Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Citing Dembski in the intro 2 ID on the O'Reilly Factor 3 what the= 4 Doesn't this sound a little bit weird to you? 5 Give ID its due, let it be presented and treated as hypotheses 6 Quote from Intelligent Design included extra words 7 Intelligent design is Theology, not Science 8 Shouldn't "Intelligent Design" redirect to Creationism? 9 This article is not netural 10 vandalism reported 11 Purpose? 12 New Introduction 13 Fundamental problem with ID? 13.1 Another ID problem/query 14 A Suggestion 14.1 2 15 Critics of ID vs. Proponents 16 some reorganization 17 ID proponents who are not theists 18 Dispute flag 19 notes 20 Explanations of Edits

Citing Dembski in the intro

The intro cites Dembski in his book "The Design Inference" listing God or aliens as two possible designers. Yet Dembski is quite explicit elsewhere in his certainty that the designer is none other than The Designer (formerly known as God). In Dembski's Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology he states that "The conceptual soundings of the intelligent design theory can in the end only be located in Christ." In his Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris Dembski states "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."

The original Dembski quote leaves the reader with the impression that Dembski (like all other leading ID proponents) is circumspect about who the designer is, which is not the case at all. The leading ID proponents have incorporated an obfuscation of the Christian theological basis of their support for ID, there's no reason for the article to help them along in that task. In the interest of accuracy and completeness I'm adding the Dembski quotes provided here with appropriate footnotes and links. FeloniousMonk 08:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that hard to tell when Dembski is talking on behalf of the ID theory and when he is talking on behalf of his personal beliefs. His personal belief is that ID opens the door for Christ. His comments on the theory are that we scientifically never know who the designer is and that the identity of the designer is up for personal interpretation. Thus, the Christ references are relevant to the Dembski article, but not the ID one.

Analogously, Dawkins's personal belief is that evolutionary theory leads one be an intellectually satisfied atheist... which is one way to extrapolate evolution. And that belief is relevant to the Dawkins page, but has no place on the evolution page. David Bergan 14:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Except this article says that Dawkins' position is that evolution disproves the existence of God. Your more accurate statement above that evolution leads one to be an intellectually satisfied atheist does not extrapolate to what the article says. Unless you have Dawkins on record stating that evolution disproves God. --JPotter 18:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Unless you have Dawkins on record stating that evolution disproves God. Dembski isn't on record saying that ID proves Christ. He doesn't even say it proves God. He says that in his experience it has lead some to Christ, and he thinks it fits holistically with teaching his beliefs. If ID is scientifically true, it only suggests that there was a designer... a designer that could just as well be an autistic alien or even Thor. David Bergan 22:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Very appropriate. Wikipedia shouldn't aid creationist dissembling. --Ian Pitchford 09:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sourced quotes are good. The "who is the designer" stuff may be better arranged in its own paragraph in the intro, left as is, or morph into something else, but sourced quotes are the basis for NPOV. FuelWagon 14:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

At this point, the quote has been moved. I am pleased so see that the intro is less cluttered. A minor issue that I see with the "Religion and leading ID Proponents" section is that it seems to serve two purposes: introducing a cast of representatives of the views, and establishing ID's relationships to religion and Christianity. --Wmarkham 10:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the quote has been put back(at least as of the last time I saw it). As others have already pointed out, the statements about Dembski's views about the identity of the designer which do not follow from ID cannot be part of the ID section. This is clear ad hominem and there no way to get around it. --AaSmith 18:46, 6, Sept.

ID on the O'Reilly Factor

Here is the definition of ID from tonights O'Reilly Factor:

"That concept puts forth that a higher power oversaw the evolutionary process and that is why man will never completely understand it."

The "higher power" again? And just overseeing evolution? This is not inline with the minimalist definition, and is not concerned about falsifiability and also not concerned with speciation through macro-evolution. Evidently, macro- evolution can be overseen just as easily as micro-evolution.--Silverback 09:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't even coherent. It doesn't follow from "higher power oversees" that "man will never understand it". If evolution follows natural processes, man should be able to understand it no matter who is 'overseeing' it. If, on the other hand, evolution does not follow natural processes, then the higher power is doing more than 'overseeing' it, he's actively guiding it. --goethean ॐ 15:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've seen both definitions used, though the one presented on the O'Reilly Factor is by far the more deprecated. At least the Discovery Institute's definition actually makes sense [1].

"Higher power." Nice. Coming up with creative euphemisms for God is their real genius, as opposed to the logical consistency in their various definitions. FeloniousMonk 00:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

what the=

Alright, what the heck happened to this article? The "ID in summary" section was supposed to be the proxy for the intro. The intro was supposed to be a short and sweet single paragraph on what ID says it is. Now the intro is almost nothing but criticism, and what ID says it actually "is", is buried. Can someone refactor this? Personally I'd push to ahve a two sentence intro, one to say what ID is and one to give the mainstream science point of view, and the move all the rest of the criticism down into the rest of the article. FuelWagon 02:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Take a swack at paring it down. FeloniousMonk 03:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this sound a little bit weird to you?

"Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, the scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience." I'm not debating whether or not this is relevant, it certainly is important to know what the opposing sides think about controversial topics such as this. I just dislike the wording of the sentence. If we believe Wikipedia, then the scientific community is the entire body of scientists, regardless of their stance on ID. This sentence makes it sound as if every scientist thinks that ID is a crock of crap. Why not word it "most of the scientific community does not..."? I don't think the scientific community will mind, unless they unanimously agree on this too.

• that's a simple one, it's because it's NOT a scientific theory. So this is an entirely factual sentence. Mmmbeer 02:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately that's not the only claim made by the sentence, it also asserts that ID is "creationist pseudoscience." Besides that, if it's a true statement then what difference does it make what the "scientific community" thinks, why not just say "ID isn't a scientific theory, it's creationist pseudoscience"? My point isn't really about whether or not what the majority of the scientific community thinks is true, it's that the entire scientific community can't possibly agree unanimously.
• "that's a simple one, it's because it's NOT a scientific theory. So this is an entirely factual sentence. Mmmbeer 02:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)"

Correction, YOU think it is a fact, this is wikipedia, on controversial pages if even a tiny minority of the community disputes your arguement you are required to present it in the "on one hand", "but on the other" format, however passionately you may feel that it is not a scientfic theory some members ( but not all) of the ID community dispute this. This is not a public school, it's alright to "Teach the controversy." "if it's a true statement then... why not just say "ID isn't a scientific theory, it's creationist pseudoscience"? We tried that and it created a sh*tstorm of protest from ID proponents as not being NPOV. To move forward the long-term editors compromised with a sentence or two that the National Academy of Sciences (representing the US scientific community), declared ID to be creationist pseudoscience. This has been whittled down down by innumerable "improvements" to what you see today. Such is the nature of wikis... FeloniousMonk 03:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Give ID its due, let it be presented and treated as hypotheses

Yes, the criticism won't have more than a token presense if at all, in the opening paragraph, but this provides an organizing principle. I propose this outline:

   1) the hypothesis that some elements of life have been designed
      a) irreducable complexity
   2) given IC, the hypothesis that other elements of life may also 
      have been designed or "guided"
   3) the orthogonal (independent) hypothesis that the the whole universe
      has been designed
      a) evidence that it appears to be "fine tuned" 
   4) hypotheses about the life designer(s)
      a) hypotheses about what point or points in time for each hypothesized design
      b) hypotheses about what locations for the original implementation of each design(s)
      c) hypotheses about the levels of intelligence and technology
      d) hypotheses about how many designers (a race or species vs single entity)
      e) additional hypotheses about special powers or technologies 
         i) interstellar travel?
         ii) nano-technology?

MoisesF- I just want to say that it is not true that the entire scientist class do not accept ID as a science, ID is also taught in most Universities around the country today. ID have all it is needed to be postulated as a credible hypotesis, and I think that the issue of the vinculation between ID and monoteistic religion might be an issue because most people have a tendency to stereotype everything that does not goes as Darwin's evolution hypotesis as to be religious and that is not the spirit of science, might be some people are afraid to accept that what is told from those who belives in God from generations and generations is true. We need to open our minds and not be prjudicious with those that have a different view because if not we are not promoting science but some personal agendas.

         iii) supernatural powers? enumerate the kinds proposed
      f) hypotheses about the intent of the designer
         i) an experiement? life?
         ii) companionship?
         iii) worshipers?
         iv) evil manipulation
      g) hypotheses about the current status of the designer
         i) dead
         ii) elsewhere, perhaps "seeding" other planets
         iii) watching? communicating?
    5) hypotheses about the fine tuned universe designer
       a) how powerful, what powers
       b) what was created?
         i) one universe?
         ii) multiverse?
       c) how intelligent? 
         i) enough to start things?
         ii) enough to generally know what might happen?
         iii) enough to know ALL that was going to happen,
              down to each indivdual's behavior and thoughts?
       d) the intent of the designer         
         i) an experiement? life?
         ii) companionship?
         iii) worshipers?
         iv) evil manipulation?
    6) hypotheses that the fine tuned universe and one or more of the life
       designer(s) are the same

