so they seem to prefer less loaded terms like "not science". We should preserve the link even if we substitute not science. --Rikurzhen 19:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. They certainly use the words "not science" in their Science and Creationism report, and our pseudoscience article defines the term as applying to anything which calls itself science but isn't. Anyway, anything that makes it clear that the scientific community rejects, in the strongest possible terms, the idea that ID is a science, should be fine. — Asbestos | Talk 20:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

re: the sentence starting "Critics call" ... could probably be merged somewhere else; a second mention of the Discovery Institute is redundant, but Teach the Controversy should be mentioned somewhere. --Rikurzhen 23:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I really think that sentence should go. I disagree about needing"Teach the Controversy" the intro: so long as we mention that there is a movement to bring ID into school curricula, the details of that movement's agenda and it's particular strategies surely can wait for the body of the article. The rest of that sentence is a mess (nobody wants to "recast religious dogma as pseudoscience," they want to portray it as science), and all of the details in it are better presented elsewhere in the draft (including the "stealth creationism" bit in paragraph 5), though the order of presentation needs work. BTfromLA 04:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
It's actually the link to Teach the Controversy that seems important to me because there is a lot about the issue in that article. So having (at least the link) in the intro gives that otherwise obscurely named (but very relevant) article a chance of being found. --Rikurzhen 05:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 4

From the point of view of empirical science, ID is similar to the claim "we don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens must have helped." Currently, alien construction is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Science would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, which leaves space for the possibility of alien intervention if empirical evidence were found later on. This sort of argument is known as the argument by lack of imagination or the argument from ignorance, a type of logical fallacy.

I think that, as written, this paragraph violates NPOV (although the analogy is a useful one). It also seems like a bit much for the intro--surely, ID proponents would claim that their charges have been misrepresented in the anaology, and a lengthy back-and-forth of claims and counter-claims would be called for. That belongs in the body of the article, not the intro. If paragraph 3 doesn't sufficiently introduce the scientific objections to ID, perhaps a very concise addition, preferably based on a cited, verifiable source, could be added there. But I think we have to hold brevity as a value, especially in the intro. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I think that this is the paragraph the least needs to be in the intro, and is the one that turns the intro from a summary outlining different views into a full-out attack. The other paragraphs are fine, though the two above and below this could stand to be re-written (especially since the one above doesn't even make it clear that it's the entire scientific community who are against ID, not just the two organizations noted), but this paragraph departs from being introductory. If this goes, the rest is a matter of details.— Asbestos | Talk 20:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I think I understand why you would be inclined to arrive at those conclusions, but I think they are not warranted. I think this paragraph could be shortened and incorporated into paragraph 3, but I am inclined to retain the analogy (at the very least) in the intro. I don't think the analogy intrinsically violates NPOV -- note that clause "From the point of view of empirical science" clearly assigns the statement to a group. That a person of the pro-ID POV would argue against the analogy is merely a reflection of the debate that exists in the world. We cannot hide from a debate that exists in reality; the job of the encyclopedia is to put it all out there. Along those lines, I don't think that the inclusion of an analogy in the intro should be characterized as going "into a full-out attack". The article/editors should not be attacking anything: in the intro or the body. Rather, if an attack exists in the real world, then it is our job to describe it. I also don't think that merely having an analogy in the intro is unacceptable. It is not merely one argument of many, but rather an attempt to summarize one POV in terms that are easy to understand. If a informative and helpful analogy can be crafted to summarize the POV of pro-ID people, then it too should be placed in the intro. I think it's best to be as instrutive as possible -- use our most informative, easy to understand material -- in the intro space, which is all that many people will read. --Rikurzhen 22:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Empirical science says ID violates observability, repeatability, falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and is an argument from ignorance. This is their point of view. The example simply puts that point of view into a real world example. Empirical science thinks of ID exactly the same way it thinks of alien invtervention building the pyramids. So it is a fair example to represent empirical science's point of view. FuelWagon 15:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is this idea that empirical science "says" things, or that empirical science has a "point of view". Empirical science doesn't say or think anything, scientists do. I think if we can first clear up this point, we can make this less POV. — Asbestos | Talk 15:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Right. Where practical, we need to cite specific sources, for the sake of accuracy, verifyiability, and NPOV. Anybody have good, pithy quotes from Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Eugenie Scott, or some other recognizable spokesperson for science that might do the work that needs doing here? (I seem to recall Dawkins using the phrase "argument from personal incredulity" to describe the ID position--I'm still not convinced that belongs in the intro, but it might be a nice addition somewhere). While I'm at it, are we able to document the NAS using the term "pseudoscience" about ID in some official declaration, as we imply in paragraph 2? BTfromLA 16:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Curious. I would have recommended that we avoid quotations in the intro unless they go right to the point. Because both sides are so long winded, it will probably be hard to find anything from a report. Additionally, citing a "partisan," as Graft calls the NCSE above, may not be the best way to represent the views of the scientific community. It's a difficult call. --Rikurzhen 18:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
While direct quotations often make for more vivid journalism, I agree about avoiding quotations in the intro if they slow things down. But by the same token, we don't want to over-generalize, or to make unsubstantiated attributions. So, yes, it's tricky, and the call needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. Broadly, I think the intro should clearly state the basic nature of the ID claims and of the controversy that surrounds them, as concisely as possible. Nothing else. Agreeing on that minimum is easier said than done, of course. Speaking of pithy quotes, here's an exerpt from an LA Times opinion piece by Michael Shermer: Shermer's quote from Dembski ("a strictly scientific theory"), as well as part of his own response, ("ID theory is not science") might have a place in this article:
For example, leading ID scholar William Dembski wrote in his 2003 book, "The Design Revolution": "Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity.
But let's be clear: Intelligent-design theory is not science. The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including scientists who are Christians, do not use IDT when they do science because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses. --BTfromLA 22:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's instead present this as an example of the debate. Then it becomes a statement about a fact. Better still, tack it onto the end of FuelWagons' revised paragraph 3. Thus: "...ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that may have (my edit) a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help. For example: (italic)We don't know exactly how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids.(/italic) Some ID proponents argue that this lack of an explanation points to intervention by a divine or alien entity. The scientific community would simply state this lack of an explanation and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, leaving space for the possibility of intervention if empirical evidence were later found."--ghost 04:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Something like that would be fine (i.e., merging it into paragraph 3). But the pyramid analogy is actually more than just an example of Occam's razor. --Rikurzhen 05:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 5

ID arguments are cast in entirely secular terms, without appeals to religious authority nor any explicit claim about the identity of the "Intelligent Designer(s)." Thus, ID advocates distinguish ID from overtly religious creationism. Critics maintain that the attempt to cast ID as purely secular is disingenuous, since many leading ID advocates believe that the designer is the God of the Bible, and they promote ID as a form of religious apologetics. Some characterize ID as a rehash of claims that have been thoroughly refuted in the past, such as William Paley's 19th century argument for the existence of God, known as the "argument from design." Critics have thus labeled ID "stealth creationism," a veiled attempt to reintroduce religious ideas into the scientific realm and the public schools. ID advocates, in turn, accuse their critics of refusing to honestly consider evidence that threatens the scientific community's dogmatically held assumptions. Thus, the subject of Intelligent Design is deeply embedded in political controversies, with charges of bias and bad faith being made on all sides.

This paragraph has some critical material, though I think the order is garbled. It might actually make sense to merge some of first sentences with paragraph 2, since that talks about the movement and its strategies. The sentence about Paley can be cut (and included in the body text). I think the part after "Critics have thus..." is a pretty solid finish for the intro. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
stealth creationism criticism is already presented in paragraph 3, so that part is redundant. The accusation that science holds dogmatic assumptions could go into paragraph 1 or 2 (if it isn't already there), since it represents the point of view of ID supporters. FuelWagon 15:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Fuelwagon, please don't make large unilateral changes (such as cutting one of these paragraphs entirely, which you did) while this discussion is active, particularly when there is no hint of a consensus (or any support whatever) for your desired changes. BTfromLA 16:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, let me get this straight. You can make large unilateral changes by inserting an entire paragraph into the intro, with the comment that you "dont endorse" your own changes, but once you put it in there, I have to get concensus before I can change anything??? This is total crap. Paragraph 5 is REDUNDANT. It talks about "stealth creationism" (which is handled in paragraph 3) and it presents the ID pov that empirical science is "dogmatic" (which belongs in paragraph 1 or 2). I can only guess that you're fluffing the intro up in order to argue that something you don't like will have to be taken out. FuelWagon 02:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Fuelwagon: I have no hidden agenda--my preferences are stated above. I thought my motive for the edit you complain about was clear to all; hoping to bypass more frustrating reversion wars, I restored all of the sentences that any currently active editor seemed to be in favor of--including parts I think should go--so that we could most fruitfully edit the intro as a group. Rikurzhen took the step of isolating the various paragraphs for comment here, which I think was a good idea. Every editor but you seems civil and interested in jointly arriving at an improved, mutually agreeable version of the intro. We actually seem to be making progress. Why you want to subvert this process with vandalism and childish accusations is beyond me. BTfromLA 03:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
BT: I'll back Fuel on this one. What he lacks in people skills, he makes for as an editor. That's why I asked him to come to this article. There was NO request to freeze changes to the intro until you unilaterally enforced one. And you've reverted what I consider to be mostly good work, without mirroring it here. I imagine Fuel doesn't see the point in doing work twice, where you want to build concensus. You're both right. Go to your corners and let's move on to round two. *ding ding*--ghost 04:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This paragraph is redundant (and possibly contibutes to a POV tone) when viewed against the rest of the intro and the body of the article.--ghost 05:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Version 2

We have a lot of suggestions above. Here is the version that FB and ghost seem to like. --Rikurzhen 04:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add in the obvious changes from above. Comment below each paragraph. --Rikurzhen 04:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments that claim empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. Some ID adherents believe that there exist instances of "irreducible complexity": fundamental biological forms that cannot have evolved from simpler forms. Therefore, they argue, it is highly probable that these building blocks of life were deliberately designed by some intelligent entity.

"Some ID adherents" is safe, but maybe unnecessary. --Rikurzhen 04:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers. The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution (athough ID in and of itself does not oppose evolution), and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside the standard scientific models in public school curricula.

They would oppose philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, but I think they are actually arguing against methodological naturalism more directly. --Rikurzhen 04:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Critics call ID an attempt to recast religious dogma as pseudoscience in an effort to force public schools to teach creationism in schools, and ID features notably as part of a campaign known as Teach the Controversy being promoted by the Discovery Institute and other creationist political action organizations to that end. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described ID as not science. While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable, violating the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help.

the "recast religious dogma as pseudoscience" is not clear to me. --Rikurzhen 05:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, sentence 2 could read: "...have described ID as [[not science|pseudoscience]].(insert link here)"--ghost 05:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The following was suggested by 66.114.66.87:
"...the scientific requirement of falsifiability. However, ID advocates counter that intelligent design, as a general concept, is observable in nature: by observing what human "intelligent designers" have produced over the years, we can form some concept of what it means for something to be the product of an intelligent mind. This criterion, they allege, can then serve as a reasonable basis for recognizing design that is not of human origin.
From the point of view of empirical science, ID is similar to the claim "we don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens must have helped." This sort of claim is an argument from ignorance. Currently, alien construction is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Science would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, which leaves space for the possibility of alien intervention if empirical evidence were found later on. + ID is often accused of violating another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor. The criticism here is that ID, by postulating a designer, invokes an unnecessary and superfluous hypothesis to describe data that are equally well accounted for without recourse to such a hypothesis. From this point of view, ID is similar..."


From the point of view of empirical science, ID is similar to the claim "we don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens must have helped." This sort of claim is an argument from ignorance. Alien construction is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Science would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, which leaves space for the possibility of alien intervention if empirical evidence were found later on.

Moved my comments on 3, 4 & 5 here. I suggest we drop paragraph 5, as it's redundant, and blend 3 & 4 as follows:
"...ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help. For example: We don't know exactly how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. Some ID proponents argue that this lack of an explanation points to intervention by a divine or alien entity. The scientific community would simply state this lack of an explanation and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, leaving space for the possibility of intervention if empirical evidence were later found." --ghost 05:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Whatever you'd like to do is fine with me. I was just having a hard time seeing the big picture amoongst all the comments. But note my comment about the analogy. --Rikurzhen 05:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another Version of the Intro

For what it's worth... --BTfromLA 07:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is about intelligent design and the associated social movement. For the book, see Intelligent Design (book).

Intelligent design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments that claim empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. Many ID adherents believe that there exist instances of "irreducible complexity": fundamental biological forms that cannot have evolved from simpler forms. Therefore, they argue, it is highly probable that these building blocks of life were deliberately designed by some intelligent entity.

The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID proponents among its fellows or officers. Their advocates argue that ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. This movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution, and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside the standard scientific models in public school curricula.

ID has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. For example, the National Academy of Sciences, which includes more than one hundred and ninety Nobel Prize winners among its members, flatly states that ID is not science. According to science historian Michael Shermer, “The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including scientists who are Christians, do not use [Intelligent Design Theory] when they do science because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses.” Scientists contrast ID with the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, which is supported by observable and repeatable facts, such as the processes of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and speciation. Since an "Intelligent Designer" is neither observable nor testable, ID theory does not meet the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Critics also charge ID with violating the principal of Occam's Razor, another cornerstone of the scientific method, by creating a superfluous entity (the designer) to explain phenomena that may have simpler and scientifically supportable explanations.

Critics of the ID movement, including those who speak for the National Center for Science Education, have labeled ID "stealth creationism," a veiled attempt to reintroduce religious ideas into the scientific realm and the public schools. But many ID proponents insist that Intelligent Design is, as mathematician William Dembski puts it, “ a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments.” Critics counter that the attempt to cast ID as purely secular is disingenuous, since many leading ID advocates believe that the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible, and ID has been widely promoted as a form of religious apologetics. ID advocates, in turn, accuse their critics of refusing to honestly consider evidence that threatens the scientific community's dogmatically held assumptions. Thus, the subject of Intelligent Design remains deeply embedded in political controversies and charges of bias and bad faith.

We seem to be in pretty close agreement on paragraphs 1 & 2. Good, let's move on. I feel strongly that, if we're going to include quotes in the intro, they must be followed by links to the sources. I see you dropped paragraph 4 in favor of a rework of 5 (which is much better than it was). If we're going to keep it (I still feel it's redundant, but the new version is less so), let's spruce it up with Wiki links to things like creationism, secular, God of the Bible and dogma. Also, you didn't address my suggestion that the (former) paragraph 4 be reworked as an example of the debate. I believe the pyramid analogy has merit as it illustrates both approaches to a well known mystery. What are your thoughts, and where would it work best? Prior to the closing sentence?--ghost 14:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the quotes should have links--the Shermer and Dembski quotes are here [7]--another editor found the NAS "not science" claim above, I'm hoping they can provide a link to that. Adding wikilinks is fine, of course. If the pyramids must come in, they could best be grafted onto the end of paragrah 3, as you suggested. But I don't think that analogy is needed in the intro; as it stands, I think the version tips toward an anti-ID POV, because it offers (primarily in paragraph 3) a much more detailed refutation of the claims than a description of the claims. The pyramids analogy will only add to that disproportionate weighting, and it isn't even directly addressing ID. I think it's important to keep in mind the goal of this intro; it should introduce the subject of ID, which inevitably means it needs to introduce the controversies surrounding ID. This is not the same as supplying a primer of scientific reasoning. There is no problem if some relevant aspects and details are omitted--that is the nature of an intro. What we want to avoid are omissions that mislead. I don't think the above version is misleading about the nature of the scientific objections to the ID claims, do you? By the way, I think the last paragraph above summarizes the larger controversy, so I read it as a useful conclusion and bridge to the rest of the article, not as redundant. Without such a paragraph, the intro reads almost as "ID makes a bunch of claims; science has shown those claims are a bunch of crap. The end." I hope others will weigh in on that question. BTfromLA 16:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, what do you know, the aliens-build-pyramids example is gone. Why am I not surprised? Maybe, because I said BTfromLA put in paragraph 5 so he could cut out paragraph 4 later? Somehow, "I told you so", isn't quite strong enough phrase here. BT, what is your problem here? The argument that "aliens built the pyramids" fits every violation of empirical science that "god put life on earth" violates. It is a completely fair example. And it also puts all this scientific mumbo jumbo into a real world example. The only reason ID has gotten as far as it has is because it hides behind mumbo jumbo. Unless there is something about the aliens-built-pyramids argument that is SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT from "god/alien-intelligence put life on earth" from a "violation of empirical science" point of view, then its a legitimate example and deserves to stay:
Does Aliens-Built-Pyramids or God-Built-LifeOnEarth satisfy the following empirical requirements?
Repeatability? no
Observability? no
Occam's razor? no
falsifiability? no
Are both arguments from ignorance? yes
Therefore it is a completely fair example as to the empirical science violations. FuelWagon 18:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Fuelwagon, you evidently lack reading comprehension skills as well as the most basic principals of civility. At no point did I say that the analogy was unfair, only that it seemed unnecessary in the intro. Unnecessary. Think Occam's razor. BTfromLA 18:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
BT, I think the example is necessary. It puts all the scientific criticism into a real world example. Otherwise its mumbo-jumbo versus mumbo-jumbo. And ID gets traction by hiding in the mumbo jumbo. Put it into a real world example and everyone sees how un-scientific ID really is. And as an aside, if you want to claim the high road and civility, then you shouldn't lower yourself to insulting my reading comprehension skills in the same sentence. FuelWagon 20:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Fuel, I think BT's argueing that an example of any type is not appropriate in the intro. So let's invert the thought. Is the Pyramid (or any other) arguement/example more appropriate elsewhere in the article? I think not. Although I had reservations about it's initial inclusion, I can't think of a place in the body where such an example would communicate less POV than the intro. Now to tackle the question of if it's appropriate at all...--ghost 21:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah ghost, I get that was his point: no example of any kind in the intro. And I disagree. As a scientist myself, I see a vast difference between the words/vocabulary (stuff like "observability" and "repeatability" and "occam's razor"), and the reality of it all. I think it extremely important that all this mumbo jumbo be put into a real world example or the debate will appear to be nothing more than arguing vocabulary. IT IS NOT. We're not talking about the definition of science in some boring, hypothetical, university setting. We're talking about whether or not the idea that aliens helped the egyptians build the pyramids should be considered a viable scientific assertion or not. For every reason aliens/pyramids should not be considered scientific, so too should ID/life on earth. FuelWagon 21:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
BT, I reviewed one of your eariler statements as to why you felt an analogy should be dropped in favor of the 5th paragraph's point-counterpoint. Without such a paragraph, the intro reads almost as "ID makes a bunch of claims; science has shown those claims are a bunch of crap."--BTfromLA
We need to inform the reader of the controversy, without leading them down one path or the other. The reason I feel an example/analogy is best is that this allows the reader to gauge the debate vs their own worldview. Point-counterpoint is tried & true, but tends to end up as fingerpointing, with one side (usually followed by the other) raising cane about not having equal "airtime". I'm looking for an intro that's, not bullet-proof, but Teflon coated. Your rewrite of Paragraph 5 was a major improvement, but I don't think a pure point-counterpoint approach will stand the winds of Wikipedia, while remaining NPOV.--ghost 13:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BT, this is good, too. However, when I think about ID, three key phrases come to mind: "signs of intelligence" (which are) "irreducible complexity", and "information mechanisms". Only IR is explained here. Also, because ID is so easily misinterpreted, I would like to see a defining sentence that centers on these two questions: "Do we know that X was intelligently designed? And if so, how do we come to that conclusion?" This distinguishes ID from creationism, and dismisses a lot of the red herring out there. If you can work in the other two phrases and these questions (or copy/paste from "Trimmed"), your version will have my enthusiastic support. David Bergan 22:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Other minor changes you could consider: (1) Use "design theorists" instead of "ID advocates" or "ID adherents." They seem to prefer that term, so why not use it. (2) Paragraph 3, sentence 1 - the term "overwhelmingly" is dubious. When I think of overwhelming I think of > 95%. I'm pretty sure the polls of biologists hold that ID has at least a 15% following. David Bergan 22:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, David. It should be possible to slightly expand the case for ID along the lines you suggest, though do bear in mind that the goal is to keep it really concise. I have the same concerns about some of your other suggestions (like the use of "design theorists") that I noted in my response to your initial draft--please take a look there to see what I mean. And if ID has a 15+% following among profesional biologists, I'd agree that it isn't so marginal, or so "overwhelmingly" rejected. But I'd also be shocked to learn that is the case. What is your source for those statistics? (And it's no fair to count "no opinion" as "followers"). If we do have a reliable census of scientific opinion about ID, I think that would probably merit inclusion in the intro--it would certainly be more specific than "overwhelmingly rejected". Please bear with me on the revision: I'm not going to spend time revising this draft until I think there's a reasonable chance it will actually be used in the article--we've got some "Lord of the Flies"-type behavior polluting the editorial process at the moment. BTfromLA 23:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Only we don't have a conch horn. David Bergan 15:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regarding "overwhelming": I found this saying "Over 300 scientists have signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwin statement since it originated in 2001. These scholars include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia." I don't have a percentage for you... do you have a source to back up the term "overwhelming"?
I just realized that I'm picking at one word here while the whole article is in turmoil. Kinda like obsessing over weeding the garden while a tornado is hovering over the whole yard. David Bergan 15:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion is purely academic for the moment. But since you ask, I think there are plenty of sources that would lend credence to the "overwhelming." Look here, for example. The only poll of scientists about ID that I've seen is a somewhat dubious one--it was limited to college science teachers in the state of Ohio in 2002. (You can find a summary of the results at that same link.) And I'm not sure whether there were any measures taken to get a random, as opposed to self-selecting, sample of respondants. Of the group polled, "Almost all scientists (97 percent) said they did not use the intelligent design concept in their research. Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2 percent were unsure. Approximately 7 percent felt that intelligent design had some support from scientific evidence." --BTfromLA 16:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good enough for me. "Overwhelming" is justified. David Bergan 16:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pyramid Analogy doesn't fit