The advantage of this as an organizing principle, is that the minimalist hypthesis gets a fair hearing, yet all the various more informal and media definitions are just the minimalist definition, plus various hypotheses about the designer, higher power, supernatural guiding ability, etc. In the article proper, evidence and criticism of the evidence for each hypothesis is given. Of course, part of the criticism of each hypothesis will be whether that particular formulation is really scientific, falsifiable, or has any evidentiary support.--Silverback 02:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the mainstream scientific community disputes the notion that ID is a "hypothesis", so you can't use that term as undisputed fact. You can't say "the hypothesis that blah" if a major group disputes that it qualifies as a hypothesis, or even disputes that it's scientific in any way. FuelWagon 03:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Technically, ID is a conjecture. I'm not philosophically opposed to SB's outline at the heading level, but some the subheadings are iffy. Still, I'd want to see a proof of concept, perhaps here in the article talkspace or in a user talkspace before I'd endorse or condemn it. The article was in much better shape four weeks ago or so, but with all the creep that's been seeping in (yes, mine own recent bit too), it's becoming muddled. FeloniousMonk 03:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? There's scientific criteria for something even being labeled a hypothesis? I suppose if you think ID is all about the supernatural, and that science can't talk about the supernatural, that would be a valid objection. Anyway, doesn't matter much to me... all of these terms are synonyms in my book: thesis, hypothesis (under-thesis), conjecture, and proposition. David Bergan 17:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is. FW even presented a link to it several days ago.[2] FeloniousMonk 17:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hypotheses must be able to be tested, IOW, falsifiable. If something cannot be tested, it's just speculation. Like the idea that dinosaurs became extinct because they ate angiosperms. No way to test. It's speculation.

Good point, I guess. It's not testable, though it's not impossible for it to be proven. The existance of a deity is untestable, but he/she/it/they could reveal him/her/it/thenselves. Damn, this Talk page is a mess. -- Ec5618 20:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Extracted from William Dembski's The Design Inference, page 68:

Indeed, confirming hypotheses is precisely what the design inference does not do. The design inference is in the business of eliminating hypotheses, not confirming them....Because the design inference is eliminative, there is no "design hypothesis" against which the relevant chance hypotheses compete, and which must then be compared within a Bayesian confirmation scheme.

Further, consider: A theist like Isaac Newton can look at the universe that that he believes God created, can hypothesize about that universe, e.g., Newton's law of gravitation, and can test those hypotheses. But how does a theist hypothesize about God Himself? If God can do anything, what testable predictions can we deduce about the universe from the hypothesis that God created it? Ivar Y 15:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

But how does a theist hypothesize about God Himself? If God can do anything, what testable predictions can we deduce about the universe from the hypothesis that God created it? - Well, one of the "hypotheses" is that God does in fact exist. Another is that if He exists, that He can do anything. (Process theologians believe God can't do anything natural... He can't stop boulders from smashing cars, for example.) Another hypothesis that would be empirically testable would be the forensic evidence surrounding any miracle to see if the event happened at all, and if indeed the only reliable explanation is to call it a miracle. A fourth would be testing the hypothesis that God communicated to us directly through an inspired text. If the text makes prophesies that are empirically shown to be false, then that rules it out as being fully inspired (fully inspired by an omniscient good being, that is... it could be fully inspired by a moron, insane, or lying god). So, if I'm understanding you right, I think your statement is a hasty generalization. Yes there are mysteries to God, but that doesn't mean everything about God is a mystery. David Bergan 17:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea, Silverback. You're laying out most of the possibilities about the designer(s)... but I'm curious as to how you propose to determine which of them are/aren't empirically supported. I mean when you get down to the little Roman numerals your outline is mostly question marks. Can we answer those questions empirically? Or does it come down to philosophy and/or faith? You've whetted my appetite. I'm eager to see where you're going with this. David Bergan 17:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Empirical evidence is part of what gets illustrated and emphasized by this organization. There is only empirical evidence for the most minimalist forms, irreducible complexity and fine tuned universe, and that evidence is at most suggestive, not conclusive, with some of Behe's hypotheses already shot down. There is no evidence of a designer or to distinguish among the designer hypotheses. Those hoping to get a proof of the existence of God, or information about God's nature on this, are digging themselves a hole, because there is no place to go.--Silverback 00:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why is this a good framework? at what point do we get to point out to the reader the logical fallacies being committed? And, as FW pointed out, this would end up being an article entire full of conjectures. As ID proponents well know. The above "hypotheses" cannot be tested. Graft 21:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The multiplicity of hypotheses with no evidence with which to distinguish them exposes one of the logical falicies. Those who hope ID points to an ominisicient, omnipotent, benevolent God, will see that there is a long way to go and a lot to overcome before they get there, and all ID gives them is a designer-in-the-gaps, barely-suggestive, baby step. I believe everyones favorite falicy has a place where it will fit within this framework. Let us know if you have a favorite that you think is problematic.--Silverback 00:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

We don't need this. --JPotter 01:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

--JPotter 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Intelligent Design included extra words

The following quote from Intelligent Design included extra and changed words that completley changed its meaning:

In his book Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology Dembski states that "The conceptual soundings of the intelligent design theory can in the end only be located in Christ." ^[3]. [Underlines added to inaccurate portion]

• '^  Dembski. 1999. Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology. "The conceptual soundings of the intelligent design theory can in the end only be located in Christ" p. 210

An accurate, fuller version of the quote reads:

"Christ is indispensible to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ. Christ, as the completion of our scientific theories, maintains the conceptual soundness of those theories..."

Dembski is thus speaking about theories in general. (The entire section it's in also deals with theories in general.) To misquote him is intellectual dishonesty.--Johnstone 12:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sofixit. Why did you delete it? He's still claiming that ID is inherently linked, in his mind at least, to Christianity, and thur, to religion. -- Ec5618 12:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

No he's not. He's arguing that all scientific theories are linked to religion. Opponents of ID don't agree with Dembski that it's a scientific theory.--Johnstone 13:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes he is. All scientific theories, including ID, in his mind, apparently, are linked to religion. Which is what I just said. What am I saying wrong? "ID is linked to religion". Whereas the previous quote had seemed to suggest that Dembski was willing to allow for other possible designers. -- Ec5618 13:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

In it's present form, the (mis)quote is intellectually dishonest. For Dembski, as for all Christians, all things are ultimately linked to Christ.--Johnstone 13:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Again. So fix it. Don't just delete something you disagree with, try to FIX it. -- Ec5618 13:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Still implied by your "fixed" quote ("Christ is indispensible to any scientific theory... The conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.")is that Dembski is using the words "the theory" to refer specifically to ID. He's not*. Of such subtle shadings of meaning is intellectual dishonesty made. (Just to be clear: I don't think that it was intentional.) If that's corrected, all that the quote does is highlight something that is totally irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of his arguments—Dembski's Christianity (which anyone can discover by clicking on his wikilinked name). Let's delete it an be done with it.--Johnstone 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

*The chapter that the quote is in ("Science and Theology in Mutual Support") is dedicated entirely to Dembski's analysis of the relation between science and theology. The sub-chapter it's in ("Christ as the Completion of Science") focusses entirely on Dembski's "thesis that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ."

Well, he says "any scientific theory", and I assume that for him that includes intelligent design. It also reflects his a priori approach to science, which is relevant to the article. I'd prefer the longer quote with the accurate wording, but it seems relevant enough to go in the article. FuelWagon 01:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

My fix was a direct, verbatim quote from his book. Your recent "fix" changes Dembski's words to reflect your personal interpretation of what Dembski meant; as such I'm returning Dembski's actual words to the article. FeloniousMonk 04:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There are times when verbatim quotes appropriately capture meaning, and then there are times when they don't. Perhaps an analogy will help:

For argument's sake, suppose in a book about Chevys the author writes, "Safety is indispensible in any automobile, even if its owners don't realize it. The joys of owning a car can, to be sure, be experienced without appreciating its safety. But user satisfaction with the car can in the end only be fully realized with its safety. Safety, as the most fundamental requirement of our vehicles, permits the full enjoyment of those vehicles..."

Then in an article about Chevys, someone else writes, "So-and-so said this about Chevys: Safety is indispensible in any automobile ... user satisfaction with the car can in the end only be fully realized with its safety. " This would wrongly imply that the author's words were used with regard specifically to Chevys. Of course the author considers Chevys to be cars, and he/she may feel that they are safe vehicles. But when it's put in the wrong context, it imples that they are singling out Chevy's for special praise for their safety, when they actually did nothing of the sort in the actual book. Why can't you see this? It's really not that difficult.--Johnstone 01:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC).

If you'd take the time to read Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology, you'd see that when Dembski in Chapter 7 said "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." he's talking about about both science in general and ID in particular. Why? Because the quote is taken from a section of the book titled "Part 3 Bridging Science & Theology". The section's content makes clear what Dembski believes is doing that bridging is ID. The subsection that contains the quote is titled "7.6 Christ as the Completion of Science", which is preceded by "7.5 The Big Bang and Divine Creation"'. See where he's going with this? So it's no coincidence that the chapter immediately follow the quote is titled "The Act of Creation" (also a fact with no small amount of irony for a concept whose proponents claim it is neither creationism nor tied to theism). No, the original quote is accurate as used in the article; Dembski is referring to both theories in general, and ID in particular. FeloniousMonk 06:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with an author developing background, etc., in speculating on how his theories may fit into a larger context, and may be reconciled with his beliefs. However, in that particular quote, Dembski is talking about science in general, he is not talking about ID in particular. To insist on selectively quoting him in a context that implies otherwise like you have done is simply dishonest.--Johnstone 12:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dembski claims ID is science, doesn't he? Or are you saying that he doesn't? If that's the case, we should lose the entire Dembski quotes in the intro.