Based on my readings of William Dembski, I think the pyramid ditty is a false analogy and therefore an obvious straw man. Let me analyze. Intelligent Design's goal is to reach a statement such as this - The origin and diversity of life are known to be complex in such a way that it is impossible to believe that it came about by either (a) known natural laws or (b) random processes or both. Therefore, given that neither (a) nor (b) explain the existence of life, we are justified in a third explanation (c) life was intelligently designed. (see The Design Revolution pg. 34)

And the only question ID seeks to answer is whether or not life was designed or it wasn't. It pleads total agnosticism on what kind of designer(s) was behind it. "What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest). But the designer's thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design." (The Design Revolution pg. 33)

The pyramid analogy fails because it juxtaposes one intelligence (the Egyptians) against another (the aliens), rather than juxtaposing natural laws and/or random chance against intelligence. We can fix the analogy by revising that the question is whether the pyramids were intelligently designed, or were the product of sandstorms, volcanoes, meteor crashes, erosion, and floods.

The question ID is concerned with is not "Who designed the pyramids?" but "Are the pyramids designed?" The current form of the analogy is like granting that life is designed, but we're saying that it must be designed by Odin (aliens), because Zeus (the Egyptians) didn't have sufficient life-making technology.

Or use another analogy altogether.

  • ID investigates whether or not life was the product of design just like a detective investigates whether or nor a dead person was killed intentionally (by intelligence) or accidently (by natural laws and/or random processes).
  • ID's investigation is similar to one who stumbles upon a Lego castle in a desert. Was it made by humans, or was it whipped up by raw minerals and weather patterns?


David Bergan 19:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

you're hiding behind words. A Lego castle in a desert must come from an outside source. There is no other explanation. It cannot happen naturally because it is inorganic and therefore subject to entropy over time. When organic chemistry occurs to the point that it becomes "alive" and therefore overcomes natural entropy, then you can have all sorts of complex things occur. Not a Lego castle in the desert, but a lizard nest in the desert. And you're also redefining science from "finding testable, repeatable, empirical facts" to "suggesting interesting causes" or some other definition that fits the pro-ID point of view. If a man were found dead, forensic scientists would NEVER say he was struck down by some outside intelligence (alien abduction or a lightning bolt from Zeus). The aliens-built-pyramids represents the empirical science point of view of ID. Both aliens-built-pyramids and god-created-life violate every basic scientific rule. FuelWagon 20:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
What does "hiding behind words" mean? David Bergan
It means hiding behind logical falacies. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Which fallacy? Just give me the name, that's enough. I have two books on logical fallacies on my desk right now. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to articulate precisely what I read in Dembski's book. And that is that the first cell is like a Lego castle... only much more complex. We find neither information-rich structures in raw nature (think, other planets) nor the polymers that make up Lego plastic. In that way, finding a Lego castle in a desert is like finding the first cell in a desert. David Bergan
You cannot find information-rich structures in raw nature because you're looking in the subset of nature called "raw nature" that has only information-poor structures. This is circular logic and a logical fallacy. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is your logic that is circular. You are taking the case under investigation (Earth and its life) and using that as your example that raw nature produces information-rich structures. Give me an example outside of the case under investigation and show me information-rich structures that we know scientifically arose from ONLY natural laws and randomness. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're starting to really piss me off. To paraphrase you: "We find (no) information-rich structures in raw nature" NO SURPRISE THERE! You've conveniently defined "raw nature" to be anything that is not information rich. If it is information-rich, you rule it out as being "raw nature", and so if you look in the part of nature that is not information rich, you find no information rich nature. It's circular logic. You might as well say "We find no salt water in any fresh-water bodies". Nature contains information-rich stuff like DNA and cells and animals and its all natural and its all information rich. By limiting your search to "raw nature" you conveniently ignore anything that would qualify as information rich. And so it's circular logic. FuelWagon 18:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Give me an example outside of the case under investigation" You really need to read those logic books you have. Logic does not grant credence to an assertion and require anyone disprove it. If YOU assert something to be logically true, the YOU have to provide the proof. And your proof as shown above is circular, and so proves nothing. FuelWagon 18:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give me an example outside of the case under investigation and show me information-rich structures that we know scientifically arose from ONLY natural laws and randomness.--David Bergan Fractals. Go read Choas, by James Gliek (1988). 'Nuff said.--ghost 21:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that the Lego castle "must" come from an outside source? Is it just intuition, or did you come to that conclusion scientifically? David Bergan
If you do not understand Occam's Razor, go learn it. The "lego in the desert" example is a moronic strawman. No scientist would see a lego in the desert and consider that it might have been created by random events in nature. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Namecalling doesn't answer the question. How do you know with scientific certainty that it the Lego was the product of intelligence? This is precisely the question ID wants to answer. The castle could be the product of randomness... and your beloved Occam's Razor should lead you to believe that no intelligence was involved since that is an unnecessary extra factor. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My point was simply that the analogy cannot juxtapose one intelligence against another, when ID clearly juxtaposes intelligence against a process of natural law and randomness. David Bergan
You are getting wrapped up in the circumstances of the example. An example, must have different circumstances or it is no longer an example, it is the original. The point of an example is to take different circumstances and show that the same principles apply. The principle being applied here is that the aliens-built-the-pyramids idea violates every scientific principle that the intelligent-designer-created-life-on-earth idea violates. In contrast, your lego-in-the-desert attempts to have similar circumstances at the expense of showing different principles, and as an example, is therefore worthless. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your last 4 sentences, first define for me what is the difference between inside and outside intelligence. Is SETI a scientific project? They are seeking to find radio waves that were caused by intelligent E.T.s (what you would call outside intelligence). Maybe we wouldn't indict them for murder, but if SETI decoded a message from the Andromeda galaxy that said "Surrender to us all your fossil fuels or face extinction" we could certainly indict them for extortion (even if we can't make them sit in our courtroom).--David Bergan 21:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
This is pointless non-sequitor. If you want to debate the validity of SETI, do so on the SETI talk page. The idea of life on other planets has scientific basis because life on earth has scientific basis. The principle of evolution can apply to other planets. So it is scientific to look for life on other planets (whether it is a smart choice economically, is a matter of taxpayer debate). But ID is not scientific, so, once again, you've changed the principles of the argument. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Ever see Contact? How did they know that the radio signal was intelligently designed? Is there a way of distinguishing intelligent radio wave patterns from random ones? That's what ID is investigating... but most specifically in terms of recognizing patterns of design in life. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then put an example of legos-in-the-desert or "Contact" in paragraph 1 or 2 to represent the pro-ID point of view and leave the empirical science example alone. FuelWagon 18:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Bergan, I understand you straw man concern. Frankly, I had the same concern the first time I saw the Pryamid analogy. But I've since reached the conclusion that a logical comparison of some type is needed, and is most appropriate in the introduction. Perhaps you'd like to suggest a better comparitive mystery? Fuel already discounted your Lego analogy based on inorganic vs organic. Further, what of the Mars rocks that may show signs of life? If we found naturally occuring polymers in the atmosphere of a gas planet, how woul that impact your Lego example? Choose something else.
Also, I also strongly disagree with your assertion that ID discounts natural processes. The Deists make no such assertion, the Theists and Creationists do. In fact, the Deists rely on natural processes. Arguing this point would support the idea of ID as stealth creationism. Does The Design Revolution contain any analogies similar to the Pyramid analogy? Perhaps there's a middle ground of quoting a logical example which clearly shows the thought process behind each side.--ghost 21:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll take your comments in LIFO order. I can see how you might be confused. Here's what I'm trying to say. Design theorists aren't discounting natural processes, in one sense. But they are in another. Think of it this way: When Michael Dell makes a computer, he doesn't break any natural laws. He invokes no miracles. But the finished product is of such complexity that you know it was not made by "raw nature" (that is, natural laws and/or random processes alone). There was an intelligence that manipulated nature to get the desired result. Similarly, the design theorist is only interested if intelligence played a role at all in the process of life's origin (and diversification), or if it can be fully explained by known natural laws and randomness. Does that help?
Dembski gives several analogies in his books and all are helpful in different ways. I'm not sure I agree on the limitation of using only organic analogies... it makes the principle much harder to understand because humans (the only intelligence we know a lot about) haven't done a lot of designing per se of organic stuff. I mean it's easy to tell a designed clay pot from an undesigned hunk of clay because we have been doing pottery for thousands of years. We haven't designed ourselves any organic "pots". The only potential candidate I can think of would be dog or horse breeding... or those experiments where they grafted a human ear on the back of a rat. I'll give it more thought and probably log on later tonight or tomorrow. I gotta go because I have an appointment in 5 minutes. David Bergan 21:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
You said:
"the design theorist is only interested if intelligence played a role at all in the process of life's origin (and diversification), or if it can be fully explained by known natural laws and randomness."
You are once again redefining science. Science starts from not knowing anything, assuming only that the world-rules are unchanging, and figuring out what it can know/repeat/observe from there. Science is a human endeavor and will always have areas in which it does not fully know everything, and therefore cannot explain something. That something can or cannot be fully explained by science does not mean you now have permission to redefine science. It means that science does not know. But science remains firmly in the principles of observability, repeatability, falsifiability, etc. FuelWagon 22:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Aw, crap. I just realized I'm getting pulled off-topic here. Sorry. This section is whether or not the pyramid example fits. I say it fits because the pyramid example and ID both violate the same scientific principles. FuelWagon 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The pyramid example fits from the point of view of scientists (this fact doesn't seem to be in debate). It may or may not be acceptable to ID advocates; but that they would dislike it is all but expected because they are ID advocates to begin with. Whether the analogy would convince people to disfavor ID is completely irrelevant, because convincing people of things is not the role of Wikipedia. --Rikurzhen 00:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, if we're going to look for an alternative analogy, should we consider one that *shudders* teaches the controversy? Better here than it being jammed down my kid's throat at school. But I agree with Rikurzhen that an analogy should inform rather than lead. That's why I want to see if there's one we can quote. However, if we can't find an alternative, I move that we try to balance the Pyramid analogy. In this case, something is better than nothing.--ghost 12:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
re: "inform rather than lead". I think we're going down the subjective road that leads right into an intractable quaqmire. The point was to put the scientific POV about ID into a real world example. Since any POV statement will be biased, one could always argue that it is "leading". I'm not sure how you can present any example that gives the best case for the scientific point of view that wouldn't be considered biased/leading by someone who is pro-ID. Both sides should present their strongest arguments from THEIR point of view. FuelWagon 14:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with FW. Our job is to present both sides as well as they would present themselves, but we have no mandate to hobble one POV in "fairness" to the other (a tempting misinterpretation of NPOV). The reason I agree is that while our job is to "inform rather than lead", if we happen to lead while doing our best job at informing, that's not a bad thing (nor a good thing) just something that may happen. For example: if we were editing an article about white supremacy, and we did a really good job of presenting both sides, it would be okay if at the end of the article the white supremacy movement did not sound appleaing to most readers -- because it is indeed not appealing to most people. Thus, if we do our job ID should sound unappealing from the POV of science, because it is indeed unappealing to scientists. --Rikurzhen 14:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ah. And my point was that we can avoid the quagmire by evenly presenting both POVs in the analogy. I think my attempt in Version 2was about 80% of the way there. How's this:
For example: We don't know exactly how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. The ID community might argue that this lack of any plausable scientific explanation points to the possibility of intervention by a divine or alien entity. When considered alongside other unexplanable phenomenon, outside intervention becomes the most likely answer. The scientific community would simply state the lack of an explanation, list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, leaving space for the possibility of intervention if empirical evidence were later found. The other phenomenon might be considered non sequitur.--ghost 15:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My guess is that the response from the ID community would probably just be to argue that the analogy doesn't fit. I just don't know. --Rikurzhen 15:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
ghost, my opinion is that the analogy is totally irrelevant to ID. ID is NOT about saying, "We don't know how this happened, must have been X!" (Where X = God, aliens, or blue gas) ID is about scientifically analyzing things that seem like signs of intelligence to verify whether or not they actually are. A Lego castle is a sign of intelligence, and we check the polymers, estimate the odds of that thing coming about on its own without intelligence and see if our intuition is right. Even Richard Dawkins admits that a living cell seems like it was designed (first page of The Blind Watchmaker). ID is just trying to figure out if our intuition that it was designed is true. David Bergan 15:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But a Google search turns up this [8], supposedly from Of Pandas and People: "[S]cientists from Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniformed sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)." --Rikurzhen 15:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


Well, I see a couple of ways to go about this. First, we could keep the pyramid analogy in as is and label it the scientists's POV, and then the next sentence could explain how it is a false analogy and completely misrepresents ID. But I don't see the value of propagating misinformation no matter how popular it might be with an elite community. That would only complicate the issue and confuse readers.

The second option would be to use a new analogy. Here's one straight from the first page of chapter one of The Design Revolution by William Dembski. "Think of Mount Rushmore-what about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence. Such features or patterns are signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, are not content to regard such signs as mere intuitions. Rather, they insist on studying them formally, rigorously and scientifically." (pg. 33, The Design Revolution, italics in original)

This analogy does accurately define ID. It points out that design theorists are looking for signs of intelligence. And even though there is a lot of agreement that Mount Rushmore (and Lego castles) shows such signs, there is still plenty of controvery or whether or not life shows signs of intelligence. The real debate isn't over what ID is defined as, but rather over whether or not biological systems have the signs ID is looking for. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).
That's not even good English. --goethean ॐ 15:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David, the only criteria for including the analogy is that it accurately represents the opinion of scientists. There seems to be no doubting that it does. That ID proponents would dislike it is to be expected because scientists and ID proponents disagree about ID; if anything, this reinforces the claim that that analogy represents the views of scientsts. p.s. please re-read the paragraph, it already identifies the analogy as the POV of scientists. NPOV demands a journalist narrative tone. --Rikurzhen 16:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. I'm really not trying to take out the POV of the majority of scientists. But what's at stake here is the definition of Intelligent Design. The pyramid analogy is a skewed definition of ID, because it defines ID as appealing to God because science simply does not know how it could happen otherwise. Rather ID is (as Dembski defines it) investigation into things that are possibly signs of intelligence to verify if indeed they scientifically show such evidence. David Bergan
So, if the pyramid analogy really is the majority opinion of scientists, then that shows that the majority of scientists don't even know what the hell ID is. David Bergan
No, it shows that pro-ID folks don't know what science is and are attempting to redefine it. FuelWagon 18:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) The aliens-built-pyramids example is science's view of ID. If want to present an ID example of science such as lego-in-the-desert, by all means, put it in para 1 or 2. FuelWagon 18:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Similarly, we could take an opinion poll of Americans to add a POV to the definition of natural selection. But I think everyone here would agree that the majority of Americans don't have a clue what natural selection is. So what we need is accurate, informed, definitions... not just popular ones. Understand my concern? I'm all for keeping the evolutionists point of view in the article, but evolutionists no more define ID than design theorists define evolution. David Bergan 16:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sort of. But I think ID is plenty well defined in the first 2 paragraphs. If you think it not clear, change those paragraphs for clarity. If you think pro-ID needs an analogy too, add one. But we can't delete the POV of scientists in order to improve the presentation of the definition of ID. --Rikurzhen 16:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


Fair enough. I think Dembski's Mount Rushmore analogy is a good explanation of what ID is. I'll add it tomorrow (with the cite) if no one objects. David Bergan 16:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It might do well to juxtapose the two analogies in the same paragraph and conclude with a sentence about disagreement/controversy. Some of the material from "paragraph 5" (above) might help as well. --Rikurzhen 17:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Argh. Can we just avoid analogies, period? They're argumentative and POV by nature. I don't like this pyramid analogy, and I don't want to "balance" it with another analogy. Screw analogies; let's just say what it is we need to say, plainly and clearly. Graft 17:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. --goethean ॐ 17:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But the IDists are very good at argument from analogy, and little else. Dunc|☺ 18:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dbergan is simply bogging this down by arguing two mutually exclusive requirements: (1) that he doesn't mind the example presenting the scientific POV and (2) the example should be "balanced". If you "balance" it by his definition, you fail to represent the scientific point of view. And by continually arguing in circles, he has worn some of you down. I refuse to be hornswaggled by someone attempting to beat this into submission. The pyramid example is a fair representation of the scientific view of ID. It violates exactly every scientific principle that ID violates. It represents the scientific point of view. End of story. If Dbergan wishes to put the lego-in-the-desert analagy in paragraph 1 or 2 of the intro, fine. But this is an attempt to weaken the scientific point of view simply because someone is disagreeable to the scientific point of view. This is utter crap. The goal is to present all points of view with their strongest arguments, not weaken all arguments until most wikipedian editors agree. If wikipedia must water down the scientific point of view until most of teh ID-supporters are happy enough that they stop complaining, then wikipedia is more about feeling good and making everyone happy than reporting the facts and the truth. FuelWagon 17:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enough!

Enough already! The analogy is a fair representation of how science views ID. Both ID and the pyramid example violate the same scientific principles of observability, repeatabilty, falsifiability. Both violate Occam's Razor. Both are arguments from ignorance. This is a fair representation of how science views ID. So, it's a fair example. FuelWagon 18:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The analogy is a fair representation of how science views ID.
It's a fair representation of how some scientists may (or may not — no documentation has been provided) view ID. Saying that 'science views x as y' is like saying that philosophy or politics views x as y. It doesn't make sense. --goethean ॐ 18:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unless you're arguing that Wikipedia can state nothing unless it is quoted from an outside source, this is irrelevant. FuelWagon 18:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Citing sources is a Wikipedia guideline. I do not consider it irrelevant. For disputed claims, it is extremely helpful to have a citation so that the issue can either be investigated or resolved. --goethean ॐ 19:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
another wikipedian guideline is be bold. Does it or does it not violate repeatability, observability, falsifiability, occams razor? Be bold or hide behind the guideline that favors the result you want FuelWagon 19:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Hide"? Don't make me laugh. You can be bold and cite your sources also. You're the one trying to force an obviously inappropriate metaphor into the intro. And that from some perspective the alien metaphor formally resembles ID doesn't make it appropriate. There is such a thing as content also. If you changed the alien metaphor to a purple flying monkey metaphor, or a "my dog Spot" metaphor, or a "my little finger" metaphor, would it be equally appropriate? I think not, because these examples are increasingly absurd. By most standards, religious beliefs are not inherently absurd. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the best way for you to keep your metaphor in this article is for you to cite your sources. --goethean ॐ 19:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Richard Swinburne, an Oxford philosopher, has argued that belief in God does not violate Occam's Razor. So to answer your question, not uncontroversially, no.
But ID isn't talking about God. It claims it isn't creationism, but that it is scientific. And from the purely scientific point of view, ID creates an unnecesary entity to explain something that can be explained by simpler means. Whether god exists or not is irrelevant to whether an intelligent designer is needed to explain life on earth. The common form of Occam's Razor is Do not multiply entities needlessly. And an intelligent designer isn't NEEDED to explain life on earth, and so it violates Occams Razor. FuelWagon 20:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If Dbergan wants to put a lego-in-the-desert analogy in paragraph 2, fine. The pro-ID side should present their strongest point of view and their best argument in the article. But trying to modify the scientific POV analogy to make the pro-ID side happy is never gonna happen. This is turning into arguing whether ID is right or wrong and that'll never get settled on the talk page. The point is that the analogy is a fair example of the scientific point of view. There is no reason to cut it from the article. FuelWagon 18:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That the analogy represents the POV of scientists is uncontested (thus far). Likewise, claims that scientists view ID as pseudoscience or that ID violates Occam's razor are not contested. These are not cited in the intro, nor are any other claims in the intro, because they are tenamount to common knowledge which is easily recognized from primary and secondary sources on the topic. Our short-hand way of describing them in the intro does not violate Wikipedia policy; and if it did, writing intros would be impossible. If it did, writing anything but quotations and references would be impossible! Clearly an encyclopedia cannot survive without that miniumum of input from its editors, which gives up the freedom to craft new phrases to describe POVs (so long as they are accurate). This should be the end of the debate. --Rikurzhen 20:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ya know, I was raised that a good compromise is one nobody likes. Let's do this:
  • Stick with Paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 as laid out in Rikurzhen's Version 2.
  • Add the links we discussed, and that's your intro. Period.
  • Move the analogies (paragraph 4) to their own subsection early in the article.
  • Move the point-counterpoint (paragraph 5) to the debate section (4).
Alternatively, chuck 4 & 5 altogether. They're relevant and add value, but it would be worth it to stop this nonsense. I don't like either solution at all. So, maybe one of them works. Thoughts?--ghost 20:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I haven't had time to weigh in here today, but I hope people will also consider the "yet another" version, which I think is a superior intro to the one ghost suggests above, and it avoids the controversial analogies. BTfromLA 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why explication can't be accomplished without the use of analogy. That shouldn't be hard. Merely leaving out the analogy suffices:
From the point of view of empirical science, ID is an argument from ignorance. Although there are many unanswered questions in evolutionary biology (e.g. the details of the evolution of a particular biochemical pathway), the fact that these questions have not been answered (and may not be answerable) due to lack of evidence does not mean that they constitute a disproof of evolutionary theory.
Ah, wait - now it becomes clear why the analogy is helpful. Removing it reveals the fact that we're being argumentative quite clearly. Also, it doesn't seem to me at all that the above claim is TRUE. ID is NOT the same as argument from ignorance. That would go, "We don't know how flagella evolved. Therefore, flagella could not have evolved. Therefore, they must have been designed." ID, on the other hand, argues, "In order for flagella to have evolved, individual flagellar components must have evolved piecemeal. However, each flagellar component is vital, without which flagella cannot function. Therefore, flagella cannot have evolved. Therefore, flagella must have been designed." This seems to me to be a syllogistic fallacyfalse premise, rather than an argument from ignorance. Can we stop trying to write "from the point of view of empirical science"? Graft 21:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It depends on how the argument is posed, doesn't it? As you describe it above, it does indeed contain a false premise (that flagella cannot have been useful in any form prior to the one we see at present). But if you challenge that premise, the argument from ignorance surfaces immediately: "I cannot see how it could have been useful in a prior form, therefore it could not have been useful." Sorry if I'm just muddling things up, I'm not sure how to classify the argument actually. --Yath 21:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My point was that we're basically constructing straw-men here, in the end. Graft 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to help us all avoid alot of headache, folks. Yes, Ver 2.0 chucks the analogy(ies). But it also keeps what I've called a "point/counterpoint" format to the intro. That opens the intro to countless rewrites, reverts, vadalisisms and arguements. Move the point/counterpoint to the debate section, and you'll avoid a big chunk of that. I'm not happy with it. I stand behind the belief that an balanced example of both sides approach to the same problem would better inform the reader, while avoiding the pandora's box of point/counterpoint. But, I'd like to see us wrap this intro up and move on. We've got 18 other pages to go. :-)--ghost 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you're referring to BT's version, I think it does fairly well at avoiding point/counterpoint. Graft 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, as far as I can tell, the only objection to BT's version is FuelWagon's, because he likes the pyramid analogy. Obviously I don't hold that point of view; I think we should go with BT's version. Graft 21:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree --goethean ॐ 22:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just happened across this quote by an evolutionist against ID: "They've used so much technical jargon that anybody who doesn't know a whole lot of evolutionary biology looks at it and says 'It sounds scientific to me, what's the matter with it?'" says Princehouse. [9] This is exactly why I think an example is important. Pro-ID folks would prefer it all sound like simply arguing vocabulary definitions. FuelWagon 22:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I don't get it. I propose that we drop/relocate not only the point/counterpoint, but the analogy as well, and you still complain? I didn't, and don't, have an issue with BT's version 2.0 other than the fact that it's asking for vandals. In fact, BT and I are in agreement on the vast majority. All I suggested is that we shorten the intro further to avoid issue. If you're going to continue objecting, please be kind enough to inform us all where the goal posts are, so that we don't have to feel that you're continuing to move them.--ghost 16:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ID proponents cite aliens as possible designer

Oh, and in case someone thinks "aliens" is too far-fetched for ID, here's another quote: "ID advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think should stand in lieu of evolution on textbook pages, but God -- defined in a very nebulous way -- generally outpolls extraterrestrials as the leading candidate." [10] So, it would seem that "aliens built the pyramids" is not that outlandish of a representation of ID.

Actually, a ID proponent says aliens is one possibility: "in The Design Inference, William Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician at Baylor University, proposed that any biological system exhibiting "information" that is both "complex" (highly improbable) and "specified" (serving a particular function) cannot be a product of chance or natural law. The only remaining option is an intelligent designer - whether God or an alien life force. " [11]

With an Pro-ID expert suggesting that the "designer" might be an extraterrestiral alien, I say the aliens-built-the-pyramids is that much MORE relevant to the debate. The Pro-ID arguments I've run across present preposterous situations like finding a pocket watch under a stone. That is ID's viewpoint of explaining evolution. From empirical science it is preposterous. But it presents ID's POV. likewise, the aliens-built-pyramids analogy is no more farfetched of an analogy, no more farfetched than a watch spontaneously forming under a rock, and no more leading than those examples. And it presents the empirical science view. It actually isn't as outrageous as the watch/rock analogy, because pro-ID folks suggest aliens COULD be the designer. so Aliens-Built-Pyramids is much closer to aliens-created-life than the watch-under-the-rock analogy. The arguments against the pyramid analogy are basically raising the bar for what qualifies as a legitimate analogy for science's POV, while allowing pro-ID analogies that would fail the same test. Hypocricy. FuelWagon 23:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, the problem is not that the analogy is ridiculous. The problem is that the analogy is by its nature a biased way of presenting the argument. It's also unnecessary. Why are you harping on about it? Let's just avoid it, and write the article without it. Graft 01:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, its biased, it is the scientific point of view. and I pasted a quote above from some evolutionists who say ID hides behind jargon and vocabulary, so an example gets away from the jargon. FuelWagon 01:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An example is not the same as an analogy. And I am wholly mystified as to how you can purport to speak from the point of view of "science". Graft 06:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By your argument, how could anyone speak from the point of view of any group? How would any kind of generalization be possible? Such statements come from a straightforward application of common knowledge (or common beliefs) and common sense. (For example, "from the point of view of mathematics, 1/0 is undefined" would be a similar claim.) So far, no one has claimed that from the POV of science the analogy is inaccurate. There seem to be plenty of such claims from the POV of ID, but that is of course irrelevant. To the best of my knowledge, the analogy is an accurate summary of the POV of mainstream science. --Rikurzhen 06:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Transparency

Just to be transparent about personal motivations, I request that everyone indicate where they stand on the issue of ID personally. I know some will want to claim they are in a different category than for or against, but for the sake of this poll, pretend you're not. FuelWagon 22:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:In spite of FW's proviso, and also in spite of the anti-Wiki nature of this request, I am in a different category than for or against. I think that most IDers are anti-intellectual, politically-motivated creationists. But I also think that they should get a fair shake in this article. I am agnostic regarding whether the universe exhibits design — it is a matter of interpretation. I basically agree with Robert Wright's book Nonzero, so most of you self-described skeptical types can regard me as a crazy mystical nut. --goethean ॐ 22:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


===pro-id===

Dembski's work in particular intrigues me. For all the analogies, I am well aware that ID is nowhere close to proving that life was intelligently designed. But I like the idea of studying signs of intelligence (organically or inorganically), even if their work amounts to a big bag of nothing. In revising this article, I will never say that ID has proven anything, but I will justify what they are "researching" and try my best to make clear how they define themselves and their work. David Bergan 22:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===anti-id===

FuelWagon 22:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you can't tell based on edits, what's the point of this exercise? It's only insulting. Graft 22:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's OK Graft, I know you're special. FuelWagon 23:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why on earth should one's arguments be judged on with the person's beliefs in mind? Either the arguments are good or they aren't: they stand on their own merit. This exercise can't possibly achieve any purpose than laying the groundwork for ad hominem attacks, and, as goethean says, is anti-wiki, and, as Graft says, insulting. — Asbestos | Talk 23:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Amen. This is a totally inappropriate and counter-productive demand. BTfromLA 04:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


people complain about me asking the question. then they complain that I took the question down. You guys are a riot sometimes. I'll strike the question and perhaps that will make everyone happy. FuelWagon 15:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the pyramid analogy is published!!!!!

look here. here's the analogy from the source: ID is like saying "ancient technologies could not have built the pyramids, so goblins must have done it." and we see that William Dembski doesn't like that analogy. so clearly it has been made often and is a common claim from the POV of science to describe ID; enough that he feels he needs to refute it. note, his refutation would also clearly not be acceptable to the people in mainstream biology. --Rikurzhen 06:58, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good work. I recommend that the pyramid analogy be included, but as the perspective of the NRCSE, rsther than of "empirical science" --goethean ॐ 14:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's like attributing an opinion on gravity only to physicists who've published papers on it. But I've changed the phrase from "empirical science" to "mainstream scientists", who are the actual people who hold the view. --Rikurzhen 14:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I don't like this sort of word game. "Empirical" has a specific meaning that reflects knowledge acquired objectively, through experience, observation, etc. "Mainstream" doesn't mean anything other than "what everyone agrees it means". Empirical science isn't based on democracy or popularity. And ID's main approach is to end-run around emperical scientists and appeal to the masses, to government, to voters. So, the point of view critical of ID would emphasize objectivity not popularity. FuelWagon 19:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made the change to be air-tight about NPOV. Some "design theorists" (e.g. Behe) are scientists in their day job and they make use of empirical evidence; so mainstream is just meant to mean super majority. I think this change makes it crystal clear just which people the view is attributed to. In an ideal world, saying empirical science would be redudant. I can see why you might find "mainstream" somewhat problematic because that's usually applied to disicplines smaller than all of science and for conflicts within science, but I can't think of a better term. --Rikurzhen 02:43, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
It is preferable for you to cite your source, and to attribute claims to those who demonstrably claim them. If the NRCSE is an organization of mainstream scientists (which I do not doubt), then attributing the alien analogy to the NRCSE would be appropriate. --goethean ॐ 14:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That link only reinforces in my mind what a terrible analogy this is. Ugh. Sick of this. Once more: WHY do we need a stupid analogy in this article anyway? Is it REALLY so hard to explain this stuff without one? I think the text BT posted above is FINE without it, lacking nothing. Graft 14:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to be explicit: once on television I saw a "paranormal documentaries" story about a mariner's map which contained perfect outlines of all the continents from well before such a thing should have been available (like 1400 or something). If such a thing existed, it WOULD be plausible to suggest scenarios like aliens. Or, e.g., we find a laser-pistol buried in the Gobi desert. The only reason your "pyramids" canard works is because we have some inkling how the pyramids were built - it's not impossible to imagine humans cutting and moving stone, no matter how large - and so the notion that they were built by aliens is risible. Equating that with ID's claim is lining them up and then knocking them down - precisely why I think analogy is the problem: you are imposing your own spin on the situation. Obviously Dembski objects to the analogy and doesn't consider it valid. I don't consider it valid, either, and me and he have little in common. Graft 15:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First, you demand a citation. Rikurzhen (many thanks to you, btw) found one. Now you fallback to it isn't a fair analogy. That scientists used the analogy is now irrelevant, we've now got to show that it is a "fair" analogy. Fine. We have some inkling of how the pyramids were built. But we don't know exactly how they did some of the things they did. The ancient egyptian's ability at astronomy was pretty friggen amazing, for one. UFOlogists attempt to fill in the missing knowledge with aliens. ID doesn't dismiss evolution completely. we have an inkling of how evolution works. But we don't know everything. ID attempts to fill in those areas where we don't know with god/aliens. where theres a signifcantly large leap in evolution that isn't quite understood or proven scientifically, ID points to that and says God or an alien must have done that. Another example is stonehenge. We know the stones came from a quary that was 40 miles away, iirc, and required the stones to be moved across part of the ocean. We have no clue how the hell they did this with the technology we know to have been available around 10 or 5 thousand BC. But science would not then say "aliens must have done it", whereas ufologists would. Same goes for the big stone heads on easter island. We understand some of how they came to be, and what we don't know scientifically, ufologists have used that unknown to suggest aliens helped with the rest. And again, ID has completely loaded analogies that are part and parcel of their point of view the watch under the stone is about as bad as the Lego in the desert for setting up a totally biased analogy. But it is the ID POV. Those analogies should be in the article to represent their pov. But are they "fair" or "valid"? from the scientific POV, no. You and ID supporters may claim the pyramid analogy isn't "fair", but it represents the scientific point of view. FuelWagon 15:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I never demanded a citation. I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that the use of analogy was bunkum, period. Graft 17:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the fact that we seem to have a published version of the analogy is great. But, not knowing much about who made the analogy when, it looks to me like we may be misreading the cited quote. The NRCSE article seems to imply that the analogy was created by Dembski, not by scientists (or, at least, the citation we have makes no mention of why Dembski brought up the analogy). The NRCSE article then seems not specifically to support the analogy but rather to attack Dembski's argument about it.
Does anyone have access to the Dembski book cited in the article? It would be good to know why he brought up the analogy in the first place (i.e. is he defending against a specific scientist's paper which had mentioned the analogy?). — Asbestos | Talk 15:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this will help asuage people's concerns... but I PROMISE YOU that just as the claim that "mainstream scientists believe in gravity" can be reasonably asserted without reference to specific quotation to that effect, so can this analogy be described as representing the view of mainstream scientists. I didn't come up with it, but I'm a mainstream scientist, and I immediately recognized that it hit the target. The fact that it is also easy to understand makes it ideal for introducing the POV of most scientists. The fact that some version of it is floating around in the world, reinforces the claim that is grounded. Certainly we can have normal skepticism that at some fine level of analysis the analogy may break down, but the same is true of any generalization; this doesn't imply that we should refrain from making reasonable generalizations, especially for the sake of simplifying the introduction to a difficult topic. --Rikurzhen 17:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Look, I'm a mainstream scientist, too, and I don't accept this analogy. You may think it accurately reflects ID, but I don't. I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD WHY WE NEED A GODDAMN ANALOGY. Graft 17:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you've heard it several times. For whatever reason, it just isnt' getting in. I posted a quote above from a URL where critics of ID said something to the effect of "ID hides behind scientific sounding jargon" (and I agree with that criticism) and so scientific criticism of ID should not simply be jargon. I'm a scientist. I know what all the jargon means. But when you put occam's razor into an example, its no longer about jargon, its saying "these two claims are scientifically identical". I saw another quote from scientific critics that mentioned "leprauchauns". This one said "goblins", the example says "aliens". It is a valid representation of empirical science's view of ID. Empirical science views ID as hogwash. FuelWagon 17:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I take it that because you're a scientist you see that the analogy is an apt explanantion of the mainstream view of ID. The reason we need an analogy is not for the sake of 'having an analogy' but for the sake of easy to understand explication. Analogical reasoning is one of the best ways of explaining difficult concepts without having to introduce the definitions of obtuse terms like "Occam's razor". From the analogy article: "Analogies are often used to explain new or complex concepts by showing the similarities between them and familiar concepts." The introduction should strive for the use of simple English. --Rikurzhen 18:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has assumed nutty dimensions, and I'm reluctant to further add to it, but here goes. In general, I endorse the views of Graft and Goethian. I'll briefly restate my thoughts about the analogy, in no particular order:

  • Wikipedia entries should rarely if ever be written in the form of analogies. This is especially true in the case of controversial topics. Analogies are rhetorical devices designed to persuade--exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's stated aim of presenting information neutrally. NB: I am not saying that Wikipedia can't create original phrases to describe things. This is specific to the form of analogies, which are inappropriate to disinterested encyclopedic writing, just as it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to write entries in the form of rhymed couplets or multiple choice quizzes.
  • If an analogy is truly helpful in explaining a concept or a mentality, it might be appropriate to cite an analogy that has been published by a recognized expert in the field under discussion. Thus, the Dembski analogy is a more credible candidate for inclusion in the article than the pyramid analogy, simply because Dembski is making the argument, as opposed to Wikipedia making the argument (in the voice of "empirical science"). The cited source of the pyramids analogy is weak and confusing; I'd bet that minimal research into the writings of prominent spokespeople for the view of science against the claims of ID--Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer or H. Allen Orr, for example--would yield a better, readymade analogy illustrating the scientific view, if such a demonstration is desired somewhere in the article.
  • For reasons that are detailed at length above, and which are evident in the form of this discussion, analogies are both unnecessary and highly problematic to this intro. They are contentious, and they demand a back-and-forth of claims and counterclaims that a concise intro can't comfortably accommodate. The only argument that I can detect in favor of the analogy is that it provides a "real world" application of the ideas, as contrasted with "mumbo-jumbo." I invite all of you to look over the "yet another version" of the intro that I proposed, and point out where the scientific claims (or other claims, for that matter) seem mystifying or misrepresented. We should be able to fix those problems by presentating relevant facts in clear, jargon-free prose. --BTfromLA 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for making me look like an idiot with your cogent, well-reasoned prose. Graft 20:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"In general, I endorse the views of Graft and Goethian." Of course you do, you all are pro-ID editors, and ID's main approach is to cast this debate as a matter of vocabulary. It seems the pro-empircal-science folks all support the analogy as a valid representation of science POV (although they might consider putting it somewhere other than the intro). FuelWagon 21:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems that "empirical science" now engages in name-calling. --goethean ॐ 21:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That has been "empirical science's" main tactic around here. And the names called are baseless and paranoiac, to boot. Perhaps "empirical science" would do well to reflect upon, and perhaps locate a reflection in, the line about "nutty dimensions." BTfromLA 21:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Graft has converted to IDism in the past week? Joe D (t) 21:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Next week I'm going to try Manicheanism. I hear that's pretty good, too. Graft 04:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Be that as it may, Graft, I hope you're not forgetting that you, me and Asbestos have an Aum Shinrikyo meeting to attend next week. BTfromLA 05:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems that the requirement for an analogy is a moving target. First it had to represent the scientific POV. Then that got changed to it needs to have a citation. When that was found, the requirement was it had to be "fair". when that fell through, several folks stomped their feet and screamed "I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD WHY WE NEED A GODDAMN ANALOGY." Arguments about length were given. The response was an 8 paragraph rewrite from the original 4. And when I point out all this biased crap from editors, people whine about name calling. The example is short. It is concise. It is to the point. It represents the scientific point of view. It has a citation. It is a fair representation of teh scientific point fo view. People have done nothing put throw hurdles up and demand someone jump over it to keep the analogy in. Every single one of your requirements have been met. You are now sitting around bellyaching, scrounging for a reason to cut it out and it's all crap. You've got no good reason to cut this example other than you don't personally like it. I've got a laundry list of reasons why it deserves to be there, not the least of which was due to your demand that it came from a URL straight from the source. FuelWagon 01:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about this?

Here's an intro I wrote. It has the pyramid and Rushmore analogies, references everything, presents ID's best examples and documented critiques. Have at it. David Bergan 15:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design (ID) is highly controversial movement born out of conflict with Darwin's theory of evolution in the late 1990's. The goal of ID is to investigate what they call the "signs of intelligence" of a particular object to determine if there are scientific grounds for considering it designed. Therefore, its adherents (called "design theorists") are attempting to establish a scientific process of answering the questions, "Do we know that X was intelligently designed? And if so, how do we come to that conclusion?" ID restricts itself to only these questions. It does not seek to provide any insight into the identity of the designer (the designer could be a human, an alien, Allah, Krishna, Jehovah, Odin, or Zeus) nor into his/her/its intent or purpose (he could have made it for the greater glory of the universe, because he was bored and there was nothing good on TV, or because he's sadistic - torture chambers are designed, too). Neither does ID seek to evaluate the skill or mastery of the designer. (ID has no relevence to a discussion of whether or not Microsoft Windows XP is superior to Macintoch OSX. It only aims to show that both operating systems were designed by intelligence.)

William Dembski uses the following example to explain the definition of ID: "Think of Mount Rushmore-what about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence. Such features or patterns are signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, are not content to regard such signs as mere intuitions. Rather, they insist on studying them formally, rigorously and scientifically." (pg. 33, The Design Revolution, italics in original)

However, the main focus of intelligent design is studying the origin and diversity of life. Living cells, organs, systems, and organisms appear to be designed. Even the hardened materialistic evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, says as much in the first sentence of his book The Blind Watchmaker: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." However, the position of Dawkins and the majority of the scientific community is that the design is nothing more than that, a mere appearance. They rely on the concepts of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation to explain the complexity of life arising from nature without any need to infer an intelligence governing the process.

On the other hand, design theorists are investigating at least two features of living things that they consider to be signs of intelligence. The first feature was articulated by Michael Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh University, when he coined the term irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box. This term is used to explain the intricate features of life that Behe asserts could not have evolved through natural selection. Irreducibly complex systems are ones that require several parts to work together to function, where each part is useless without every other part of the system. Therefore, Behe argues, unless the system was introduced to a specimen as a whole, natural selection could not favor the parts because of their uselessness without all the other pieces. Among the features he lists as irreducibly complex include the bacterial flagellum, the human eye, and the mechanism for blood clotting.

Kenneth Miller in his book Finding Darwin's God argues that Behe's analysis only rules out natural selection through direct (or linear) means. For him, indirect/non-linear natural selection remains a viable mechanism for Darwinism. Miller and Behe have debated the issue in person, too. Other critics have stated that while Behe's logic is accurate theoretically, it doesn't mean anything because his examples (and all other parts of living things) do not have irreducibly complex features.

The second feature of living things that design theorists consider a sign of intelligence is the method that information is stored and transmitted via DNA and RNA. Consider, for example, the difference between raw pieces of wood, and an acorn. The wood pieces don't have the capacity to form a ship (or any other structure) on their own. But the acorn does have the capacity to become an oak tree on its own. Dembski argues that this is because the acorn is packed with information (in the form of DNA) that gives it the necessary instructions to become an oak tree (The Design Revolution, pg. 132). The acorn executes its DNA code in a manner very similar to a computer executing C++ code. Apart from living things, all other information-transmitting mechanisms (processes that involve encoding and decoding) we know about are designed by an intelligence (usually humans). This serves as another basis for investigating the question of design regarding life.

The majority of the scientific community refuses to acknowledge intelligent design as a legitimate science research program. Their commitment to methodological materialism rules intelligent causes out as being unscientific. Those convinced of methodological materialism consider any reference to intelligent causes in scientific work as a violation of Occam's Razor. Design theorists appeal that science should instead be methodologically empirical.

Also, many scientists consider ID to be nothing more than a fallacious argument from ignorance, similar to reasoning that "ancient technologies could not have built the pyramids, so goblins must have done it." [12] However, design theorists reject this analogy, because they have defined their role as one that does not investigate how an object was designed or who designed it, but one that only seeks to determine if the pyramids were either designed or else the product of raw nature alone (sandstorms, floods, erosion, etc.).

David Bergan 15:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They define their role as pointing out flaws in others' theories without offering alternatives? I'm sorry David, but that's just stupid. --goethean ॐ 15:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What? Please elaborate. David Bergan 15:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We've gone from a 4/5 paragraph introduction to an 8 paragraph introduction? The proposed introduction is twice the size of most articles, and is an article by itself. This is way too long to be an introduction. — Asbestos | Talk 16:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, is size your only concern? Four of the paragraphs are ID critiques... we could scoot those down to the controversy section. David Bergan 16:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Size is certainly not my only concern (I was writing more, but got edit conflicted). You've seriously under-represented the scientific argument and have written this from a clear ID POV. "[They] consider any reference to intelligent causes in scientific work as a violation of Occam's Razor" is obviously false, since scientist don't believe that pyramids came about naturally. Also, every paragraph that starts with a scientific view-point concludes with "However..." and goes ahead to try and rebutt that view-point. To make this shorter by moving away all ID critiques would be ridiculous, since they are not represented correctly as it is. — Asbestos | Talk 16:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 is anti-ID with no ID rebuttals at all. Paragraph 5 is anti-ID with no ID rebuttals at all. So it looks like we're talking about Paragraphs 7 and 8. David Bergan 18:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For 7, how about we remove the sentence with Occam's Razor. Is that enough, or how do you want to write it to show the difference between methodological materialism Vs. methodological empiricism? David Bergan 18:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8 is only two sentences long. If people are bent on using the pyramid analogy, it at least should be brought to their attention that it is asking design theorists to investigate something that the ID community isn't even trying to investigate. David Bergan 18:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, now that you bring our attention to it, the Methodological materialism article you created is hideously POV, for the same reason as in my above post. — Asbestos | Talk 16:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then let's rewrite it. See you at the talk page there. David Bergan 18:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There may be some useful bits in David Bergan's new additions, but as it stands this draft has big problems, in terms of POV ("the hardened materialistic evolutionist") as well as content and appropriateness to an intro. As others have pointed out, it is too long for a Wikipedia intro. Content-wise, there are a number of dubious claims—the way methodoligical materialism is characterized, for example. While I'm happy to see an ID-sympathizer among the editors here--no stable version of the article will ever emerge without being vetted by an ID proponent or two--I think that the version of ID presented here is over-reliant on Dembski's view. He's certainly a recognized figure in ID, but I think it is a mistake to claim that ID is made up of "design theorists" who look for "signs of intelligence." I think this reflects a larger tendency among editors of this article: an over-emphasis on ID as a set of scientific claims. Based on my reading, the scientists are actually latecomers to the ID party, and their contribution can also be seen as in terms of a larger critique of what might broadly be called "humanism." Philip Johnson really started this movement with three books including "Darwin on Trial," an assalt on what he depicts as the assumptions philosophical naturalism or materialism. If I recall correctly, Johnson somehow learned of Behe's sympathy to Johnson's POV, and he convinced Behe to write a book (Darwin's Black Box)--I'm guessing that Johnson had a hand in getting that book published and heavily promoted, too. I'm not sure about the roll of Johnson or the Discovery Institute in sponsoring the work of Dembski and Jonathan Wells, but I would be surprised to learn that they weren't a primary factor in those scientist's ID careers. My point being that ID is inextricably tied to goals that are as much opposed to Marx and Freud as they are to Darwin (see the "wedge document"), and that scientists have been recruited and promoted in order to serve those goals. It is misleading to characterize ID as a group of dissident scientists without sketching out the larger ideological framework within which these ideas have emerged and gained visibility. So, for example, the omission of any reference to the Center for Science and Culture or the promotion of ID through conservative Christian institutions in the above draft seems not only to support the ID POV (which wants ID to be recognized as a controversy within science), but, worse, it overlooks the most fundamental information about the history and goals of ID. BTfromLA 19:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The current intro has two paragraphs of pro-ID and two paragraphs of ID criticism. The two paragraphs of criticism seems to present science's point of view as concisely as possible while maintaining its strongest arguments. I think the pro-ID editors ought to get together and come up with two paragraphs that introduces the strongest points of ID from their point of view, and call it a day. I can't see putting 8 paragraphs in the intro. FuelWagon 19:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right. The intro should be the most concise and the most easy to understand part of the article. A middle school kid should be able to read the intro and get a basic understanding of the topic. Don't spend lots of room trying to flesh out every detail. If there is one thing that is fundamental about ID that should be given a little extra detail in the intro, then build on that with a little explanation. But don't try to include all detalis from the article in a condensed form in the intro. --Rikurzhen 00:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Trimmed

V 2.0 -- 3 paragraph lean, mean summary for the pro-ID part. Junked the Mount Rushmore analogy and all the methodology stuff, we can add it later (probably in another section) if anyone else finds it useful. Since I apparently suck at the NPOV game, I'll let someone else do the anti-ID stuff. David Bergan 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design (ID) is highly controversial movement born out of conflict with Darwin's theory of evolution in the late 1990's. The goal of ID is to investigate what they call the "signs of intelligence" of a particular object to determine if there are scientific grounds for considering it designed. Therefore, its adherents (called "design theorists") are attempting to establish a scientific process of answering the questions, "Do we know that X was intelligently designed? And if so, how do we come to that conclusion?" ID restricts itself to only these questions, and as such is different from creationism which seeks to find scientific evidence in favor of the creation account from the Bible.

The main focus of intelligent design is studying the origin and diversity of life. Living cells, organs, systems, and organisms show two specific signs of intelligence that design theorists are investigating: irreducible complexity and information mechanisms. The first feature was articulated by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. This term is used to explain the intricate features of life that Behe asserts could not have evolved through natural selection. Among the features he lists as irreducibly complex include the bacterial flagellum, the human eye, and the mechanism for blood clotting.

The second sign of intelligence is the method that information is stored and transmitted via DNA and RNA. Consider, for example, the difference between raw pieces of wood, and an acorn. The wood pieces don't have the capacity to form a ship (or any other structure) on their own. But the acorn does have the capacity to become an oak tree on its own. William Dembski argues that this is because the acorn is packed with information (in the form of DNA) that gives it the necessary instructions to become an oak tree (The Design Revolution, pg. 132). The acorn executes its DNA code in a manner very similar to a computer executing C++ code. Apart from living things, all other information-transmitting mechanisms (processes that involve encoding and decoding) we know about are designed by an intelligence (usually humans).

David Bergan 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David, I hope you'll take a look at the "yet another version" draft that I proposed, above. Does it strike you as unfair or inadequate in any way? BTfromLA 20:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I haven't had time to follow everything that's been said, but one comment: try not to use too technical subjects for an analogy. The purpose of analogies is to explain a complex topic by describing its similarities with something everybody understands, and I expect the amount of people who understand programming is just as small as the number who understand developmental genetics. Joe D (t) 21:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I've been programming so long that it's hard to put myself inside a mind that wouldn't know C++. I suppose that sentence could just be stricken. David Bergan 15:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
David, on the 29th, Rikurzhen tried to start a structured debate on tweaking the intro. No other user has suggested a complete rewrite, and we seemed to be about 75% of the way complete. Your suggested content, well intentioned as it seems, give the impression that you're chucking this work. Is that your intent? If so, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water and forcing us to start over.--ghost 13:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern. Since I seem to be the only one who is visibly in favor of ID, my intent with "How about this?" was to write out something that got the basic information out along with what I recogonize as its strongest critiques. When I first stumbled upon the article I was floored by the pyramid analogy because it's not a good critique... it only shows a misunderstanding of what ID is. The good critiques are Kenneth Miller's indirect/non-linear natural selection stuff against irreducible complexity, and the philosophical debate on whether science should be methodologically materialistic, or methodologically empirical.
"Trimmed" came about because I got blasted for writing too much and treating the mainstream POV in a biased way. So I thought to myself, "Fine! Let them do the critiques their way, but this is the essential info about ID that needs to be in an accurate, informative article." BT asked me to look at his "Yet another version" and there you can find my comments on how to merge my baby with the baby that's already in the bathwater. David Bergan 15:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

straw poll

Let's conduct a straw poll to clear up what people's concerns are.

Question 1: Is the use of an analogy anywhere in an article appropriate?

  • Yes. see Analogy: "Analogies are often used to explain new or complex concepts by showing the similarities between them and familiar concepts." Many here seem to think that analogies are intrinsically argumentative or that they are only used to sway people. This is not true. Rather, they are an effective linguistic tool to explain an unfamiliar concept. I see no Wikipedia policy that would forbid the use of explanatory analogies; they are just another tool in the editors bag. --Rikurzhen 01:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • yes. Analogy good. mumbo jumbo bad. FuelWagon 03:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Analogies can be good. However, often analogies that take the form "Having this belief is equivalent to believing [insert stupid idea here]" are misrepresenting the other party's views in a POV manner (cf. the analogy currently at the Methodological materialism article). — Asbestos | Talk 10:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Agree with Asbestos --goethean ॐ
  • Yes.. As I've argued eariler, and analogy gives us the best means of briefly providing an example of the controversies without POV and in plain English. Use of analogy also allows us to avoid going into too much detail in the intro. The intro should draw the reader in, not scare them off.--ghost 13:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Agree with Asbestos. Even the part about the MM article... we'll get to that sometime. I think Rik has the right idea about merging MM and ME with the MN article. David Bergan 15:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question 2: Is the use of an analogy in the introduction apppropriate?