Again, go read Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology. The entire book is about how Dembski feels that God, as the creator, suffuses science, and that ID as a theory will make that apparent to all, especially "secular" scientists. Hence, the book, and specifically the quote in question, is about science and ID, not just science. Without having read the book, your wasting your time with line of reasoning. FeloniousMonk 16:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You're acting mighty dense. I'm simply saying that the quote implies that the words "the theory" refers to ID, and only ID. It doesn't. It refers to scientific theories in general, and to imply otherwise is misleading. And I have read the book (in fact, I wrote the article on it!). I do know the entire context of the quote—and that it's present use in the article is dishonest. Dembski does speculate about how ID relates science and Christian theology; using a misquote in an attempt to make that point is wrong.--Johnstone 00:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If Dembski thinks that the soundess of all theories are located in Christ, and if he thinks that ID is a theory, then he thinks that the soundness of ID is related in Christ. This seems perfectly relevant and notable for this article. --JPotter 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

JPotter gets it. I'll ignore the personal attack, Johnstone, but just this time. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for characterization of your behavior.

You both just don't get it. I never said Dembski's beliefs on the relation of ID to Christ don't belong in the article (although placing it in the first paragraph seems to be special pleading). It's that the quote violates basic scholarly practice of not using a quote out of context and thereby misrepresenting what an author says. When one starts doing that... --Johnstone 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It's our position that the quote is not presented out of context. As JP pointed out, Dembski says soundness of all theories are located in Christ. Dembski thinks that ID is a theory. Hence, Dembski thinks that the soundness of ID is related in Christ. This is not a controversial interpretation of Dembski, either. It is completely consonant with literally hundreds of statements he has made, including the quote that follows the one in question in the article - "(ID) opens the path for people to come to Christ." If you really want to make a stink about this, I have plenty of other quotes I can draw on to make the exact same point; I'm sure I can come up with a few whose context cannot be quibbled over.

Furthermore, if Dembski doesn't think that the soundness of ID is found in Christ, then please explain to us how it is that the book from which the quote is taken is titled: "Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology". FeloniousMonk 05:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Who said that the out-of-context quote isn't consonant with Dembski's thought? Certainly not me. Again, my point is one of literary accuracy. It doesn't matter if the end result happens to match your/mine/anyone's interpretation of his overall thinking. The way that the quote is used in the article implies that Dembski was saying something other than what he was actually saying. This is unacceptable scholarship. One might just as well say, "Dembski said, 'Darwinism is ... pseudoscientific ... theory that ... will go on the ... dunghill of history.' " Maybe I think that that quote is uncontroversially consonant with many of his other statements, and he may have actually said all those words at one time or another (in stating other things). But presenting such a quote would be ridiculous. However, this is just an extension (albeit absurd) of what you are doing with the quote in question. If you must, please use one of the other quotes you have.--Johnstone 22:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design is Theology, not Science

The title of one of Dembski's books is Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. In that book he writes: "My aim is to use divine creation as a lens for understanding intelligent agency generally. God's act of creating the world is the prototype for all intelligent agency (creative or not). Indeed all intelligent agency takes it's cue from the creation of the world. How so? God's act of creating the world makes possible all of God's subsequent interactions with the world, as well as all subsequent actions by creatures within the world. God's act of creating the world is thus the prime instance of intelligent agency." (p. 224) "Information - the information that God speaks to create the world, the information that continually proceeds from God in sustaining the world and in acting in it and the information that passes between God's creatures - this is the bridge that connects transcendence and immanence. All of this information is mediated through the divine Logos, who is before all things and by whom all things consist (Colossians 1:17). The crucial breakthrough of the intelligent design movement has been to show that this great theological truth - that God acts in the world by dispersing information - also has scientific content." (p. 233) "The world is God's creation, and scientists in understanding the world are simply retracing God's thoughts." (p. 234) It's clear that in Dembski's theology the ultimate explanation of intelligent design can only be God's action. --Ian Pitchford 14:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

ID is not bad science because Dembski, Behe, Johnson, and others are religious. So was Isaac Newton. Ivar Y 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Who said that was the reason ID is bad science? Its bad science because, for one, it assumes a certain truth, while science tries to find truth. Also, back then everyone was religious. -- Ec5618 21:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Who said that was the reason ID is bad science?

Perhaps I am wrong but that is how I interpreted Pitchford's remarks.

Its bad science because, for one, it assumes a certain truth, while science tries to find truth.

Where does Dembski assume that God exists? He believes that God exists but that is not the basis for his intelligent design assertion. His justification for his assertion is wrong but it is not wrong because that he believes that God exists. Further, one is on dangerous ground when one asserts that science is a search for truth. From The Nature of Space and Time by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, pages 3 and 4:

I [Hawking] take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality. All that one can ask is that its predictions should be in agreement with observation.

If one accepts a pragmatic definition of truth, i.e., that truth is a prediction that seems to work, then one can claim that science is a search for truth. But most people don't do that. Ivar Y 01:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you were reading too much into Ian Pitchford's post. He merely quoted from Dembski's book on ID, showing that Dembski cannot separate science from religion. So while Dembski claims at one point to be open to the idea that life was spawned by aliens, for example (and is in fact quoted in the article to show that ID proponents needn't be hung up on religious interpretation), he is in fact convinced of a supernatural designer: 'god'.

On Hawking, he's right. Science tries to explain the natural world through modeling. As long as the natural world continues to fit the models, the models are accurate. When they do not fit the data, the models are adjusted to fit the new data. This way, the models become more correct with time. But the models can only hope to fit with an idealised reality, in which random elements do not exist, or with a macroscopic reality, in which random elements are negligible. Does that mean that science does not seek an ever greater understanding of truth? If we assume this universe is governed by natural laws, we should be able to deduce these laws. -- Ec5618 09:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The book puts the lie to all the arm waving about ID's agnostic foundation. Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology should be required reading. FeloniousMonk 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Who said it was? Ivar Y 01:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If a person states one thing in one place, suggesting he's open minded to a certain audience, but admits in another, to another audience, that he will accept only one option, he's misleading people. Some might say lying. -- Ec5618 09:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

...Dembski cannot separate science from religion....

...he's misleading people. Some might say lying.

It is irrelevant whether Dembski is biased. The issue is whether his arguments are sound or not. Many creationists insist that the theory of evolution is the work of a cabal who want to undermine belief in God. Unfortunately, many critics of intelligent design are using a similar argument. These critics say that ID is wrong not because it has no testable predictions but because its proponents are religious fanatics. Both groups see the issue as religious. The science is irrelevant. Ivar Y 07:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant? ID advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference" lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options. But he is only willing to consider the first as a viable option. When the most prominent ID advocates are unwilling to consider an option outside of religion, it gives credence to the accusation that ID is just Creationism is disguise. Which is why this text is included in the article, in my mind.

Dembski is a Christian so, of course, he wants to find evidence for the existence of the God that he believes in. This does not mean that Dembski denies the possibility of alien intelligent life forms or that he denies the possibility that science may someday refute intelligent design. From The Design Revolution, page 282:

...Is intelligent design refutable? ... Yes....If it could be shown that biological systems that are wonderfully complex, elegant and integrated -- such as the bacterial flagellum -- could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (and thus that their specified complexity is an illusion), then intelligent design would be refuted on the general grounds that one does not invoke intelligent causes when undirected natural causes will do.

You are putting words in Dembski's mouth. Ivar Y 19:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You said: "..the theory of evolution is the work of a cabal.." These people don't exist, surely. Surely these people need help tying their shoes. I'd like to have a word with these people, or their legal guardians. I'd like to explain the science is not a popularity contest, and that, no matter what we would all like, we can't just make stuff up. We can't. I'd also like to introduce these people to Bensaccount. -- Ec5618 12:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Intelligent Design" redirect to Creationism?

Let's not kid ourselves. Perhaps this article should be downsized and made part of the Creationism article?

No. Creationism in a clown suit is still a different topic than ordinary creationism. Neocapitalist 18:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is not netural

From the very beginning it has criticism, without yet even a reasonable explanation/summary of what the topic is!

Perhaps you can come up with a more specific complaint -- or even a way to resolve the problem you see. And the inclusion of criticism doesn't mean this article isn't NPOV. There is such a thing as scientific fact, and if you don't agree with facts, then that doesn't mean wikipedia isn't NPOV for not presenting them. --Quasipalm 16:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong the criticism. However the articile is not neutral, it's quite clear from the tone that most of the writers are opposed to ID. An ideal articile should be phrased such that it is impossible to tell from the tone which side most of the editors support, Wikipedia should be completely value netural. Also much of the articile misunderstand the gist ot the debate. For example one section claims that ID's detractors think it is unfalsiable because it leads to an infinte regress, in actual fact the two have little to do with each other, it is not the fact that ID may enter an infinte regress that makes it's detractors claim it is emprically vaccous, but rather it's (arguably) supernatural content or it's possible explanatory vaccuity, that's the problem when you've got non philosophers disscusing complex philosophical concepts, they make basic mistakes and confuse arguements, as a wikipedian I guess I'll just have to accept that .

vandalism reported

here FuelWagon 19:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Purpose?

Why is an intelligent design so important? If this means we are here because of 'aliens' it does not disprove the existence of evolution. (They too might have evolved.) Furthermore, how does ID explain the origins of this designer? Is that even possible according to 'scientific method, and would this in itself not refute the whole principle of ID being science?' Is he/she also the result of design or would the end in a deus ex machina?

I cannot help but conclude that aliens do not represent an alternative theory to evolution. So, it must be GOD that is to be this designer. Only then will it be possible to show a different theory. Hence, ID has to be another form of creationism don't you think? --Nomen Nescio 20:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Officialy, you're wrong, the ID movement does not touch upon the supernatural. Who designed is not the issue, and officially, the movement was dreamed up to address real concerns concerning the theoretical evolution of, for example, eyes. Irreducible complexity, and what not. So, ID does not require god. The aliens who created us might have evolved more slowly, or very clumsily. The aliens might not show any signs of intelligent design. They might have chosen to guide our evolution because it was going too slowly (as natural evolution would), and in odd directions.

Unofficialy of course, ID is religiously motivated. Everyone knows it. For one thing, only creationists advocate it. (Well, there are also some ignorant people, and some people who have grown tired of waiting to understand the complexity of nature). No atheist has ever been convinced by the 'overwhelming evidence' available. But that's unofficially. -- Ec5618 20:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Although I am aware that any supernatural explanation is absent in ID it is inevitable that GOD is meant by it. The reason for this is that any other explanation does not suffice as alternative to evolution. As I understand it the purpose of ID is to show: 1 evolution is inadequate in explaining the world around us, 2 an alternative way of thinking that does explain the world in a different manner than evolution.

Suppose we did prove life did not originate on Earth. Suppose we did prove extraterrestrial origins of life. How does this prove evolution is not the origin? It still could have been, yet on another planet! Aliens do not suffice as alternative for evolution!

At the end of the day the only designer left that could offer an alternative would be GOD. The rest will not hinder let alone disprove evolution. Since that is the purpose of ID it can only mean GOD is the designer!

Furthermore, why is the fact that evolution leaves some questions unanswered reason for doubting its premisse? Many, if not all, theories have this and it never warrants the reaction: "let's dismiss this and find another." Especially, when there are only minor gaps. Evolution does explain the majority of things we observe. This new theory would have to explain all evolution allready does plus fill in the gaps. To my knowledge ID does neither.

As to the "who," of course it is important. Otherwise you will have explained something you don't understand with something else you can't explain. It only shifts but does not solve the problem of "how." Hardly scientific, more a form of logical fallacy. --Nomen Nescio 12:12, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

You are then suggesting two things:

• ID precludes evolution. If evolution is not how we came to be, evolution is useless and inherently false.
• If we were designed, all life in the universe must have been designed.

Neither is strictly true, of course. The aliens could have come into being through evolution, or through devine intervention, or they could be human beings, from the future, sent back in time to seed our beginnings. We don't know. A strict interpretation of the gospel of ID does not disallow any of these options, though its followers mostly assume that 'god did it'. -- Ec5618 14:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

What I suggest is:

• 1 Even if life was designed by "Aliens" this does not form an alternative theory to evolution.
  • In this case again the problem remains, what is the origin of this Alien lifeform? To me the same question as ID is trying to tackle here on Earth! This extraterrestrial designer therefore is not a viable route.
  • If we were designed how did the designer come to be? Yet another shifting of the same problem. What is the use of determining "our" design if we are unable to explain the origins of the designer.
• 2 Following the previous argument this designer must turn out to be GOD. If ID is to show an alternative idea as to how life arrived on this planet it can only be thus. Hence, it must be creationism.
  • If the designer is not meant to be supernatural I refer to point 1 and the basis of advancing ID as alternative to evolution disappears.

Here the purpose of ID turns out to be introducing GOD to sciene.

• As to explaining the world around us ID fails to do that. At least to those demanding "scientific" evidence for any claim.

The point I am trying to make is that ID not only fails to offer a serious answer to the many questions remaining. It also has a purpose. Why else would anyone suggest an idea? Its purpose has to be introducing GOD into a more and more secular world.

• I can think of one non religious person who supports ID, David Berlinski

New Introduction

---

In the preface to his book Intelligent Design (page 13), William Dembski writes:

Intelligent design is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action. Intelligent design therefore intersects science and theology. Although the intelligent design movement continues to gain momentum in the culture at large, scientists and theologians remain skeptical about its merits. Many scientists think intelligent design makes for bad science (that it's just creationism in disguise), whereas many theologians think it makes for bad theology (that it misunderstands divine action).

Intelligent design (ID) is controversial and has generated many books and articles, fueled several on-going internet discussion groups, and, armed political movements. This article discusses intelligent design [ID] as a scientific research program. Many people who believe that religion should have a more important role in society have adopted ID; this movement is discussed in intelligent_design_movement. Dembski's book Intelligent Design is discussed at Intelligent_Design_(book).

---

My goal was to devise a more neutral introduction to intelligent design. Letting an ID proponent introduce ID seems less hostile. The previous introduction started with "controversial" and implied that ID is bad science because Dembski is a Christian. Most scientists reject ID because it is makes no testable predictions and not because of the religious associations. Also, reference [1] seems to be incorrect. Dembski certainly believes in the Christian God, but, so far as I can determine, he spends almost no time in this first book of his speculating about the designer. The words "alien life force" do not appear. Ivar Y 14:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please use the talk pahe to discuss edits you know are going to controversial.

The 'old' introduction merely quoted Dembski, I'm told it was a direct quote. While he suggests at one point that he is open to other causes of creation, as ID proposes to be, he is unable to disconnect himself as a scientist from religion. Never does the intro suggest that ID is bad because Dembski is bad, or because he is a Christian, merely that Dembski is a bit of a hypocrite. The quote also shows lends credence to the notion that ID is merely Creationism is disguise, which is a commonly held belief, and a major criticism of ID.

I'll admit, the intro could use some work. It was better a while ago. -- Ec5618 14:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The current introduction is neutral, accurate, focused, concise and balanced. It represents months of debate and compromise. The proposed intro is none of these things. Also, you don't start off an intro with a quote, especially one that doesn't even get the book's title right, which is "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology". I shouldn't have to point out the obvious fact that the book the quote is from proves exactly what Ivar desperately is trying to avoid, that ID is inextricably linked to creationism. FeloniousMonk 16:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

...ID is merely Creationism is disguise....

...ID is inextricably linked to creationism.

We have different ideas about intelligent design. I see ID as an honest effort to find scientific confirmation of the existence of God (or, at least, of a designer who might be God). I agree with most scientists that, so far, the attempt is a failure. Further, unless God publicly and plainly announces his existence, I can imagine no way that Dembski or any other IDer will be able to convince most scientists that a designer must exist. You two, on the other hand, see ID as a dishonest effort to deceive people into thinking that science has verified the existence of God (or, at least, of a designer who might be God). In your view, the science is a fraud; hence, the goal of the ID article in the Wikipedia must be to expose that fraud. As evidence for my interpretation of your view, I point to the two sentences in italics above and to the fact that four of the six sentences in the first paragraph of the original introduction to ID mention God or Christ. Why all this marshalling of ammunition about the religious nature of ID unless you intend to call Dembski and other IDers hypocrites and liars?

I have been entertaining myself for last seven years or so arguing on Talk.Origins, on the ARN forum, on the old Evolution forum, and elsewhere that ID is bad science. I think that I know something about the evolution/creation debate. Unfortunately, when I started reading the ID article in the Wikipedia, my reaction was not one of pleasure; rather, it was one of dismay. Readers who come to the site will not find concise accurate descriptions of why ID is bad science. Rather, they will find ID is "linked to creationism" and, then, condemned because it is. Many readers are likely to interpret the article as condemning religion.

The original reference to The Design Inference "list" in the introduction was: William Dembski, 1998. The Design Inference. Cambridge University Press; cited in Evan Ratliff, 2004. "The Crusade Against Evolution." In Wired Magazine. I earlier deleted the Wired Magazine part because one does not need to use a magazine article to reference a well-known book. Then, I thought I'd better add a page number so that people can find the "quote." I have almost all of The Design Reference scanned into my computer. When I looked for words like "god" and "alien" in the text, I found nothing corresponding to a "list" of designers. The list appears to be Ratliff's, the author of the magazine article, not Dembski's. Ivar Y 22:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Using the method you describe, you'd never find Dembski speculating on possible designers, as he tends to use the terms extraterrestrial, not alien, and rational agent or intelligent agent, not designer. It's easier and better for you to just read the book. You'll find on pages 47, 62, 64, 209 Dembski speculating on extraterrestrials in relation to design, and on pages 60 and 80 he refers to God as a possible rational agent. FeloniousMonk 09:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Fundamental problem with ID?