  • Yes. The purpose of the intro is give a summary of the article so that a person could get a overview understanding of the subject without reading further. They should be aimed to say something to even the younger readers. This is a technical topic, the details of which are unfamaliar to most people, espeically younger students. Merely describing the debate in technical terms doesn't suffice for them. Thus, analogies help bridge the gap between the terms and their meaning. --Rikurzhen 01:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. The intro, of all places, should put the debate into simpler terms by using examples, analogies, or whatever. The nitty-gritty can be dealt with in the article body. FuelWagon 03:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. If the analogy is good there is no reason why it can't go in the intro. — Asbestos | Talk 10:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. The introduction provides the best place for an example of controversy. Moving an analogy(ies) to the body may create the appearence of POV.
  • Yes. For the same reasons as the four votes above me. David Bergan 15:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question 3: Does the pyramid analogy represent the view of mainstream scientist?

  • Yes. It aptly summarizes the scientists' view of ID. What ID proponents might think of it is irrelevant. The alien part is prefereable to more fantastical analogies about gremlins or such because the pyramids/UFO connection is familar to many people. --Rikurzhen 01:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. ID's most common forms of designer are "god" or "aliens", so it seems perfectly justifiable to use aliens in the example. The URL citation already shows that pyramids are used in criticism of ID, so that seems justified as well. FuelWagon 03:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain it does. The analogy has two faults:
1) It seeks to compare a natural vs. designed question with a designed vs. designed question. The ID argument is that cells are too complex to have arrived "naturally", so they must have been designed, which is not the same as "I don't know how Egyptians could have designed pyramids so aliens must have designed them.
2) In logic terms, the analogy appears to make the assumption that, when faced with the "contradiction" of overly-complex cells, -T, ID chose to make the step of proving any-old statement, R, as opposed to making the step of rejecting the premise, -A. The two steps use the same rule, but have quite different outcomes.
I'm striking these out, because, while I believe them, this question has nothing to do with my own opinion.
Anyway, the point isn't whether I think the analogy is good or now but whether mainstream scientists do.
No, I've seen no evidence that this is the position of any main-stream scientific body. I personally don't think that the citation offered by Rikurzhen was actually supporting the analogy; rather, if I've read it correctly, it was critiquing Dembski's defence of what sounds like an analogy that Dembski came up with [Added: searching for support of this analogy, I only read about it in pro-ID literature, who cite it as an example created by Dembski. Can science not come up with a better analogy that one created by an ID theorist?]. Also, I don't believe that the "Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education" counts as a mainstream scientific body. For the time being, I don't see the support that this analogy has (but am perfectly prepared to recant if it does have scientific support). — Asbestos | Talk 10:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) (edited 16:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Yes. Pretty well. And better than any alternative offered so far. I've suggested two rewrites (above), that have been called watered down, in an effort to more clearly state ID's approach to this same issue.--ghost 13:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No. Agree with Asbestos, again. There are good critiques out there. The pyramid analogy doesn't strike me as a critique so much as a misunderstanding of what ID is. (will discuss this further elsewhere) And what about the Rushmore analogy? If we're putting an analogy in the intro, shouldn't it be one that explains the title concept, rather than explain the opposing viewpoint?

new paragraph 4

I've moved my comments from above to here, so that people don't get into a long conversation in the polling area .... No offense meant by moving your post, ghost. FuelWagon 13:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to the natural-vs-designed compared to a designed-vs-desinged complaint, you're missing the whole point. Science doesn't go in and a priori say "that was designed" and "that is natural". ID does. Science doesn't say anything about designed or natural, it will only stand by what it can observe and repeat. So, complaining about ID being "designed v nature" and the analogy being "designed v designed" is forcing the scientific viewpoint to fit inside the ID viewpoint. And that is no longer science's POV, it's science's POV twisted into ID's POV. The scientific POV of ID is that ID breaks every scientific requirement for repeatability, observabilty, and falsifiability, and that the a priori assumptions of an intelligent designer completely breaks Occam's Razor. The aliens-built-pyramids anaology fits the scientific POV of ID. That it doesn't fit ID's POV is irrelevant. And demanding the scientific POV also fit inside the ID POV is simply biased editing. FuelWagon 11:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Come to think of it, empirical science by definition is an a-posterior science, while ID has as its core a-priori knowledge. Science might use intuition and hunches and personal insight of its scientists to get new ideas, theories, and hypothosis. But Science would never intuit ID as "knowledge" or "fact". ID looks at nature and intuits a designer, and holds it as fact or knowledge. ID proves god/aliens mucked with evolution "because" of missing information. We haven't observed and repeated how cells evolved to do something, to which a-posterior science declares "we can't observe, so we don't know", and which ID declares "god/aliens must have done it". And ID takes their a-priori hunches without any observation of god or aliens and argues they must be true enough to warrant forcing it on school kids. The point of the analogy isn't natural-v-designed or designed-v-designed. The point is to show the complete opposite ends of the spectrum between a-posterior science and a-priori ID. And in that vein, the analogy is right on target. FuelWagon 12:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten paragraph 4 to emphasize the difference between a priori and a posterior knowledge. No doubt, someone will bitch about something. FuelWagon 13:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And this is my exact reasoning for use of analogy in the intro. We CAN inform the reader to the a priori vs a posterior condition, without passing judgement. At the same time, we can trim the intro to a more legible length.--ghost 13:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Once AGAIN, I will point out how wrong you are about everything. First, ID does NOT declare, "We can't observe, so we don't know." It declares, "It is impossible for this mechanism to have formed via an evolutionary process because it cannot be reduced to stable prior states." These are very different arguments. Also, Occam's razor, repeatability, falsifiability, etc. - these are not "requirements" of science. 70% of evolutionary biology is not based on repeatability. The razor is not a hard-and-fast rule, and it's at the level of high-school debating to say that ID is unscientific because it "violates Occam's razor". ID is unscientific because it is wrong, plain and simple. It cannot demonstrate irreducible complexity because it is incorrect. But Behe wasn't arguing from ignorance. He presented -specific- examples, which were subsequently debunked. The idea itself is sound, as Darwin himself admits. And, frankly, Dembski's work on specified complexity is so obtuse it makes me laugh. But it's not argument from ignorance - it's obscurantist crap. Graft 15:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow, Graft, you said it better than I could. I think the jury is still out on Behe's examples, but at least you and I agree on where the debate belongs. David Bergan 15:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Once AGAIN, I will point out how wrong you are about everything" thank you very much, mister roboto. However, the new paragraph 4, as is the stated title of this section, does NOT say "we can't observe, so we don't know", nor does it mention "argument from ignorance". So, before you go off on autopilot and blow your conch shell, maybe you oughta take a moment and respond to the new paragraph 4, rather than simply objecting by default. (unless of course, you LIKE it, then by all means) And as for arguing that ID is "wrong, plain wrong", uhm, yeah, great example of putting that into simple terms for the intro. The example is, oh, what's this, AN EXAMPLE. It demonstrates some basic principles and it demonstrates some basic differences between science and ID. Does it disprove it? No. But it isn't meant to disprove ID. It was meant to introduce the scientific point of view and some of the basic differences in teh approaches taken by science versus the approaches taken by ID. Science is a posteriori, observable, repeatable, blah, blah, blah. ID is a priori, intuitive, not observable, not repeatable, blah, blah, blah. ID is attempting to cast itself as scientific, and paragraph 4 is meant to exemplify the principle differences between the two so that there is no mistaking that ID is really trying to REDEFINE what the definition of "science" is. FuelWagon 15:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Err... sorry, I misspoke with that "we can't observe, so we don't know" bit. But - I'm trying to demonstrate to you why your example is wrong. ID merely presents a crappy model of the world. It's junk not because it constitutes a logical fallacy, but because its arguments are hooey. For example, Behe actually got published recently, in Protein Science. He wrote a piece demonstrating how selection was not a sufficient mechanism to drive change because sometimes compensatory mutations are required, and the probability of serial fixation of several deleterious mutations is extremely low. Fine. The argument is valid, but it's built on ridiculous premises. The response of ID when you challenge them with a superior, more detailed model (or point out the failings in theirs) is to whistle and look the other way. Your pyramid analogy does not represent this. Also, I really don't understand where you're going with this "a priori" bit, which makes no sense to me. You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Graft 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"selection was not a sufficient mechanism to drive change because sometimes compensatory mutations are required, and the probability of serial fixation of several deleterious mutations is extremely low" Uhm, you realize this is all gobbely-gook to 99% of the population, right? The point of an analogy was not to explain why any one particular example of ID argument is wrong, but to use a simple example that shows the principles. There are probably a dozen fundamental ways that ID is wrong. Starting with bad premises is one. arguing from ignorance is another. occams razor is another. observability is another. repeatability is another. I picked an example that covered a bunch of them. And it happens to have a citation to show that it is an analogy used to criticize ID. FuelWagon 17:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, how is it that you feel justified to up and rewrite a paragraph of the intro on the ID front page when the whole thing is in discussion? I mean, neither BT nor I posted our new intros out there. Shouldn't you wait to get some consensus here before making any changes out there? Or are you afraid that you can't convince anyone else on the talk pages, so you had better just do it. Show some self-discipline, please. David Bergan 15:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Get a grip. There is no conflict of interest in me trying to strengthen the pro-empiricism point of view. I'm a pro-empiricism editor, and this was my attempt to make the empirical point of view strong while satisfying a moving target of requirements as to what analogy is "proper" according to the pro-ID editors. If you guys didn't keep changing your demands, I wouldn't have to keep changing the paragraph. The last complaint was "ID is natural versus designed, the analogy is designed versus designed, and it isn't fair". So I modified the paragraph to emphasize the example is trying to show the difference between: a priori versus a posterior, empirical versus intuitive, observable versus non-observable. I wouldn't have a problem if a pro-ID editor decided to modify the first two paragraphs in an attempt to make the ID point of view stronger. (unless they changed two paragraphs to eight, and pushed the scientific point of view to the bottom of the article). If you can keep the same approximate length, feel free to do what you want with the ID point of view. Put in your Lego-in-the-desert analogy. FuelWagon 16:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh my god. Look, stop trying to cast yourself as the hero in some Wagnerian saga. As far as I can tell, there is ONE pro-ID editor here, David Bergen. The rest of us are all evolutionists. Some of us just happen to think you're wrong. Graft 17:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A priori Vs A posteriori: I'm not sure where FW got this, but it's new to me. Ok, he must be thinking that design theorists start research by saying "X is designed, now I'm going to go out and look only at the evidence that comes to that conclusion." However, if FW knows anything about Dembski's The Design Inference, then he would know that design is the last explanation tried. You start with Mount Rushmore, and then you look first for evidence that it was caused by natural laws... well, erosion doesn't tend to sculpt things this precisely. Second you look for evidence of random causes... well, it would take a pretty damn amazing amount of Brownian motion to get the mountain to resemble 4 US presidents. Odds probably on the order of one in more than the atoms in the known universe. So finally, you try on the intelligence explanation: and sure enough there are intelligent beings in South Dakota, who are patriotic, to boot.

While I'm at it, the procedure is both repeatable and falsifiable. Repeatable: You can run the odds calculation yourself just like any physicist can run the calculations that show us the rate the universe is expanding. You can't run the experiment twice (that would require two mountains, or two universes) but you can measure Rushmore all that you would like. Falsifiable: Find an explanation that either (a) shows that natural laws do sculpt mountains on occaision or (b) find a random process that brings the odds down to a practical number.

This is the same process as forensics, and no one says forensics is unscientific. "How did Mildred die?" "We think Jack murdered her." Then you go investigate: Step 1, autopsy - did she die of natural causes (illness, etc.)? No. Step 2, random events - did the electricity in her house surge that day? No. (and do likewise for other potentially random events). Step 3, intelligence - was Jack at her house? Oh, he was! And they were in a fight. Bingo.

But someone could still falsify that conclusion by providing evidence later... "Hey look, we just found a suicide note in her handwriting." or "The neighbors said that she often complained of getting seizures while watching TV, and the TV happened to be on."

ID is the same stuff scientifically. David Bergan 16:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Dbergan, check the paragraph again, it says Natural Science uses the scientific method to produce a posteriori knowledge. Not all science is a posteriori. For example, your infatuation with running probability numbers: Math is a priori. Surprise! but Natural Science is a posteriori, so is the scientific method. The point of the paragraph is to demostrate exactly what your are attempting to do here: redefine what "natural science" means to include a priori knowledge. Of course, now I'm gonna have to put natural science and scientific method on my watchlist so ID fruitcakes don't attempt to hijack wikipedia and redefine the terms. FuelWagon 16:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good for the goose, good for the gander. And what kind of a posteriori evidence is there for the Cambrian explosion, the first one-celled organism, the first two-celled organism, or whales from wolves? Neo-darwinism is just as forensic-like in its macro-evolution claims.
I'll conceed you finches and antibiotic-resistant strains as being a posteriori just as I would concede erosion. But knowing that erosion affects mountains doesn't provide an a posteriori explanation for Mount Rushmore. Knowing that natural selection affects species doesn't provide an a posteriori explanation for a new phylum. Natural sciences (as I'm assuming biology is one) aren't fully a posteriori, so take that junk out of your new paragraph. David Bergan 16:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
if 'a posteriori' science can't explain something, it says it can't explain it. When ID runs into something that 'a posteriori' can't explain, it sets up house and moves an intelligent designer in to take over the neighborhood. The analogy actually points out this difference when it says "we don't know exactly how the egyptians built the pyramids". It's a concept you seem unable to grasp. Science doesn't have a problem with "we don't know". ID uses 'we cant explain it scientifically' as a blank check. That is the difference. That is exactly what the example shows. FuelWagon 17:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Falsifiable: Find an explanation that either (a) shows that natural laws do sculpt mountains on occaision..."--David Bergan No problem. Obviously, you haven't been to New Hampshire. Try this.--ghost 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and the moon looks like a man's face. If you take the term "sculpt" in the loosest possible sense, you're right. But ID's point is precisely that every human being can tell by looking at a photo of each mountain, which one was designed, and which one was eroded. Am I to understand that you personally think Rushmore wasn't sculpted as a result of the New Hampshire mountain? David Bergan 17:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your mount rushmore analogy is seriously flawed from the empirical point of view. But if you wish to put it in paragraph 1 or 2, go for it. It demonstrates exactly the same thing the pyramid analogy demonstrates: that pro-ID folks have a problem with what is scientically inexplicable and immediately fall back to supernatural or extraterrestrial causes. Science would simply say: wow, we have no idea how that could have happened. Oh, and it is also a LOADED or LEADING question from a scientific point of view, because you START with something that was DESIGNED (mt rushmore) and, surprise, you END with "it must have been designed". circular logic. leading question. whatever you wanna call it. But by all means, put it in the intro if it fits the ID point of view. FuelWagon 17:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
David, I am stating a principle of probability. If you assign a measurable probability to a given state, then you assume, a priori, that the state can exist no matter how improbable. And given an infinite data set, it will happen. And once you go a priori, you can't go back. Therefore, a semi-Darwinian argument could be made that, "Our very existence proves that natural systems can self-assemble, because we have at least one example (us) exists that appears to verify this has happened. Without a better, verifiable explanation we can conclude that this is was the course of events." Now you and I may find this patently absurd, but in the absence of any other explanation, it holds up. This, in fact, is not far off of some of the arguments in Quantum Mechanics. That's why Quantum Theory bothered Einstein so much.--ghost 17:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right about infinity and probability. But who says we have an infinite data set? It seems as though the Big Bang suggest we only have 15-20 billion years of probability. With infinite time, wind would make a Mount Rushmore. But not with a mere 4.5 billion years.
The logic seems to be: (a) We exist. (b) Nature produced us with out any intelligence, even though the odds were great. (c) Therefore, nature could produce us without intelligence. If it is, all I can say about the disproof is Res ipsa loquitur.
I'm sure you don't agree that that is the logic, so please put up your version and will discuss this more fully. David Bergan 17:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"With infinite time, wind would make a Mount Rushmore." I think that as soon as anyone says "infinite" anything, they are no longer talking about natural science. An infinite number of monkeys isn't natural, it's mathematical. And mathematics and probability are a priori. As for the specific problem with your mount rushmore analogy, the second law of thermodynamics would says in any finite amount of time, say 5 billion years, on a single planet, the odds of mount rushmore forming from natural forces is zero. However, your analogy is properly biased in ID's favor. rock and wind will naturally be entropic. But when you take simple organic chemistry and put it in a testtube called Earth, add the sun as a bunsen burner to continually dump energy into it, and allow the atmosphere to boil and cook and throw a bolt of lightning (1 billion years is a lot of lightning bolts), and you suddenly have a situation that has the possibility of overcoming natural entropy. Organic chemistry in a pressure cooker can create stuff that can overcome the tendancy of entropy to diffuse everything to blandness. Of course, even though this sort of thing can be reproduced on a simple level in labs, its just easier to look away and invoke extraterrestrial intervention. So, your mount rushmore analogy is loaded. So is your lego-in-the-desert. So is your pocket watch under a stone. They are all inorganic. They have no underlyign chemistry that would allow them to overcome entropy, so sure, in a billion years, it would still be impossible for a pocket watch to randomly form under a rock. But again, feel free to put it in paragraph 1 or 2. FuelWagon 18:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, not even Stanley Miller would pretend that your above statement is accurate. The origin of life on this planet is still a matter of considerable speculation, and your "organic soup" argument is just as ill-formed as dbergen's Wind Rushmore one. You're being unnecessarily dogmatic - the reason scientists don't accept "God did it" as the causitive principle is not because they have a better model. They do not. It's because they are naturalists, and they refuse to accept a supernatural principle. It's a matter of, ahem, faith. Graft 18:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never said they had a better model. I simply said that wind and stone will be subject to entropy, but organic chemistry at least has the possibility of overcoming it. That is different than saying science "knows" how it happened. And it isn't simply a matter of refusing supernatural causes, its a matter of getting what you dont know and leaving it as "we don't know" rather than filling in "god did it". Whether or not there were supernatural causes is separate from whether we can "know" it. If god came down and parted the atlantic, spoke from the clouds, and hailed fire and brimstone down on all the naturalists, they wouldn't have a problem with supernatural causes. A scientist can lead a very spiritual life and still limit science to only what he can 'know' empirically. science is about knowing the limits of knowing. FuelWagon 18:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Graft, it's a matter of how one frames the arguement(s). I haven't, "..put up your version and (we) will discuss this more fully." because I don't need too. This exercise was an illustration of the fact that the analogies can (and should) be examined from both directions. One a priori, and one a posterior. The only objection that I have to Mt. Rushmore being used is that we know it to be created. If you applied the same arguements from both sides to the Old Man in the Mountain (which we suspect to be natural) or the Pyramids (which we suspect to be created) then you have a better example of the difference in approaches.--ghost 18:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't ahve a problem with with Mt Rushmore analogy being presented in teh article as the pro-ID point of view. I say go for it. FuelWagon 19:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this will help. Pretend that there are two ways of knowing that X is designed. The first (and most obvious one) is to know the object historically. We can see pictures of the guys blasting away Mt. Rushmore in the gift shop at its base. The second way is what ID is attempting to establish... recognizing design from the physical properties of X. This is where design theorists use terms like "irreducible complexity," "specified complexity," and "information mechanism" because they think that if X has, say, irreducibly complex parts, then it was designed. Mount Rushmore does not have irreducibly complex parts nor information mechanisms, but they are looking at its properties to see if they can isolate something else as a potential sign of intelligence. (We could use a modern car, or a computer, if you want an analogy with IR and IM.) So they are looking at something we know historically to be designed so that they can discover/isolate these signs of intelligence and see if they apply to biological systems, alien radio signals, etc.
FW, no one says that you have to agree that biological systems HAVE these signs of intelligence. But there doesn't seem to be anything unscientific in their manner of investigation. David Bergan 19:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dave, I don't have a problem with the Mt. Rushmore analogy being put into para 1 or 2. So you don't need to convince me. It seems to represent the ID point of view, so it ought to go in the article. Whether I think it is scientific or not is really irrelevant to the article. Whether or not the mainstream point of view is represented fairly in the article is all I'm concerned about. The pyramids/aliens analogy seems to do a pretty good job of presenting the mainstream science criticism of ID. So I think that ought to be in the article as well. If you want to have a one-on-one discussion about ID being scientific or not, we can move that to our talk pages. FuelWagon 16:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on a quiet weekend