Aren't ID proponents confusing "evidence of an intelligent designer" with "evidence of something we don't understand"? I mean, for primitive man, changes in weather were evidence of an ID, because they did not understand weather. Throughout history, humans have consistently explained away the ununderstandable by ascribing it to some higher power, an ID if you will. Are modern times any different? Apparently not. Sure, we don't understand exactly how life started, or exactly how evolution produced a wolf's eye, etc. etc. But is our lack of understanding these things evidence of an ID, or evidence of our lack of understanding? --Serge 02:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What you describing is a well known phenomenon called God of the gaps →Raul654 02:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it a well known criticism of ID? Should it be mentioned in the article? --Serge 02:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wove in a reference to ID ultimately being a convolution of the God of the gaps argument into the introduction. Let me know what you think. --Serge 02:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why "a convolution of the God of the Gaps argument"; why not just "a God of the Gaps argument"?

Because a basic "God of the Gaps argument" can be made in a few sentences, while ID is contorted and complicated for hundreds of pages... a convolution. --Serge 17:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I find the term confusing, perhaps, because I think of convolution as a mathematical operation. Ivar Y 06:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, FYI, from Chapter 30 of Dembski's The Design Revolution:

THIS IS PERHAPS THE MOST COMMON OBJECTION against intelligent design, and it goes by many names: argument from ignorance, argument from silence, argument from personal incredulity, god-of-the-gaps, negative argumentation, argument by elimination, eliminative induction, failure to provide a positive alternative and so on.

Interesting. How does he respond to this "most common objection"? A summary of an ID response to the objection, if any, would be helpful in the "argument from ignorance" section of the article. --Serge 17:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't attempt to defend ID against the charge that it is merely god-of-the-gaps. Rather, he asserts that there are huge gaps in Darwin's theory. The last paragraph in the chapter is:

"There is much more to intelligent design than an argument from ignorance. But even if all intelligent design had going for it were an argument from ignorance, that would itself be significant. Darwin's theory is widely purported to have resolved the problem of biological complexity. We now find that this main claim to fame is unsupported. Nor are there any other material mechanisms waiting in the wings that promise to pick up where the Darwinian mechanism leaves off. Committed materialists will no doubt think that intelligent design is overemphasizing biology's current problems and that a materialistic solution can be found in time. Yet the fact remains that there are no detailed, testable models for how known material mechanisms can generate biological complexity -- only a variety of wishful speculations."

I don't know what he means by the first sentence. Ivar Y 06:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a brief mention of "argument from ignorance" elsewhere on the Wikipedia ID page. Ivar Y 07:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about this topic; but I predict at least two responses. The first answer would be that, it is a "god of the gaps" argument. That is, it intends to show the inadequacies of the prevailing theory which attempts to account for the facts apart from intelligent design. The second answer would be that the argument for intelligent design warrants consideration because it suggests some specific way in which research will be more fruitful if intelligence is supposed, and hindered if denied. Unless there is a second response, ID would only be a god of the gaps argument, and not yet an approach to science; and so, I assume that the ID people believe that they have specific applications. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dembski has written (The Design Inference, page 68):

"Because the design inference is eliminative, there is no "design hypothesis" against which the relevant chance hypotheses compete, and which must then be compared within a Bayesian confirmation scheme."

Without a design hypothesis, it is difficult to understand how an ID scientist could deduce predictions that could be studied and tested. Also, I remember reading something of Dembski's to the effect that science can detect design, theology investigates the designer. Unfortunately, I can't find the exact quote. Ivar Y 06:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It was Heinlien who originally wrote that metaphysics is about asking questions, not answering them, because once you answer them, you cross the line into religion. And metaphysics is the proper place for ID, because without a hypothesis it can't be science. All this can be traced back to the goal of the founding ID proponents, the return of the Christian God to science, and a particular tactic within their strategy to accomplish that — attack the current hypothesis and underlying methodology (which just happens to conflict with their personal religious views), without putting forth a viable hypothesis as an alternative. This prompts an angry rebuttal from scientists. Then, instead of forthrightly following scientific methodology and offering an alternative hypothesis, cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" surrounding the current hypothesis and underlying methodology, which obviously means it must be flawed and in need of revision — a revision that would allow for their particular religious views to be considered scientific.

Contriving a controversy this way is self-fulfilling and self-sustaining, though it completely ignores the long established processes by which science moves forward other than to attack it. The legitimate next step in the academic world would be to put forth a hypothesis as an alternative and to invite review. But by using this strategy, ID proponents are able to portray mainstream science as close-minded and insular while exploiting the very technicality of the issues, counting on the public and politicians to miss the fact that there's no actual thesis or hypothesis in their claims. For example Dembski boasts that he provoked Thomas Schneider into a response he characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." But what looks to scientists to be a knockout rebuttal to Dembski by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to non-scientists, and especially the public, as "ridiculous hair-splitting" [4]. This is central to Ian Pitchford's original point that "claiming that X explains everything and that X requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, it's a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating cliché" to which I'd add that it's like particle physics: all particles have spin. But not all have mass. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree with this. But I think that the proper response to ID is to defend science. The worst response is to attack religion. ID is not a bad idea because Dembski is a Christian. It is perfectly reasonable for him, as a Christian, to assert that God is the source of all things: nature, ID, whatever. It is reasonable for him, as a Christian, to try to use science to confirm his beliefs. What is unreasonable is to imply that ID is false because Dembski is a Christian. It isn't. Lots of competent scientists have been Christians, Isaac Newton, for one. The article has to focus on why ID is bad science. What the article should not do is to suggest that Dembski's religious statements prove that ID is a deliberate fraud as a science and that ID is really a wicked conspiracy designed to advance the influence of Christianity. The first paragraph of the article has to be rewritten. Ivar Y 07:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Neither this article nor anyone here is implying ID is false because of it's proponents religious beliefs. What is being said is that there is a distinct conflict between what the leading ID proponents attempt to sell the general public and politicians, and what they say they're attempting to do when speaking to each other, their supporters and constituents. The article's introduction is accurate in noting this. Perhaps it needs to be made more explicit since the quotes largely confirm the gravamen of one of the most significant grievances made against ID proponents — dissemblance and duplicity.

So it's the hypocrisy, not their religious beliefs, that is the problem with Dembski and the other leading ID proponents. The Dembski and Phillip Johnson quotes in the article, when considered in light of the Wedge Strategy, leave little doubt that they are being far less than forthright about their agenda; in fact, it shows that they are following a premeditated plan. When you have Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, saying "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."[5] and "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[6], and a published plan he largely wrote saying this is to be done and why, it would be pretty tough to explain how ID isn't "a deliberate fraud as a science and that ID is really a wicked conspiracy designed to advance the influence of Christianity." (borrowing your words).

That cat is already out of the bag... it's too late to try to keep it in. FeloniousMonk 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Another ID problem/query

How does ID address the issue of poorly designed organs or systems? For example humans often suffer from back problems. Evolution puts this down to the fact that the function of the spine has changed [7]. Evolution must work on the organs/systems already in place. The spine is imperfect for upright posture, but evolution had to make do. If the human back has been designed then firstly why was it designed so badly? And secondly why was it designed to be so similar to the spines of other animals, when those spines serve a different anatomical role? The same can be said of things like the appendix. Evolution can explain it's existence in humans, ID can't. Does ID have explanations for these observations? Should they be included in the article?Alun 10:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

A Suggestion

Treat ID as a science and ID as a movement separately. Move everything that relates to ID as creationism to Intelligent design movement. Narrow the discussion in the current Intelligent design page to the purely scientific issues (except, possibly, a one or two links to the "Intelligent design movement" page, if appropriate). Rename it "Intelligent design science." Create a new introductory "Intelligent design" page that tersely introduces the reader to the issues in intelligent design and that guides the reader to the two other pages for fuller discussions. It should be very short, perhaps, three paragraphs long. Ivar Y 17:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need another article on crackpot science? I suppose there is nothing to prevent you. Given that, may I suggest you look at autodynamics to get some ideas.--CSTAR 17:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Bad idea. 1) There's already is an intelligent design movement article, meaning that this article we are at here, now is the article you propose creating; here's the previous discussion on the article split which has already occurred and resulted in the ID movement article. It helps to WP:RTA. 2) ID isn't science. It's offered no alternative hypothesis, and it conducts no credible, significant research, but instead offers a collection of criticisms and attacks on the existing hypothesis and the scientific method and orthodoxy. That's not science, and a new article is not going to correct that or create a venue where it can be stated it is. 3) An article on ID that introduces the reader to the concept of ID without the context of its proponents is like an article on Catholicism that doesn't mention the Vatican — incomplete and deficient. 4) Wikipedia shouldn't be complicit in well-documented campaigns of dissemblance and pov-pushing, and there's no policy that compels us to do so, but just the opposite. FeloniousMonk 18:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Argh. My bad. Sarcasm isn't useful here. ID doesn't even measure up to autodynamics which at least offers a hypothesis.--CSTAR 00:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I should have added subtitles. "Intelligent design science: Why ID is not science." "Intelligent design movement: ID as religion."

I think that the important people who will query "Intelligent design" in Wikipedia in the future will not be people who already are convinced that Intelligent design is "crackpot science." Rather, they will be people who have been told by their fundamentalist preacher that science is the enemy of religion. They are religious; religion is important in their lives. But, they want their children to understand science. Unfortunately, the current version of the Intelligent design page begins by informing them that ID is controversial and that it is controversial because its advocates make statements defending Christ. It is very unlikely that they will then and there decide to abandon Christ. Rather, they are much more likely to conclude that they are reading the words of an enemy of Christ and that everything that follows is a lie.

I am suggesting that the Wikipedia page that discusses ID as science should not also discuss why some people, e.g., FeloniousMonk, think that ID is creationism. (I'm not sure what "creationism" means here -- any belief in God, YEC?) Rather, they should learn that ID as defined by Dembski and Behe is not testable and that, therefore, ID is not science as most scientists understand it. They don't know that. They don't know what science is. So the ID as science page should tell them. And it should tell that without complicating that message by telling them that creationists like themselves are fools. There is no real conflict between science and religion. The ID page should not suggest, falsely, that there is. One can be a good Christian and a good scientist.

The problem with the current page is that it tries to tell readers that ID is not science and, at the same time, tell them that ID is creationism running amok. It is a mixed message. Unfortunately, many readers will decide that their religion is more important to them than anything that science can offer. I am suggesting that we separate these two messages by discussing them on separate pages. The current ID page, which is mostly about ID as science, can largely be unchanged. (To be honest, I have problems with some of the wording, e.g., I question whether Dembski claims that ID is "a solid scientific theory", but this is an entirely different issue.) However, information about creationism on the current page should be deleted and integrated into the Intelligent design movement page. The current page should focus on the philosophy defining science and on why ID does not conform. It should be neutral about religion. The Intelligent design movement page -- there may be a better name -- should talk about ID as religion and about efforts, especially in the US, to inject religion into the science classes of schools. Ivar Y 07:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm a few days behind on this thread, but I just stumbled upon this page & discussion. I agree with Ivar Y's suggestion that the "ID as movement" stuff be largely excised from this article, leaving just a claims/counterclaims article behind. As it stands now, there's a lot of redundancy between the two pages (ID and ID as movement). | Keithlaw 00:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As well there should; not every reader is going to go to the ID movement article, yet they still need to understand ID within its context or some of the central criticisms will seem appear to be non sequiturs and Wikipedia then becomes complicit in the well-established Wedge strategy tactic of misrepresenting ID to the public, along with the Discovery Institute and the leading ID proponents. So including a minimum amount of necessary coverage of the relevant information on the context in which ID is presented is not just acceptable, but necessary for completeness and accuracy. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some mention of ID as a movement in an "ID as science" article. However, one does not want to undermine the argument against ID as science by leaving the impression that the real goal of the authors is to discredit ID as a movement and, hence, that their criticisms of ID as science are not trustworthy. ID is not bad science because most ID proponents are Christian; it is bad science because there is no testable hypothesis, etc. The arguments against ID as science should be separate from arguments about ID as a movement. Ivar Y 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat this once again — it's not the religious beliefs of ID proponents that is being presented as problematic for ID, it's their duplicity. Until this difference is apparent to you, you'll likely continue to miss this not so subtle and important point.

Also, your view that "The arguments against ID as science should be separate from arguments about ID as a movement" is the other cause of much of your misplaced concern about including the larger context of ID in the article. The two arguments cannot be separated; they are one and the same. That's because ID as you point out contributes nothing to science so there's very little objection to ID as science by the scientific community. What ID does present though is a collection of criticisms to current scientific orthodoxy (coupled with the assertion that an unfathomable intelligence must have done something at some point in natural history). That being the case, what critics of ID largely object to is that the leading ID proponents are using "intelligent design theory" only as a adjunct for furthering their socio-religious agenda. Hence those who'd come to this article laboring under the misbegotten notion that ID is a legitimate scientific contender or unaware that it serves as a veneer over a certain theological message are done a great disservice were the article to fail to point these things out.

Clearly you want to get the content connecting the dots between ID proponent's non-scientific agenda to ID out of this article, whether it is factual and necessary for a complete article or not; your repeated pleas for splitting the article yet once again bears that out. This split has already taken place, and the article as it is is the result. I don't find the argument that content covering ID proponents motives and methods is unnecessary and detrimental to an ID article compelling. FeloniousMonk 09:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

... it's not the religious beliefs of ID proponents that is being presented as problematic for ID, it's their duplicity....

And the evidence for this duplicity is the statements that they have made revealing that they are Christian???

From [OneLook Dictionary Search]: Quick definitions (duplicity):

• noun: acting in bad faith; deception by pretending to entertain one set of intentions while acting under the influence of another
• noun: a fraudulent or duplicitous representation

So what is the deception? What is the fraud? That Dembski, Behe, Johnson, and many other IDers are Christians is scarcely a secret. They distribute articles on the web and author and edit books saying so.

Hence those who'd come to this article laboring under the misbegotten notion that ID is a legitimate scientific contender or unaware that it serves as a veneer over a certain theological message are done a great disservice were the article to fail to point these things out.

I'm suggesting that we focus on clarifying the scientific problems of ID on an "ID as science page" and that we not entangle this issue with fuzzy polemics that imply that Christians are duplicitous. ID as "veneer" can be discussed on the Intelligent design movement page.

I don't have a problem with a paragraph on an "Id as science" page saying that some religious groups are using ID to advance a religious agenda and pointing to the Intelligent design movement page for further information. Ivar Y 07:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've only just stumbled upon the whole ID thing. But it seems apparent to me, at the most cursory glance, that the evidence for duplicity lies not in the christianity of it's proponents, but in the fact that they are portraying it (ID) as a scientific alternative to evolution, when it is not science, and therefore not an alternative to evolution. ID is creationism, it relies on the existence of a creator (either god or some other undefined being like a space alien) for the universe, it also fails to address the nature of the creator. If the existence of a creator (or designer, who, presumably must have done the creating, or got someone else to do the actual creating based on his designes) is required, then it must, by definition be creationism, surely. Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The Vatican has no problems with evolution, for example.Alun 13:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole ID topic could be handled in one article. An intro would give its scientific claim. a history would explain how the movement came about and a brief background of the players. And then a few subsections to report the scientific claims of ID proponents and criticism from mainstream scientists. There is no legitimacy in separating the ID "movement" from the ID "science" because they are one and the same. The term "intelligent design" was invented by a lawyer looking for a way to teach creationism in schools and get around that messy "separation of church and state" requirement. A couple of individuals followed this pied piper and wrote books about scientific claims, inventing terms like "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity", which exist nowhere else in science. Large christian organizations with money funded the whole thing. That is ID in a nutshell. Saying "lets ignore the movement" is like saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". FuelWagon 14:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ivar, the evidence for the duplicity of ID proponents is their own admissions. For example, from Phillip E. Johnson:

• "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus." [8]
• "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." [9]
• "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." [10]
• "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." [11]
• "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed." Phillip Johnson. "Keeping the Darwinists Honest", an interview with Phillip Johnson. In Citizen Magazine. April 1999.
• "What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it... You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in their [the evolutionist's] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence." [12]
• "The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus." [13]

And Dembski:

• "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." [14]
• "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. [...] 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." [15]

So Ivar, there's no shortage of evidence of the duplicity and intellectual dishonesty of the leading ID proponents; you may want to take the time to read some of it objectively to avoid making the same mistake again. FeloniousMonk 17:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Felonius Monk. I understand where Ivar is coming from, but I don't find the argument convincing. The article should explain the concept of ID, should point out the flaws in the theory from a scientific point of view, and then go on to explain the motivations of the people expounding the theory. Any sort of impartial article about ID cannot but point out it's total lack of scientific credibility. The ID movement is not distinct from the theory and so should not be separated. More logically the whold ID article should be merged with creationism, because, ultimately that's what it is.Alun 05:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

2

Christians like Dembski and Johnson want to promote their religion. That does not make them deceivers, frauds, and liars. What is the duplicity in FeloniousMonk's quotes?

• I will repeat what I said earlier. The duplicity lies in the fact that something which is not science and has no place in the science classroom, is being presented as science. Any debate about ID should be presented in the theology classroom. People who support ID want to have it both ways. They want it to be taken as a serious scientific alternative to evolution, but they want the existence of a designer and/or creator to be taken as a given. This requires faith and we are back to theology.Alun 12:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea of ID is not inherently illogical. Speculations about a creator are not forbidden a priori in science. A scientist who has no interest in religion might still hypothesize that life is designed. Conceivably, he or she might even devise a way to test such an hypothesis.

• Speculation in science is fine, presenting speculation as a complete theory is not fine. ID has no scientific pedigree, there are no peer reviewed articles in the scientific press, and ultimatelly, how is one to scientifically challenge faith in a creator? ID relies on the fact that some people see the hand of a designer in the universe, the fact that all these people already believed in a creator and that this belief is based on faith must be a massive indicator that these people were doing nothing more than seeing what they wanted to see.Alun 12:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• ID is not scientific. that's the important bit. "scientific" is different than "logical". Logical is any human-invented system of logic, rules, whatever. See Boolean logic. ID may be logically consistent, but only because it is self defining. "natural processes cannot explain life on earth, therefore supernatural processes must be at cause". it is logical. but it is also circular logic. Biology and evolution and the like are not based on logic, they're based on SCIENCE. You can create all sorts of logical systems that have NOTHING to do with the natural world. ID is a logical argument. It is not scientific. To be scientific, you must experience, you must observe, you must measure. The "designer" of ID is none fo those. The chemistry and biology behind evolution is all of those. We can observe new species emerging now. And we can then theorize that that's what happened in the past as well. ID's designer cannot be observed and is not science. The idea of looking for "signs" of intelligence, for a "fingerprint", has thus far been based on any piece of biology that science does not YET understand, and saying "SEE! We can't explain it, so god must have done it." FuelWagon 14:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The premise of the current ID article is that when a person is both an advocate of ID as science and an advocate of a religion, then that person must be deliberately lying about their belief in ID as science.