Well, things were relatively calm over the weekend. Good! The intro is not everything to everyone, but it's much better. We've got a lot of other work to do. Any suggestions on what to tackle next? My inclanation is to trim as much redundancy as we can. Let's engage the readers, not bore them.--ghost 14:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good morning. Quiet on the talk page, but they sure added stuff to the article over the weekend. I just tweaked paragraph 1 - mostly clarified the definition of ID and added the Mount Rushmore example, since there seemed to be no disagreement to its inclusion. David Bergan 15:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Reviewing your revision of the Mt. Rushmore quote. I didn't think 1 sentence sounded dumb at all, and followed format with other breakout quotes later in the article. Let's trim all but the first two sentences, as the rest are redundant vs the preceding paragraph. Also, can we trim 'Mount' to 'Mt.'? I'm in a mood to hack this article till it's as clean and tight as possible.--ghost 18:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts, ghost. We have a difference in writing styles that is tough for me to overcome... I prefer things to be elaborated to the point where there is no possibility for misunderstanding. You seem to prefer things as consise as possible even if there is potentially some clarity lost. As such, I like the full Dembski quote. Even though there is some redundancy, it shows that design theorists are not content with mere intuitions. And for me (again, personal writing style) whenever a quote is broken out of a paragraph, I think it should be at least three or four sentences. One or two sentence quotes usually stay in the paragraph. Breaking something out of a paragraph to me signifies, "Here is a concept that is worthy of letting the main dude explain it himself, and explain himself completely." Again, that's just what I'm used to and why I get a funny feeling reading paragraph 1 + quote after 3 days of editing. I think, "Well, the concept is there but that's not how I would have said it." But I guess that's the nature of wikipedia, and I'll just have to get used to it. The two-sentence quote is fine as far as substance. David Bergan 15:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah. To me the power of Hypertext is that you don't have too, and shouldn't, include the whole text of something. Just give the reader a taste and a link. Get their interest and let them explore. And this fits well with encyclopedias. I think Og Mandino attributed Jesus as saying, "...You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink, unless you salt their food."--The Greatest Salesperson in the World (1974).--ghost 16:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant

This is basicly a copy/paste from one of the working versions of the intro. Let's tighten it way up.--ghost 17:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ID's opponents in the scientific community reject the ID claims as being scientifically illegitimate. While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable, violating the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Intelligent Design violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that has a simpler and scientifically supported explanation not involving outside help.
From point of view of empirical science, ID is similar to the claim "we don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens must have helped." Currently, alien construction is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Science would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, which leaves space for the possibility of alien intervention if empirical evidence were found later on. This sort of argument is known as the argument by lack of imagination or the argument from ignorance, a type of logical fallacy.
Scientific bodies including the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described ID as pseudoscience. Nonetheless, the ID movement continues to attract a contingent who advocate teaching about ID in school science curricula, on grounds of full disclosure regarding perceived shortcomings of Darwinian evolution, and counteracting what they perceive to be an institutionalized atheistic presumption of the scientific establishment, which has the effect of promoting hostility towards religious expression in social and academic discourse (see Creation and evolution in public education). Critics have in turn labeled ID "stealth creationism", a veiled attempt to reintroduce superstitious religious ideas into the scientific realm. They argue that it is merely designed to circumvent already existing legal protections against establishment of religion in previous Supreme Court cases, and that ID advocates are but religious zealots bent on polluting the discourse. They point to the many associations between ID and the religious right, and numerous examples of ID proponents making accusations of "bigotry" as proof that ID is not a scientific movement.

Well, from my point of view (which is admittedly biased on this issue), it seems like some editors want to list a dozen bad reasons why ID is inadequate, rather than stick to one good one. Therefore, we get half-baked junk like the a priori bit and the argument from ignorance which only shows their ignorance of what ID is. (If I had FuelWagon's home address I would send him The Design Revolution, not that he will agree with it, but so he would at least know what to disagree with. If you want a free book, leave it on my talk page. I'll delete the address as soon as it's ordered to preserve your anonymity.) If any movement is going to fail it will be because of one valid objection. Rattling off a list of red herring does nothing but undermine the credibility of wikipedia. Dbergan

The best objection is simply that life does not show any signs of intelligence - properties that necessitate a designer. Dbergan

Second best is that the current signs of intelligence being considered might not be signs of intelligence. If we can watch nature produce an information mechanism without intelligent intervention, then it ceases to be a sign of intelligence. If we can watch nature produce an irreducibly complex object without intelligent intervention, then it too ceases to be a sign of intelligence. Dbergan

Calling ID a pseudoscience is invalid. That would be like calling Chaos Theory a pseudoscience. ID studies physical properties of designed objects, Chaos Theory studies physical properties of non-linear systems. Chaos Theory was nothing more than a flash in the pan, but it was still science. ID could suffer the exact same fate if it fails to be able to stick signs of intelligence to living systems. (Besides using the term pseudoscience is blatant namecalling. Wikipedia is above that.) Dbergan

The argument from ignorance is invalid. ID does NOT say, "What the hell is this? Science doesn't know how to make one, therefore we had better believe in a designer." like the pyramid analogy does. Instead ID is a positive science research program that aims at defining and isolating physical properties that necessitate design. ID does say, "Aha, the bacterial flagellum is an irreducibly complex object. Because all irreducibly complex objects had a designer, therefore the flagellum had a designer, too." (At this point neither of those two premises are confirmed, so the conclusion is very much in question. Just showing you how ID expects to progress. Note that questioning premise 1 (the flagellum is IC) is what I above labeled the best objection, and questioning premise 2 (all IC objects had a designer) is what I labeled as the 2nd best.) Dbergan

"Irreducible complexity" is a fancy way of saying "we don't know", and so is an "argment from ignorance". FuelWagon 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's retarded. It's like me saying that "Evolution" is a fancy way of saying, "We don't want to believe in God." The reason the term exists is to explain a concept, not to mask an agenda. Whether or not the concept applies to biology is under dispute, but the concept is pretty hard to argue against when it comes to inorganic man-made objects. David Bergan 15:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
science has one assumption: that the rules of the universe are unchanging. That is not the same thing as "we don't believe in god". You can't seem to get this through your god-create-the-universe-in-seven-days skull of yours though. "the concept is pretty hard to argue against". aren't there only 3 pro-ID scientists who keep coming up again and again, and pretty much EVERY mainstream scientist is against the idea of using the idea of intelligent design? FuelWagon 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aha, I finally see the misunderstanding. You think I believe in the 6-day creation account. I don't. I believe that the big bang happened exactly as the physicists tells us and at the time they designated (15-20 billion years ago). I take that as a scientific fact, as (I think) you do too.
FuelWagon, is my laptop irreducibly complex? David Bergan 19:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, the a priori ditty is skewed for the same reason. There is no a priori assumption being made. Behe frames his argument very clearly: THIS is the research I deal with and THIS is the conclusion it leads me to - a designer.Dbergan

'a posteriori' approach is water+electricity=>electrolysis=>produces hydrogen and oxygen. Observe. Repeat. At that point, you've proven a posteriori that electricity causes electrolysis of water, breaking it down into hydrogen and oxygen. The idea of electrolysis is proven by repeated observation of passing electricity through water and getting hydrogen and oxygen. What Behe does is frame an ARGUMENT that god caused life on earth. But you can't Observe god at cause, you can't repeat god at cause, therefore you cannot prove a posteriori that god caused life on earth. FuelWagon 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Where is the 'a posteriori' experiment I can do this afternoon to prove the big bang? Or to prove that whales came from the same ancestor as a wolf, since you seem to believe that this is such a sweeping scientific criterion. David Bergan 15:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
you just committed the same logical fallacy that ID does everytime. YOU must provide the burden of proof for YOUR argument, you cannot simply provide your assumption of a designer and demand I DISPROVE it. You are hiding behind a lack of scientific evidence to counter the ID argument. you want me to PROVE that ID isn't true, but that's impossible, because you can only prove ID is false one a case by case basis. And every time something is disproven, ID simply retreats further into what still hasn't been explained by science. science will NEVER know everything, so there will always be areas that are unknown, so there will always be areas where ID can hide. But hiding in the unknown is not the same as proof. You sit there and proclaim "the darkside of teh moon is populated by aliens", science says "no it isn't", and you reply "prove I'm wrong". You didn't PROVE there were aliens, you simply said something that cant be DISPROVEN by science at the moment. FuelWagon 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, read this question again. You and I both take the big bang as a scientific fact. Now, tell me where the 'a posteriori' evidence is for it. I don't think there is any, because knowing about the big bang requires a different kind of scientific investigation. You don't make your own big bang in the laboratory. Instead, it is inferred from the red shifts we notice on stars and galaxies. ID takes the same kind of investigation, as does macroevolution... it's not 'a posteriori' science, but rather inference about how something happened historically when none of was there to see it. I will never tell you to believe something without evidence. I will never tell you to believe in aliens on the dark side of the moon. The evidence for ID is precisely that things like irreducible complexity have been conceptually isolated, and they always necessitate a designer. That is a very falsifiable claim. Just show us one (repeatable) instance where nature can make an irreducibly complex object without any added intelligence.
"You and I both take the big bang as a scientific fact." GaaaahhH!!!! NO! It is a scientific THEORY, not a FACT! And it has certain observable phenomenon to support it such as the the observed mutual recession of the galaxies (Hubble's law), which implies that the galaxies were much closer together in the past. Note that this is DIRECT OBSERVATION. Galaxies are moving apart, therefore if you go backward in time, they were moving closer together. Whether or not they collapsed into a singularity, is not fact, but it at least qualifies as a scientific theory because OBSERVATION points in that direction. Your "irreducible complexity" is not DIRECT OBSERVATION that leads to a conclusion. It isn't observing that galaxies are moving apart, therefore they were closer together in the past, and possibly a single point 15 billion years ago. No, IC is observing something that it cannot explain naturally and saying "it must be designed". There is not direct observation to that link. Do you have any scientific training? FuelWagon 19:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Touché. It's a theory. One that I believe is factual. But it is actually based on observation. When you look out with your telescope 20 billion light years, you are looking 20 billion years back. So with their radio telescopes, physicists actually can 'observe' the big bang. But we can't repeat it. And you still say that science (facts or theories) have to be repeatable.
Are you still wondering if my laptop is irreducibly complex? David Bergan 20:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, ID is not based solely on intuition. Dembski's quote makes it very clear that they are trying to research ancient intuitions with formal, rigorous science... just like Galileo went out to research Aristotle's intuition that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter ones. Dbergan

The "designer" in ID is intuited from human minds. What you don't seem to get is that any a posteriori knowledge might take a scientist decades of study to reach the point where intuition kicks in and he makes some underlying connection, but if it is proven a posteriori, then I could read that knowledge in a book and prove it myself without spending 40 years of my life. Intuition isn't needed to prove a posteriori knowledge. the theory of electrolysis can be proven in an afternoon with a few pieces of simple lab equipment. I can prove that all objects fall at the same acceleration regardless of weight (assuming air resistance is equal for the objects) in a one hour high school class experiment. Intuition isn't NEEDED for a posteriori knowledge. Once someone figures it out and proves it, anyone can prove it by experimentation. Your intelligent designer, however, can ONLY be argued in favor of existence through logic and language and intuition. There is nothing that proves the designer. There are only things that haven't been explained emperically. FuelWagon 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's called the study of intelligent design, not designer. We only want to know if X is designed. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions about the designer. David Bergan 15:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is an important point of ID: it's all about the design, not the designer. When people get that what we're talking about here is god or aliens, then most people quickly realize that we're talking about quackery. ID does its best to shift the focus away from who or what the designer is. FuelWagon 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't care how you take the facts. The fact is that I know my laptop was designed because it is irreducibly complex. I don't know who designed it, and if you want to argue that it was an Asian person, while I argue it was an American, that is an entirely different issue. For all I know, God or aliens could have made my laptop. How could I know that they did not? But I do know that it was designed. If biological systems are also irreducibly complex, that means they were designed... by an Asian, an American, a god, an alien, or some other form of intelligence. David Bergan 19:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And finally the falsifiability and repeatability objections don't work either. You can falsify a sign of intelligence by simply showing where nature did make something with that property without any intelligent help. Set up your lab experiment that makes an information mechanism with organic compounds, ammonium, and lightning, and *viola* you disproved that sign of intelligence. But moreover, if we're going to ask for falsifiability and repeatability in ID, we might as well edit the evolution article to show that there is no repeatable or falsifiable experiment that makes a vertebrate from an invertebrate or a sexually reproducing organism from an asexually reproducing organism. Dbergan

Do you have any sort of scientific background? this is a complete manipulation of what falsifiability and repeatability mean. FuelWagon 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Explain falsification and repeatability of the big bang. I'm curious to learn the right way to understand these terms. David Bergan 15:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Prove to me I am wrong. If you don't, then I MUST be right. FuelWagon 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please try to explain the big bang (which we both accept) in terms of falsification and repeatibility. Or else agree with me that some aspects of science do not fall under those criteria. David Bergan 19:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Stop it. This is a waste of time & space. The section is removed. Move on.--ghost 19:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I promise not to touch the anti-ID intro paragraphs with any edits (except maybe grammar or spelling), but please take these things into consideration. It really doesn't do anyone any good to read bad arguments. And it cheapens wikipedia. David Bergan 19:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Following my review of the main body of text, the above removed section is completely redundant and no longer relevant to the article. Most of the content has been integrated into the intro. The key points of the rest have been integrated into the main body. I believe this section was introduced during the rework of the intro, and the reverts that followed.--ghost 12:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rejection of ID by Religious Community

Wow. Um, we need a major rewrite of the better part of this section. The title would lead one to believe that it contains specific objections of ID by mainstream theologies. Such is not the case, although there are a few good links of this type. Instead we've got schizophrenic set of arguements against ID. The Deism/Theism contrast should be made, as well as the extinction and punctuated deism, but they could be handled elsewhere. Do we want to yank the whole thing?--ghost 18:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On further review, I decided to move it here:

Intelligent design creationism, in its broadest sense, simply presumes or argues that God created purposefully, a claim which has broad support in the religious community and which is completely consistent with evolution. Where ID creationism becomes anti- or pseudo-science is when it violates the overwhelmingly accepted Methodological Naturalism that scientists use. Creationists claim that there already exists empirical evidence of God's action, sufficient to justify a scientific inference that such action occurred, or that this empirical evidence would be forthcoming if students were not brainwashed into believing that science cannot comment upon the supernatural.
The assault on evolution proceeds from this central claim: without using any evidence that a practicing biologist would accept as correct or useful, creationists deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. Typically, they survey the literature, find something in science that isn't fully understood, and posit an action of an untestable but omnipotent, non-natural "Intelligent Designer" to fill the void of ignorance for whatever scientific problem they are considering, be it blood clotting, peppered moths, or the ascent of the bacterial flagellum.
Several theological and philosophical issues merit mention:
    • Science, as restricted to natural evidence for natural explanations, cannot answer all questions. Inherently limited, science cannot say anything about most of the truly imporant questions in life.
    • Creationists who desire for science to confirm their religious beliefs (through its purported failures to provide natural explanations) are expecting more from science than it can possibly deliver. They have placed their faith in science and not God.
    • By substituting intelligent design for areas of scientific ignorance, creationists instantiate a God of the gaps argument. Briefly, these kinds of arguments forge a logical link between failures of science and successes for God, the problem being that science is extremely successful. Real theologians reasoned long ago that the foundations of religious belief were best put in a God that didn't lurk in the ever-diminishing shadows of scientific understanding.
    • The questions that evolution and science give us about our beliefs are not to be feared. The conclusion of heliocentrism and the conclusion that rabbits did not chew their cud were, in their day, equally as fearful to contemporary beliefs as the conclusion of evolution. Creationists argue against evolution simply to argue against evolution. If they can instill doubt where none should exist, then they succeed in their goal of furthering their faith, even if they have to lie or yield to fear to do so.
    • ID essentially holds that the natural world does just fine on its own most of the time, but that there are special, exceptional times in which God had to intervene. (It is for this reason that modern creationists claim to endorse "much" of evolution but don't think it is responsible for all biological diversity.) However, the doctrine of God's occasional presence is also a doctrine of God's usual absence. This interventionalist view of God has been termed punctuated deism.
    • If God is credited with the good in the world, only selection bias would keep him/her from being blamed for the bad. The realities of evolution and the fossil record would demand accountability from any God who, for example, allowed over 99% of the species he/she ever created to go extinct. (Why didn't he/she get it right the first time?) The interventionalist view of God required by ID must be held responsible for his/her interventions or failures to intervene. Most theologians prefer to believe in a God that is not a deceiver, is not incompetent, is not mischievious, is not sadistic, etc., and so most Christian theologians endorse theistic evolution.
    • Leaders of the ID creationism movement have stated that non-natural explanations (like intelligent design) are to be advanced only after natural explanations are exhausted. By extension, natural explanations in science are superior to non-natural ones. And since the number of natural explanations elucidated by science is constantly growing, any non-natural explanation concluded as the result of an absence of a natural explanation is tentative: it is logically impossible to tell the difference between something that is not currently understood by science and something that never will be understood by science. ID creationism is therefore an inherently useless conclusion until the day that science is finished forevermore. Notably, Behe has previously argued that the absence of whale transitional fossils is evidence of design, though since the lineage has been well characterized, he has understandably avoided making this claim anymore.
It is worth noting that these considerations presuppose a generally European, Judeo-Christian perspective of the creator. Other religious concepts may have other things to say.