• ID is not a science, so your statement that that person must be deliberately lying about their belief in ID as science makes no sense. Anyone who believes in ID as a science does so based on faith, not on any accepted scientific method. I'm sure they believe ID is a science, but it doesn't mean ID is a science, and ther belief has no basis in fact.Alun 12:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that. I don't think that Dembski and the others are deliberately lying when they defend ID. I see no evidence of that. Their defense of ID may reveal their prejudices but one can be prejudiced without being a liar. It is also very bad politics. You aren't going to convince most Americans that IDists are liars on the basis that the IDists hope that the Christian God is the "inferred" intelligent designer. It is much more likely that you will convince them that the critics of ID make reckless charges that should be ignored or condemned.

• These people are liars not because they believe in ID, they are liars because they are trying to convince non-scientists, who may have little understanding of the workings of the scientific discipline, that ID is a science. ID is not a science, any scientist knows that. Any scientist may believe in creation, it's their prerogative, but any scientist who portrays creationism as science is deliberately misrepresenting the facts, and therefore a liar. I define creationism as any theory which is dependent on the existence of a creator for the universe. ID is dependent on a designer who may, or may not also be the creator, but someone must have put the design into practice, ie a creator.Alun 12:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As you probably gather, I think that building an ID article around a claim of duplicity is a very bad idea. I worry about the possibility that Christian fundamentalists will increase their political power in America. But, reckless assertions that some right-wing Christians are liars will aid their cause, not hurt it. Ivar Y 08:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Some far right christians are liars. It's a fact not a reckless assertion. Pandering to the lies of creationists, by allowing them to teach religion in the science classroom is far more likely to lead to an increase in their power base. Imagine all those children leaving school in 10years time having been taught that the existence of a creator is a scintific fact!!!!! No one is attacking christianity. Christianity and creationism are not one and the same thing. Only a tiny minority of christians believe in the puff of smoke model for creation. Most christian denominations, including the Anglican, Lutheran and Roman churches accept evolution as fact, that's the vast majority of christians right there. Your arguements above don't really address the issue of splitting the article. You might find this Richard Dawkins article interestingAlun 12:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree that ID is not inherently religious, but it is telling that most (by far) proponents of ID are also CS advocates, creationism advocates and Christians. Hardly any ID advocates are atheists. And if creationists are using ID to sow doubts about science, I have trouble believing they are merely 'conviced by the overwhelming evidence' suggesting a designer. Also, in my mind, the wedge strategy is negative. Why are they proudly proclaiming their use of it? -- Ec5618 12:30, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

ID inherently requires faith in a creator. Sounds like religion to me.Alun 12:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

We don't seem to be reaching a consensus.

A few comments:

The [Pew Research Center] recently did a survey of American attitudes toward creationism:

"...most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula....."

Other Pew findings: Percent of people who believe that:

Life on Earth Has...

Existed in its present form since the beginning of time 42%

Evolved over time 48%

Evolution guided by a supreme being 18%

Evolution through natural selection 26%

Don't know how evolved 4%

Don't know 10%

The above table indicates that 60% of the people in America currently accept intelligent design. Convincing them that ID is deception and fraud will be very difficult. Actually, the percentage is higher since many people who selected "evolution through natural selection" believe that God designed evolution. There are currently around 297,000,000 people in the United States and that means that the number of IDists is very large.

Incidentally, Alun, there are many [Lutherans] in America who are creationists.

Alun: The article should explain the concept of ID, should point out the flaws in the theory from a scientific point of view, and then go on to explain the motivations of the people expounding the theory.

This is fine but do it in that order. Don't start denouncing the motivations before making clear why ID is not science.

FuelWagon: ID is not scientific. that's the important bit....

I agree. Convincing people that ID is deception and fraud is not the important bit.

The ID article(s) should have two goals:

• Convince people that ID is not scientific.
• Convince people that the ID movement is religious.

What it shouldn't do is try to convince people that IDists are deceivers, liars, and frauds. This claim is arguable -- is a person lying if he does not think that he is lying -- and, even if true, is not an essential goal. Critics of ID may say that they are not attacking religion, but, when these critics use statements about Christian beliefs by ID proponents as evidence that these proponents are deceivers, liars, and frauds, many readers will conclude that is exactly what the critics are doing. Ivar Y 18:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Ivar, you are absolutely right in your final statement, I agree entirely. Though this doesn't address the issue of spliting the article. The Pew Research Centre research is completely irrelevant to my point. It only addresses creationism in the USA. If you read what I actually said you would have seen that it was Most christian denominations, including the Anglican, Lutheran and Roman churches accept evolution as fact, undoubtedly you are correct and some Lutherans may well be creationists, but the Lutheran denomination does not condemn evolution. Lutheran doctrine does not forbid, or preclude the acceptance of evolution as a theory [16]. The population of the US is, indeed, large. But not as large as the number of Catholics in the world [17]. Catholicism doesn't reject evolution either While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn't necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn't reject evolution altogether [18] and from the same article Must faithful Catholics accept evolution as true? No, but they may accept it, with the proper theological qualifications in place, without contradicting their faith. This is actually different to what I said earlier, my understanding may have been incomplete. Then there is this The Anglican and Catholic hierarchies accept evolution, with the Pope describing it as "more than just a theory"[19]. All of the Lutherans I know (and I live in Finland where 85% of the population are members of the Lutheran church) accept evolution, all of the Catholics I know (my father is a Catholic and so I know some) accept evolution, and all the Anglicans I know (I was an Anglican altar boy for 5 years as a boy in South Wales) accept evolution. The situation in the USA is not the same as the situation in the rest of the world [20]. You are using irrelevant data to try to refute a claim I didn't make. I am detecting some systemic bias here.Alun 05:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

When I noted that some Lutherans are creationists, I was making a comment, not a criticism. I am aware that creationists are far less common in Europe than they are in the US.

However, you are right. I am biased And, I am biased because I live in the USA. Why is the Pew survey important to me? Because those tens of millions of creationists are American voters. Their votes affect what children are taught about science in America. And their votes affect the freedom to worship (or not to worship) as one chooses in America.

I find the current Wikipedia article about Intelligent Design very disturbing. The purpose of the article according to FeloniousMonk and others is to persuade people that IDists deceive, lie, and defraud. My fear is that it will have the opposite effect. My fear is that it will help persuade people that religion in America is under siege -- there are many ministers who preach this now -- and that they must respond by voting for conservative, creationist candidates.

I think that is bad. Ivar Y 07:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you totally. I did feel that you were attempting to dismiss my earlier point using the Pew data. If it was not your intention then that's fair enough. You make an excellent point when you say that it is dangerous to concentrate on labelling these people liars, as opposed to concentrating on the fact that they are simply wrong. Does this actually count as an argument in favour of splitting the article though? As I said earlier, say what ID is, say why it is not science and give the real reasons why people support it (religion not science). Surely this can be done in one article?Alun 07:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No where does the article label ID proponents as liars. That's a straw man. The article merely states that there is a clear conflict between their stated intentions offered for public consumption and those intended for their constituency and supporters, which is an easily verified fact. It leaves it for the reader to decide whether the disparity in their claims indicates duplicity. Some statements, such as a number made by Johnson, openly advocate duplicity. For others the duplicity only becomes apparent when they are viewed in the context of the Discovery Institute's Wedge document, which details a strategy that explicitly employs duplicity. Yet we do not connect the dots in any of these articles. We've merely laid them out for the reader to find and connect for themselves, thereby drawing their own conclusions. Ivar is making another straw man argument asserting otherwise; his first being the claim that we/the article is saying that ID is invalid because of its proponent's religion. This is simply not in the article and no one here has made that argument. He is repeatedly using straw man arguments in attempting to remove necessary and well-supported content, concurrent with his incessant lobbying for an unjustified article split (less than 3 months after the split that created the ID movement article) to remove the same content, all while doing some labeling of his own with ad hominems and mischaracterizations. Policy requires a complete and accurate article. This article largely satisfies that requirement as it stands. FeloniousMonk 08:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem and straw man, Ivar. You're simply mischaracterizing our objections to your efforts to delete well-supported and necessary content. Just because you disagree with the article's content and have not found sufficient traction for your arguments for changing it does not entitle you to misrepresent the work of other good-faith editors. This needs to stop. Read WP:FAITH. Nor does it mean that you can flout consensus. Myself and others have made the case for the current article's content long before you arrived. It is factual and well-supported. We have patiently explained to you why it is there and presented all over again the support and justifications for your benefit. That you do not either get them, willfully ignore them or don't find them compelling does not give you the right to malign those who do. FeloniousMonk 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Critics of ID vs. Proponents

Apparently, for all the rhetoric about NPOV and such on wikipedia, this article is only allowed to highlight criticisms to Intelligent Design.

I noticed a small oversight in the summary paragraph, which makes reference to the fact that the Designer in ID cannot be observed. As someone who has read ID literature firsthand, I know that the theory is not concerned directly with questions about the identity of the designer. That is considered a side issue, and a philosophical/theological one at that. So to bring up the issue of the Designer not being "repeatable" is a strawman tactic.