Moved by --ghost 19:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I no longer see where this section adds value. In addition, it does not hold to the subject of it's own title well. There are a few links that might be worth readding, which is the reason I haven't deleted it entirely. Thoughts?--ghost 13:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghost's copy-edit

Ok, my eyes are starting to bleed... There was a tremendous amount of redundancy thru the body. Also, some of the run-on sentences would've made your high-school English teachers cry. I hope you like the result; it doesn't stear too far from the original. The good news is that we're down to 12 pages, plus ToC and references.--ghost 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Critics claim ...

Critics of ID say this ... is no different than the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids[13].

I hate to be nitpicky ...and to bring up this old point yet again... but where do we show critics saying this? The citation we have merely mentions this as an argument that Dembski himself brought up (I assume as a strawman), and critiques his logic regarding it. It does not compare ID's claims to the aliens claim. Trying hard to search for this on the internet, I only find it mentioned on pro-ID websites. It seems clear that it was an argument Dembski created for his own use.

I've mentioned this before, but it was never replied to, so I figured if I start a new section about it it might get some comments.

The one citation we have, by the by, is from the Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education, who's mission is "to proclaim the compatibility of good science (including evolution) and good theology (including creation)" — not that it's necessarily relevent who the critics are, just so long as some exist. — Asbestos | Talk 16:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you guys are unbelievable. It isn't enough that a main proponent of ID responds to teh argument, I have to cite the original statement that compare aliens/pyramds to ID? What? As if Dembski made it up? A strawman? Give me a break. You're grasping for straws here. It is a valid criticism of ID. Because you've moved the target YET AGAIN as to what is a valid analogy and what isn't, harping on the "critics say" minutia, I've changed the wording again. I dropped the phrase "critics say" because you folks have now proven that no critics have actually said this (well, I don't have a URL quote of a critic, so it must be true, right???? isn't that ID logic for you?), and I've now changed it to say "ID has been compared to" which is undeniably true. If nothing else, Dembski did the comparison, and the URL cites that comparison. FuelWagon 18:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The "critic" is FuelWagon. He wrote them in and is unwilling to part with those statements no matter how irrelevant or unfounded they are. I say take the whole thing out until he at least shows some evidence, but I promised not to touch the anti-ID paragraphs of the intro up in "Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant". David Bergan 17:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I put it there. I actually THOUGHT for myself. I didn't have to rely on a quote from someone to put two and two together and come up with four. You guys are now just being assholes about it. if it isn't quoted from someone it doesn't belong in the article??? that is BULLSHIT. If the only thing wikipedia can print is quotes, then most of the articles need to be cut down to nothing. And the articles that remain will be nothing more than copyright violations waiting to happen. Sorry, no pass. You're just whining at this point. FuelWagon 18:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The revised version is much better, and not far off Dembski's or the NRCSE's positions. For those that care, this link's you to the full text of Dembski's quote on the subject:
"The challenge of intelligent design for evolutionary biology is real. This is not like someone who claims that ancient technologies could not have built the pyramids, so goblins must have done it. We can show how, with the technological resources at hand, the ancient Egyptians could have produced the pyramids."--Science and Theology News, Feb. 2003 (Vol. 3, No. 6, p. 18)
BTW, Michael Ruse's follow-up is...interesting. Would the SETI analogy make people happier? This analogy makes the same argument with different names.--ghost 18:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of the example is to demonstrate empirical science's problems with ID. The alien/pyramid analogy does this well. SETI does not. The alien/pyramid is a good example for teh scientific communities' POV of ID. Some folks are just gonna keep bitching it until the article is nothing more than an advocation of ID. Nuts to them. FuelWagon 19:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm convinced that FuelWagon has a learning disability. He refuses to learn from any of us and instead insists that his first impression of ID was accurate. Not once has he said, "Oh really? *That* is what ID is? I thought it was *this* but apparently I was wrong." No, he instead forces us to believe that ID is not what design theorists say it is, but what he (a guy who probably hasn't read a single page, much less a book written by a design theorist) originally thought it was. He will not let design theorists define intelligent design. No, the evolutionists should define intelligent design, and they should define evolution too. That makes sense.
In short, he refuses to acknowledge that ID might have any credibility. He rather insists that ID is the straw man he originally thought it was. And worst of all, he is unteachable on this issue. A Big Asshole 19:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Huh? Wait, this entire time we've been arguing about whether it's the "scientific community's position" or "critics say" or what have you. Now you say you just thought of it yourself?? Dembski's quote above makes it obvious that he came up with the analogy. To stick the weasel terms "According to science" or "critics say" in front of this is not only a case of sticking your own views in by using these terms, but also incorrect as we've found no critics who say this. You keep talking about this "moving target" for analogies, generally in very unnecessary language. There's never been any moving target. The only target from the very begining was the one question: Who makes this analogy? Now we've discovered that exactly two people have made the analogy: Dembski and you.

"What? I have to cite the original statement that compare aliens/pyramds to ID?"

Yes!

"Yeah, I put it there. I actually THOUGHT for myself."

Wikipedia:No original research

"if it isn't quoted from someone it doesn't belong in the article??? that is BULLSHIT"

Wikipedia:Verifiability

""ID has been compared to" which is undeniably true. If nothing else, Dembski did the comparison"

If Hawking said "My theory isn't like saying a bunch of gnomes created the universe, would we say "The big bang has been compared to a bunch of gnomes creating the universe"?

This whole thing is ridicuous. I can't believe the entire time you've been talking about "the scientific community" and "critics" talking about this when we've found nothing of the sort. I think a very strong claim has been made that this silly analogy, which is what got everybody so mad in the first place, has very little place in this article. — Asbestos | Talk 19:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2+2=4 is not "original research". both ID and aliens/pyramids violate repeatabilty, observability, falsifiability, and Occam's Razor. FuelWagon 20:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since you've now admitted that this has never been the position of the scientific community or of any mythical "critics", I have to ask for your credentials as someone who's entitled to say that analogy "is just true". Do we have a wikipedia article about you? If not, lets leave the scientists to form their own arguments about ID and stick to our roles as humble encyclopedists. — Asbestos | Talk 20:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article now reads "[ID] has been compared to the claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids". You've admitted that Dembski is the only person who has made this claim. As I said above, this is like using Hawking saying "My theory isn't like saying a bunch of gnomes created the universe" to write "The big bang has been compared to a bunch of gnomes creating the universe". As this is ridicuous, I'm planning on removing the paragraph. — Asbestos | Talk 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second your motion. (In case anyone ever wondered what I thought about the pyramid analogy.) David Bergan 20:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Here's one thought: the next time someone tries to shove their religious beliefs into your local public school's science class, make a counter proposal. Demand that the school teach that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens. You could quickly print out lists of hundreds -- if not thousands -- of books, movies and TV specials that bolster this claim and prove it's a valid "scientific theory" that your kids should not be denied hearing in the interest of fairness." from [14] dated 2004. I found a better site a couple weeks ago when this blew up the first time, will keep looking... FuelWagon 20:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Now Murray would certainly agree (for instance, he cites the design of the pyramids as not being front-loaded)." from Dembski here FuelWagon 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Really, these citations are grasping at straws. The blogger thing is nice, but it has nothing to do with a scientific analogy concerning verifyability, Occam or anything else. The second citation is again by Dembski, and what does it have to do with anything? Did you just run a search for any article that has the words "intelligent design" and "pyramid" in it? Noone's making the analogy there. — Asbestos | Talk 20:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a critic, but a proponent of ID: The Genesis Race:Our Extraterrestrial DNA and the True Origin of the Species" [15] FuelWagon 21:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Invoking “intelligent design” to explain the origin and development of life is like invoking Martians or survivors of Atlantis to explain the construction of the Egyptian pyramids on the basis that no one knows how they were exactly built." here.
I'm sorry. I was writing a reply to this one, but then had to leave the computer for RL. This citation is great, as are a couple others below it.
I realize that I sounded anal above, but do you realize that this is the first citation you've given us that specifically makes a n analogy between ID and the pyramid thingy? I wasn't arguing for the sake of being argumentative, I really hadn't seen any real citation. Now I have. Thanks for going to such lengths to prove that this analogy really has been made, I'm more than satisfied with this link and the ones below it, and I think anyone else would be. I'll replace the citation in the text with one of these.
— Asbestos | Talk 22:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"ID also makes the classic logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance: I cannot understand it, so no one else understands it either. A good example of this is the many books from the 1970's which argued that humans without our modern technology could not have possibly built the pyramids in Egypt and Central America or other ancient wonders, therefore they must have been built by extraterrestrial aliens. " from here FuelWagon 21:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The [intelligent design] argument seems to be that molecular biology is so complex that it can't have happened without help from outside; thus Darwin is wrong. That argument reminds me of the amateur Egyptologist who deemed the Pyramids much too difficult for the ancient Egyptians to build with the materials at hand, and thus determined they had assistance from extraterrestrials." from here FuelWagon 21:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How the Pyramids were built is a mystery: "Several theories attempt to explain the construction of the pyramids, but no one knows for sure how they were built. This is one of the great mysteries of ancient Egypt."--Canada's Mysteries of Eygpt Site & and related IMAX film. A (reputable) critic establishes that human beings, not an Intelligent Designer, built the pyramids: "We favor intervention in this case (i.e., the pyramid case) because we see that the outcomes (pyramids) serve the sorts of aims that intelligent human creatures typically have. Thus we have good reason to suspect that human creatures, and not mere nomically regular processes, caused them."--Michael Murray,Natural Providence, Wheaton Philosophy Conference, Oct. 2000, Pg. 18. This is the paper refered to by Dembski in his article. It's interesting to note that Mr. Murray is making this argument based on both Theology and scientific principal. His argument discounts the Mt. Rushmore analogy as well.--ghost 21:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Creationism is only one of many minority views whose proponents would like to have their views represented in the public school classroom, including folks who believe that the earth is flat, or that the pyramids in Egypt were designed by ancient astronauts." by Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D. available here Edward gave a talk on "The Evolution of Improved Fitness" FuelWagon 22:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Identity of the intelligence: The text and the subtext

ID proponents claim seeking the identity of intelligence, such as God, is not what ID is about. Dbergan citing pg. 64 of Dembski's The Design Revolution in support of this got me thinking about the public statements of ID proponents and how they relate and align to their self-published statements and claims, and how they all relate to the 'critics' who insist ID proponents are pushing a veiled theistic agenda.

Since Dbergan cited Dembski's The Design Revolution [16], I looked to it see how Dembski answers the quandary:

"As a Christian I hold that the Christian God is the ultimate source of design behind the universe (though that leaves open that God works through secondary causes, including derived intelligences). But there’s no way for design inferences from physics or biology to reach that conclusion. Such inferences are compatible with Christian belief but do not entail it. Far from being coy or deceitful, when design theorists do not bring up God, it is because they are staying within the proper scope of their theory. Intelligent design is not creationism and it is not naturalism. Nor is it a compromise or synthesis of these positions. It simply follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads. Intelligent design is a third way." pg. 14

Yet Dembski's other published public statements belie that claim:

"Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." --Dembski "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", Designinference.com website, February 2005
"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed." He continued, "And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done - and he’s not getting it." --Dembski The design revolution?
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." --Dembski, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000 issue.
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." --Dembski, Church and State Magazine, May 2002 issue

Dembski's actual leanings/motivations are clear. Phillip Johnson's public statements are equally unequivocal and damning of the claim that seeking the identity of intelligence is not what ID is about. They expressly state that ID, being putatively non-theistic, will open the door for Christian belief. This fact justifies including adding some additional content about exactly what 'bush' (Christian God) ID proponents are beating around. FeloniousMonk 20:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And their arguments are no different than I'd expect to hear from a criminal-defense lawyer. They look to establish reasonable doubt in the minds of the community. Which might work in a courtroom, but not in science. But, their underlying motivations border on irrelevant. This article is about Intelligent Design. Not Dembski, Johnson or anyone else. Perhaps these items belong in a seperate article(s) about the movement or it's authors. As someone else (FuelWagon) told me awhile back, "(present the reader with brief facts)...and let them decide for themselves that it's crap." Such eloquence...--ghost 22:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The actual quotes probably don't warrant inclusion here, but they are relevant and useful to us in contrasting the Discovery Institute's policy for public consumption against the veiled theistic policy the critics of the movement allege exists, which is what I was getting at. You raise an interesting point: What would ID and the ID movement look like without Johnson, Meyer, Dembski, etc.? Considering that the movement is largely due to their efforts, it's difficult to separate one from the other. FeloniousMonk 22:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aliens built the pyramids

The first "official" critic of ID to use the pyramid argument was Michael Murray in his paper: "Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)."[17] subsequently published in Faith and PhilosophyFuelWagon 15:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The friend of IDT may, at this point, object as follows: Surely this is false. For if that were so, it would mean that we could not decide whether or not the pyramids in the jungle are caused by law or intervention."

Michael has proposed the notion of "deck stacking" (which he describes to be "god created the universe and then hasn't touched it since") is a valid alternative to any argument for intelligent design and interference. That any time ID proponents find evidence for intervention, it could just as easily be explained by "deck stacking", and that "deck stacking" simply means that God made the rules of the universe constant, but he just "stacked" them so that crazy stuff like "life" would evolve. The idea of intervention is like the idea that aliens intervened to help humans build the pyramids. Then he presents a possible ID counterargument that the pyramids WERE designed, designed by humans, not aliens. Michael basically counters this by saying they've missed the point. FuelWagon 15:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


William Dembski then responds to Michael's "friend of ID" argument and defends intelligent design (ID) theory as being different from a silly claim such as "ancient technologies could not have built the pyramids, so goblins must have done it." here. FuelWagon 15:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, it wasn't a "strawman" by William Dembski, it was in response to Michael Murray. FuelWagon 15:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're correct. Should this be discussed in a subsection of 'Theological Debate'? I'm thinking 'Predetermination vs. Interactive Design'. Thoughts?--ghost 15:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where it goes, but Michael's basic "deck stacking" argument uses a poker analogy. Poker has rules that remain fixed throughout the game, which represents science's view of the rules for the universe remaining fixed and unchanging. His argument is that with fixed rules and a randomly shuffled deck of cards, you would find over a long time that pretty much all the players would win about the same amount, given comparable skill. However, if one player kept winning with 4 aces in his hand, but the rules remained fixed, it could be possible that the player stacked the deck, rather than randomly shuffling them, so that he always ended up with 4 aces. Michael's argument is that ANY situation where ID proponents argue intervention by a designer, it could be just as likely that the designer STACKED the deck at the beginning so that the statistical anomoly would occur. Life could evolve because someone intervened from time to time or because someone stacked the deck at the beginning of time. He argues that it is impossible to determine which option it would be, therefore, science would assume that the deck was stacked and that the rules of the universe are unchanging, because science already assumes the rules are unchanging. that's my take on his argument, anyways. FuelWagon 18:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

god or alien life force

OK, the article is about intelligent design. I quoted Dembski as saying the agent could be god or an alien life force. someone keeps cutting it out. What the hell is up with that? Is it not factual? is it not quoted from a mainstream ID proponent? Are we informing the reader of what ID is and what it is proposing? or are we advocating ID and hiding all the messy details? FuelWagon 15:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dbergan, I should have figured. Your explanation "(→ID in summary - seeking identity of intelligence is not what ID is about The Design Revolution pg. 64)" for cutting out valid information is laughable. The article starts out by saying what ID "is", not what ID proponents want people to focus on. Unless you want to jump right in and have the article say "ID propronents say this" and "ID proponents say that" and then have critics response to everything. I don't think that's generally how wikipedia approaches a topic though. FuelWagon 15:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep wanting to include that? By Dembski's definition, ID is not about who did the designing. Sure he may have personal beliefs, but they are not relevant to this article. That would be like taking the DNA article and mentioning that Crick personally believes that life started on another planet and was transported here by meteors because he doesn't know how it could have formed on Earth. Crick does believe that, but it has no place in a discussion of DNA even though he is a leading figure on DNA.
You simply cannot resist making ID as much of a straw man as you can, rather than addressing it in its strongest forms. That's where ID shows more courage, because they do take evolution's best arguments seriously and not just do a smear campaign on the scientists.
I'm junking your agent thing again. Let's start a revert war, should we? David Bergan 16:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
STRAWMAN????? So, reporting the FACT that a main ID proponent, one who gets quoted over and over again in the article, says the designer is god or an alien life force, IS A STRAWMAN???? Sorry. That don't cut it. Facts aren't strawmen. A strawman is a WEAKENED version of the truth so that critics can knock it down more easily. This IS THE TRUTH. GOD or ALIEN LIFE FORCE is from the horse's mouth. Therefore it is fact, not a strawman. The FACT that ID proponents want to HIDE the discussion of who the designer IS, is irrelevant to wikipedia reporting the fact. FuelWagon 16:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid FW's got a point here DB. Casting the passage as a "personal belief" when there's a quote to this effect on pg.14 of his book The Design Revolution (which I cited above) is actually a genuine straw man. The solution for all is to present in the article Dembski's actual words as an attributed quote, with a sentence explaining context is necessary. FeloniousMonk 16:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gentlemen, do we have any of Dawkins's personal beliefs about religion on the evolution page? (or even Darwin's?) Do we have any of Crick's personal beliefs about religion on the DNA page? Do we have any of Einstein's personal beliefs about religion on the Relativity page? Do we have any of Hubble's personal beliefs about religion on the Big Bang page?
I am not doubting that Dembski said that, or has those beliefs. But since when did we start meshing the scientist's personal beliefs about religion on the subject page of the science they deal with?
ID is NOT about religion. It is about ascertaining whether or not object X was designed. If some people infer religious truth from that study, it goes on their personal pages. Same if some people (ie Einstein) infer religious truth from the study of the Big Bang. We aren't trying to hide the discussion of who the designer is no more than Big Bang hides the discussion of who the banger was. It simply is not relevant from a scientific standpoint. I'm only asking for encyclopedic consistency. David Bergan 17:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS FuelWagon's right about one thing. Straw man was the wrong term. I probably should have said "ad hominem" or else just "irrelevant information to the topic". David Bergan 17:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How is it not about religion? God is integral in ID. Without it you have simply an admission by its proponents that they think certain problems are too complicated to solve. That's where the whole design part comes in. If you say "x is too complicated to have happened by chance", either you are saying that there is a problem with probability theory (actually the problem appears to be how Dembski uses probability theory) or there is a designer. Designer = God. Granted, it does not say that you should worship that God, or even whether the designer is a good deity or the devil. But you cannot call something intelligent design without positing a designer. And no, Dembski is not really suggesting an ET - because either than ET would have had to have originated spontaneously (which he says can't work, not enough time) or the ET would have had to be created by God. Guettarda 17:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not about God because the identity of the designer cannot be infered by physical properties of the object. ID attempts to tell me from physical properties that my laptop was designed. But it cannot tell me who because the physical properties do not contain that data. The sticker says "AMD" made the processor. But how do I know that it is not a counterfeit sticker?
The Big Bang is just as much about God as ID is, if not more so. Think about it... that scientific theory tells us that at one point there was nothing, and then immediately thereafter was all the stuff that fills the universe (in quarks or whatever at first, but eventually hydrogen and the other elements). How can you think about that theory without wondering who made the bang and why he/she/it did it? But science can't answer those questions. It can't say that Jehovah did it to reveal His glory any more than it can say Zeus did it as a cosmic-sized fart.
Science is at peace knowing of the Big Bang without investigating who did it, and can similarly be at peace knowing about design without knowing the designer. David Bergan 17:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Science doesn't tell us that at one point there was nothing - see the following:

But most damning is Shanks's failure to relay that the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics precludes the existence of complete nothingness. The ontological implications of such a basic fact are monumental, yet he remains mute: 1) The Christian doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" is rendered an impossibility; and 2) The very need for a Creator becomes superfluous. Indeed, several authors have argued (Barrow, 2002; Genz, 2001; Guth, 1998; Halliwell and Hawking, 1985) that the Big Bang quite plausibly could have sprung from an ever-present quantum vacuum of seething potentiality. In eminent theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking's (1988) famous words, "What place, then, for a creator"? Granted, Shanks mentions that origin of the Big Bang does not require an exogenous force due to the negative potential energy of gravity (which can exactly counterbalance the positive energy of matter). But he remains cryptic about the complete picture offered by quantum cosmology. A picture that tears at the very fabric of our most basic ontological notions of reality: "nothingness" is imbued with unthinkable creative potential. [18]--Ian Pitchford 17:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting quote. It reveals speculations of many scientists about what might have been before the Big Bang, but exactly how could any such hypotheses be observed or inferred? Not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious.... because it seems to me to be similar to the hypothesis that there are multiple universes out there that we cannot detect. If we can't detect them, how do we know they are there? It's ok to speculate, but how do we know if there was an "ever-present quantum vacuum of seething potentiality"? The quote seems to say that we know this for a fact. David Bergan 18:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
WHO CARES?!? Science has one underlying assumption: that the rules of the universe are unchanging. It isn't afraid of that assumption. It doesn't hide that assumption. If you were writing an article about scientific methods, you would mention that assumption. It's the basis for repeatability and observability. ID has as its basic assumption the idea that a designer mucked with the rules of the world once in a while. But ID doesn't want to talk about the designer, it wants to hide any conversation about who the designer might be. It's almost as if ID were EMBARRASSED about their primary assumption. We're not talking about an individual's crackpot theory, we're talking about the basic premise of ID and what it means. You cannot assume a designer without talking about who or what the designer IS and still stand as an encyclopedia article reporting on the full topic of ID. FuelWagon 18:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David, these are extrapolations not speculations! --Ian Pitchford 19:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

String theory points your question, David. In particular M-space theory. Michio Kaku talked about some of your questions with the BBC. Ok, so now that we've gone completely off topic...What does it matter? If ID can't tell us anything about the Designer, than what's the issue with stating that ID indicates 'god or alien life force' as opposed to 'God'? The former has a less POV tone than the latter. And is more relevant since we can back it with a reference. And FuelWagon, ID could try to argue a stacked-deck. But Dembski discounts that, either because he assumes an interactive designer to be more probable or because it's so similar to Creationism. In doing so, he fails to leave himself a backdoor out of his arguments.--ghost 19:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think Michael's deck-stacking analogy basically says "OK, if there IS an intelligent designer, how can we know if he is interacting with out world or if he just stacked the deck?" and Michael basically answers "we can't." So, yeah, if there is a designer, we can't tell if he's intereacting with us or if he just stacked the deck, to which Michael argues Occam's Razor and says we should assume the rules are consistent and a stacked deck. Which is really arguing for science. The historic battle between science and religion shows the religious folks have a tendancy to want to be at the center of god's attention, the center of the universe, geocentric versus heliocentric, and the idea that god answers prayers is fundamental to christianity. But for god to answer prayers, he has to intervene now and then and change the rules, or at the very least break them. ID could argue that there is a designer with a stacked deck and fixed rules, but then that means god doesn't answer prayers and that's exactly what ID proponents do NOT want. They want to be the center of God's attention. So I think Dembski discounts it specifically because he wants god's attention. FuelWagon 19:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article splits: ID as a movement

The subject of article splits was briefly covered in Archive 8. I'd like to move the bulk of the ID as a movement section, and CSC section, to its own page. The section(s) add value and provides a backdrop as to the political scene, but currently add over 3pgs of dense text plus references. We need to trim that article and this seems like a good place to start. Suggestions? Comments?--ghost 15:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In principle and in practice concision does not trump completeness. I'm relucant to endorse spinning off content to sub-articles, but if we were to do it, it would need to be done carefully. A thorough but brief summary of ID as a movement would need to remain in the article were the bulk of the content moved to its own article. The CSC section is a tougher one - the Discovery Institute and its CSC are central to understanding ID both as a movement and as set of beliefs; both the ID movement and the ID concept are largely products of the DI/CSC. That's why I'm reluctant to move too much to separate articles; obfuscating the link between its advocacy for ID and ID as a concept has been a very active action item on the DI's agenda. I'm reluctant to help them further that effort. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To get a better idea of what I propose, compare the Terri Schiavo article with it's sub-article Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. There are definite drawbacks. But the article is pushing max size as is. We should find a way to convey this more precisely, or move it.--ghost 19:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i agree with ghost that splitting ID and ID movement would be an excellent move for the page. Ungtss 22:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit reluctant to split the article. My concern would be that this article presents ID as a purely non-political idea, and completely ignores the fact that it's mostly an attempt to teach creationism in schools. perhaps this article could list a sentence for every major school battle that has occurred, and then link to either one article per battle, or one article for all the battles. It felt like a lot of the article is currently regergitating over the different arguments for ID, which I'm starting to find quite annoying. I think they could be easily cut down. not much time to talk right now. FuelWagon 04:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the core conflict on this issue for the last months has been this: those who think ID is merely an attempt at religious brainwashing want the ideas of ID removed and the article to be composed entirely of descriptions of this massive religious conspiracy. those who see ID as an idea in and of itself, however, think that this article should focus on describing the concepts itself in detail, because conspiracy theories are mere speculative ad hominem, and that the page's criticism of ID should focus on the merits of ID itself, rather than the christocratic motives which critics of ID ascribe to them. i think if we split the article, we can serve both sets of needs. this page has suffered under the impulse to "cut out the ideas of ID" which mr. fuelwagon finds "annoying" for months:(. Ungtss 14:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's one opinion; an opinion offering the same line being promulgated by the Discovery Institute. Separating ID from its origin, the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, does the reader a disservice since ID is less an actual scientific concept and more a social and political agenda. Laying out the dots out for the reader to connect is necessary for a complete, thorough article and is not rhetorical hyperbole or "mere speculative ad hominem" as you, and no doubt the Discovery Institute as well, would have us believe. This same argument was made at Talk:Teach the Controversy in April and was roundly shown to be specious by citing the very actions and statements of the Discovery Institute and its fellows. That the Discovery Institute and its members view and employ ID as the thin edge of the wedge to further a Christian political and social agenda is not even a legitimate question: "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option." as Dembski said [19]. Their theistic agenda is a matter of public record. There is no shortage of Discovery Institute public and private statements and those made its fellows and directors that belie the notion that it is just pursuing an agenda whose only goal is to challenge the science establishment "to empirically detect whether there is 'apparent design' in nature." That the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda while promoting ID as a necessary part of that agenda is something that the reader's attention needs to be drawn to, not kept from. FeloniousMonk 18:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I'm sure the article could be shortened, and, in general, I'm not against article spin-offs, but in this case the politics behind ID are at least as important as the theory/movement itself. — Asbestos | Talk 18:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this article is very good, but also very large. It could use an article split, or at the very least reorganization. ID as a social movement and ID as an idea are diffrent: Personally, I suscribe to ID philisophically, but I am not part of the movement, and am in fact vocally against it being taught in schools. People will want to see criticisms of ID in itself and analysis of ID movment seperate, because they are NOT the same. If going for organization, this thing needs to be trimmed. I keep forgetting to sign!--Tznkai 19:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i agree, tznkai. the article's conflation of the ideas with the movement does a disservice to both. i, like you and many others, ascribe to the ideas, but have no links to the "movement." information about some of the more vocal ID spokespeople, while extremely important toward the goal of burying the ideas in specious ad hominem insinuations, is irrelevent as to the merit of the ideas themselves. and in the end, it is the merits of the ideas themselves that are of interest to most rational people who do not reject ideas simply by virtue of their origin, but rather on their own merits. splitting the articles would allow both interests to be better served. Ungtss 19:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FM, you have made the same massive non-sequitur above no less than a dozen times and have ignored my every effort to explain your error. however, for the record, the political and social agenda of a limited number of the proponents of an idea is absolutely irrelevent to the merits of the idea itself. that is why we need two articles. so in one, people can say, "hmm ... i wonder if ID makes any sense?" and in the other can say, "hmm ... i wonder what the political goals of Dembski and Johnson are?" the failure to separate ideas from political agenda or message from messanger is symptomatic of fundamentalism of all types, i'm afraid. it's analogous to an article about evolution emphasizing the fact that 92% of scientists are atheists. the response of any rational person to such a fact is, "well ... that's interesting ... but what does that have to do with evolution?" the response of the fundamentalist, however, is, "oh my goodness! this ideas is being promoted by atheists! it MUST be evil!" Ungtss 19:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"the political and social agenda of a limited number of the proponents of an idea" Did I read that correctly? LIMITED??? Wow, that's an interesting spin on reality. The thing of it is that the agenda of the people behind intelligent design is extremely important. And the fact is that the Discovery Institute is nothing more than a cover for a bunch of christians who want to teach creationism in school (official, school/teacher-enforced prayer would likely be next, so we can all pray to the intelligent designer, whomever he may be...). ID IS BEING PUSHED BY THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE AND THEY WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN FOR AMERICA TO PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. Yeah. Right. And it would be a disservice to pull the curtain back. Show the idea, leave the politics for a separate article. Sure. That's great. FuelWagon 17:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to note that if splitting the article, the links between the two should be kept. ID did not in fact srping up without the social movement, but it did not spawn it by itself either. The two are linked, and this should be pointed out, of course. But they are not the same thing at all Also. Anyone know how to clean up this talk page? Its freaking huge--Tznkai 20:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
archived through this month. also agree with your last. naturally the two would be linked together. but one should not be used to prevent objective consideration of the other. Ungtss 21:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To the team: I understand that splitting the article has risk. Over the weekend, I reviewed the article (65kB in length; Article size should be <=32kB + tables & references) with 3 browsers (Explorer, AOL & FireFox). The length is definitely a technical issue. But my greater concern is that the amount of detail tires the reader before crucial issues are addressed. What I propose is to trim the references of the movement and it's motivations down to the 1/2 a page or so needed to convey the context of the debate. It's the details of the movement (donations to Smithsonian, etc.) that, while relevant, need to be elsewhere. Additionally, a split will allow more and better detail of the movement, it's principals, and it's agenda.--ghost 13:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ghost, I think the connection between ID and the Discover Institute needs to remain in the main article. It could be possible to split off some of the specific battles that the Discovery Institute has waged to get intelligent design into schools, but each battle ought to be mentioned in this article, at least a single sentence per school board battle or something, just to put the scope of the fight into context. Then the other articles can give all teh specifics of each individual fight, which school board, what city, what year, who was there, what was said, whether the board approved, whether voters voted people out of office, stuff like that. This article could be greatly reduced in length simply by NOT making it a soapbox for ID proponents to make every single one of their arguments in favor of ID, but rather to present the basic arguments, the criticism of each, and a link for readers to investigate further. FuelWagon 18:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think thats still a little to long. A sentance such as "the Discovery Institute, widley considered the primary proponent of ID, has been pushing hard in various school board battles, starting with .... and most recently ..... See list of discovery instintute battles. ETC. Ultimatly, while this may serve the discovery intitutes intrests, its also serving our intrests as wikipeidans more. Our dedication is to neutrality, not to thwarting the DI (which I'd love to do myself, believe me. Thats part of the constraint of the NPOV. The conncetion must be there, yes. The fact that there are plenty of people using ID as a wedge to screw up the US public school system even more than it already is, yes, thats important. The article as it stands is heavly weighted against ID, because it has a lengthy logical test of the ID arguments, which are from a scientific point of view, incredibly flawed. This is not a major problem of bias, but of length. We can trim it all down to its basic elements for the sake of brevity while still remaining accurate.--Tznkai 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've got a first draft of the Intelligent design movement article done enough to present to you folks. Please breeze through it. It still needs references, etc. and needs the second 1/2 re-wikified. I agree that references to the key issues should remain in the main article. I'd like to see them trimmed down from a couple of paragraphs, to a couple of sentences + links. Also, could everyone concerned Watchlist the Intelligent design movement so that we make sure we're all on the same page. I want this improving the content, not creating hard feelings.--ghost 18:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ghost, I took a look at it. Looks pretty good. Do we really need to put wedge strategy in its own article though? It would seem that it could fit easily into the ID movement article. My watchlist is gonna keep growing if this keeps up. FuelWagon 19:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excellent work ghost. FuelWagon, I get the feeling that the wedge strategy and teach the contraversy articles will grow rapidly to the point where we can't fit it into the article. Maybe we can drag a few more wikipeidans into the debate and see what they think--Tznkai 20:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. BTW, those subarticles existed prior to this split, which was part of my reasoning for the split in the first place. I think FeloniusMonk has been working on this as well, and he's been on topic for longer than we have. Ask him.--ghost 20:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we're down to 50Kb. Getting better. Please review the changes, they're not perfect, but at least we're not saying the same things 4 & 5 times.--ghost 22:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ID Debate & Arguments sections

These look as if they need to be unified and trimmed. In particular the bullets in ID Debate are redundant, although there's some good links there. I suggest we yank the bullets, roll the ...arguments sections up to ID Debate, and copy/edit from there. Comments?--ghost 18:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relevant items that may've been removed with this section:

Supporters:

  • Further, ID supporters view "Darwinism" as an amoral world view that extends far beyond science into the realms of philosophy, religion, ethics, and even politics.[20]

Critics:

  • Arguments against the sufficiency of natural causes (also known as "God of the gaps") are historically prone to failure. The history of science shows that gaps in our knowledge are continuously filled in. ID skeptics hold that it is unwarranted to assume that what evolution cannot currently explain must automatically make ID the preferred explanation.

Other:

  • It is far from universally true that religiously conservative individuals are supporters of "Intelligent Design". For example, in 1996 John Paul II stated that recent research had led the Catholic Church, "toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis", and that it was not necessarily inconsistent with Catholic dogma.
  • Not all supporters of evolution are willing to make the line against teaching Creationism in schools one that they are willing to defend with political capital. Albert Gore, while Vice President of the United States, stated that he did not oppose local school districts using federal funds to teach Creationism.
  • Not all critics of ID regard it as a clear and present danger. For example William Saletan of Slate agrees that Intelligent Design is neo-creationism, and that it is "soft headed", but disputes the contention that it is any more than a last gasp of "educational relativism". [21]
  • Public opinion polls as of January 2005 showed that the majority of Americans believe that, "God created humans in their current form."[22]

Section removed by --ghost 22:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

anti-ID, pro-evolution National Academies website

Can someone suggest a place to use this new site? External links? In-line? --Rikurzhen 01:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Some of these links are solid, but I think you want to break them out, rather than giving the reader a link to links.--ghost 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed section

  • Not all religions view the Universe as the artifact of an outside creator. Eastern religions variously see the Universe as a manifestation of the creator, as a dream of the creator, or as the indivisible mind and body of the creator. Non-theistic and Transcendentalist philosophies consider the primary substance of the Universe to be pure awareness, and therefore consider all material to be inherently insubstantial. All such religions more or less hold that the laws of nature are themselves a manifestation of divinity, and many in fact propose that just as living things evolve, so also do the implicate laws of the universe themselves evolve. In any case, it is only dualistic theologies based on overtly literal interpretations of scripture that have any interest in promulgating theories such as intelligent design, precisely because evolutionary theory threatens their dogmatism.

"Eastern" religions is a widely misused term that paints a lot of religions with a lot of sects with a very wide brush. "In any case, it is only dualistic theologies based on overtly literal interpretations of scripture that have any interest in promulgating theories such as intelligent design, precisely because evolutionary theory threatens their dogmatism." Is VERY POV. I'd like to see this sort of statement be backed up by philosophers, theologians and or gallup polls--Tznkai

I understand your concerns, although I like the section's message that not all faiths are threatened by, or seek to discredit Naturalism. I'll got to work on this today. BTW, you can add a signature by using 4 ~s, or using the signature button (2nd from the right at the top of the edit window).--ghost 12:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)