I made the following edit earlier today:

"While the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This would violate the scientific requirement of falsifiability. However, proponents of the theory argue that while the 'Intelligent Designer' may not be directly observable, the results of intelligent action in nature are both observable, and they claim, are reliably detectable."

Tonight, a mere couple hours later, the edits were removed, and the original text restored. I fail to see how my edits were any more biased than what is currently in the article.

Apparently, to mention what the critics say is 100% allowable in this article, but any attempt to give it balance by repeating the actual ID position is quickly silenced.

I'm new to this whole wikipedia community, but I hope what happened is not indicative of the normal manner in which this tool operates.

I haven't done a survey but I suspect that this article is one of the most controversial in Wikipedia. Even people who are generally on the same side of the ID debate disagree about the content of this article. I find that Wikipedia is most useful when one is looking for a summary of uncontroversial facts, e.g., Marlene Dietrich's birthdate.

Regardless, if you read the descriptions of ID carefully, you'll see that they don't tell one how to recognize the results of intelligent actions. Rather, they propose rules for recognizing objects that nature, unguided by intelligence, supposedly can't produce. Ivar Y 06:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. In "Signs of Intelligence" (ed. William A. Dembski & James M. Kushiner, 2001, Brazos Press) in the article entitled "Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design", the opening sentence confirms my assertion: "Intelligent Design examines the distinction between three modes of explanation: necessity, chance, and design." The rest of the chapter goes on to define Dembski's three-part Explanatory Filter, which he argues *can* be used to detect specified complexity in objects, and thus, design in objects. My original edit is still valid, and the mention of ID theorists not being able to "Observe" and "Repeat" the Designer still stands as a diversionary Strawman tactic. I will remake my edits, and will post a footnote to the book just mentioned. Hopefully it will make it past your apparently anti-ID censors.

Look at the diagram of the Explanatory Filter on page 182 of Signs of Intelligence. There is no block that tests for intelligence. Rather the filter asks first whether "an object, event, or structure" is contingent, i.e., it (the object or whatever) cannot be explained as the product of "natural laws or algorithms" (page 178). If no, discard it. Then, the filter asks whether it is complex, i.e., is it extremely improbable. If it is not, discard it; it could be just an accident of nature. Then, the filter asks whether it is specified, i.e., does it conform to some recognizable pattern, e.g., is it a sentence in the English language. If it does not, discard it. If the "object, event, or structure" survives all these tests, then the filter proclaims design. The filter is eliminative. It does not test for design. Rather, it tests for the absence of design. Ivar Y 07:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

And yes, this is a divisive issue. But all the more reason to include views from both sides, and give balance. Even an evolutionist friend of mine agrees that this entire article has an anti-ID slant to it. I can now see why...when ID proponents attempt to set the record straight, their edits can just be removed.

Edits were removed again! Why is my text controversial/inaccurate? Please explain, whoever keeps rolling back my changes. Here's the text I added:

However, ID proponents argue that while the "Intelligent Designer" of ID may not be observable or repeatable, the effects of intelligent action on nature can be detected. As Dembski explains:

"Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." -- Signs of Intelligence, p.17, emphasis in original.

Questions concerning the identity of a designer would therefore fall outside the realm of the theory proper.

Please someone explain why that quote, from the mouth of the leading ID theorist himself, has no place in the explanation of what ID is. (Are strawman tactics the only successful ones in trying to combat ID?)

The problem is not the quote, but where you put it. The format of this article is claim, followed by response. The claims of ID proponents and followed by the response by the scientific community. It is not claim/counter-claim/counter-counter.../ etc. ad infinitum, which makes for a very poor article. I have no problem with your addition, as long as it fit in that format in its proper area. Also, please sign your posts here by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comments. FeloniousMonk 21:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing my posts, I'm new to the whole wikipedia community. Atom 71.136.24.81 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I've gotten a proper account. Atom was taken, so I've taken the moniker DarthAtom. DarthAtom 21:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

some reorganization

I made a number of changes, and some of these may need to be reviewed by people who understand the viewpoints of the various factions involved in ID, in case I somehow skewed the meaning so that it misrepresents someone. Notable changes are:

• I moved a number of "Critics say...." statements into the Criticism section. By and large, that section is now fairly disorganized. On the plus side, however, I feel that these statements no longer clutter and obfuscate the explanation of what it is that the proponents of ID think. This makes it marginally easier to figure out what that is.

• I removed a paragraph about aliens from space constructing Egyptian pyramids, because the referenced paper did not, in any way, appear to discuss what was claimed. In my opinion, what little information was in the paragraph is available elsewhere in the article.

• I added a direct reference to what I believe to be a document that more directly describes aspects of the political stance of "Teach the Controversy". This avoids the need for language like "critics say that proponents say that...." and makes this content suitable to characterize the ID movement in general, rather than just as a criticism of it.

• I also fiddled with some of the wording of some sections.

--Wmarkham 11:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Though I agree with a good number of your edits, such a mass reorg should have been discussed with long term participants first and they given a chance to consider and respond. Also some accurate, well-supported and necessary criticism was deleted, and at least one footnote link went dead after the edits. I was unable to find the TTC reference you spoke of. I've reverted these and until there's some comment on this from those who've been contributing regularly. FeloniousMonk 16:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I had thought that some of the comments here had already supported a rearrangement of the existing information. Honestly, when I looked at the paragraph that I removed, I found it to be inaccurate, not well supported, and unnecessary. --Wmarkham 16:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in question from the article:

This allegedly a priori inference that an intelligent designer (God or an alien life force^[21]) created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids^[22]. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Empirical scientists would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques.

First, AFAIK, "a priori inference" is a contradiction of terms. Proponents say it is an inference from evidence. Critics say it is an a priori claim. It cannot be both. Putting "allegedly" in front only confuses things.

The Murray paper referenced here introduces its discussion of pyramids with the words, "If we stumble across a large, perfectly pyramidal shaped structure in the Central American jungle". Clearly, he is is not referring to "ancient Egyptians". Further, there is no mention of aliens. I did not read the full text of Michael Murray's paper, which discusses much more than ID's application to pyramidal structures, but based on this evidence, I believe that the paragraph misrepresents it.

Personally, I think that statements from the NAS already explain clearly enough that ID is not science because it makes claims that are not reapeatable, observable, or falsifiable. The application of Occam's Razor is already mentioned specifically elsewhere in the article. Quotes from some of ID's key proponents state that it draws a conclusion that is not empirical. A description of some particular analogy should not be necessary, IMO. If it is somehow essential to the understanding of ID to know about the analogy, then the article needs to be improved in some way to make it clear that this is the case.

--Wmarkham 17:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

terms like "a priori", "empirical", and "occam's razor", are not intuitive to readers who do not have a scientific background. A good example puts all the mumbo jumbo into context. There was a big battle around that particular analogy, and it eventually had something like 4 URL's that point to pro-evolution sources. At some point, the article got converted to footnotes, got a major rewrite, and the URL's got reduced to one. As for aliens, ID says their designer is either god or an alien life force, though other ID folks are more specific that it is God of Genesis. And as for the reorganization, the endless churn is starting to tick me off. FuelWagon 20:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of endless churn, what's up with the: 1) constant removal of my edit, noted in the "Critics vs. Proponents" post above, and 2) The lack of courage from whoever is removing it to explain why it is inaccurate or controversial?

I'd justified my removal and move of your additions to the article on both this page and your talk page. Please tone down your rhetoric, follow the format of this article, and start signing your posts. FeloniousMonk 21:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the expanation Felonious. I'm fine with the new placement, even if it fit better where I originally put it, as long as you allow both sides the ability to edit it. Seeing edits you made immediately disappear, when they were neither controversial or innacurate, can make people feel this page is highly slanted. Your inclusion of my quote is a definite step towards balance. 71.136.24.81 21:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Atom

With regard to scientific mumbo-jumbo, I would hope that a much clearer understanding of these terms can be obtained by reading their respective articles, than can be obtained by a single (misattributed?) analogy. If the analogy is meant to explain what these terms mean, then it should not need to deal at all with details about ID like aliens and building techniques.

I am sorry for churning things up, but I also honestly think that some of "the churn" could be reduced by an effort to maintain at least some sections of the article that have 'high-order' neutrality. By this I mean that both (all) sides agree that they are true, and both sides find them desirable to present in the article. The mainstream views are also very important to have in the article, presented in a fashion that makes it clear that ID supporters would dispute them. I would hope that this at least relegates some of the "churn" to those parts where disputes would be expected anyway.

--Wmarkham 21:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"reading their respective articles" I'd rather have people read a one paragraph example, then to refer them off to three, four, or five large articles about scientific concepts. And like I said, there used to be somethig like four URL's, but people keep churning it. This article has far bigger troubles. Like explaining what Intelligent Design actually is. FuelWagon 14:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Had to do some digging. I found the URL that says Dembski defends ID from the "silly claim" that "ancient technologies could not have built the pyramids, so goblins must have done it." [23]. So, someone made a sufficient argument for the comparison that Dembski felt need to defend it. I can't track back to who he is responding to, but we know that someone prominent enough made the comparison that Dembski felt the need to defend it. Hopefully that will put this to rest. FuelWagon 23:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that; I appreciate the effort. A clear explanation of what the criticism is and why/how Dembski believes it does not apply might be good content for the article. But, if it is difficult to keep the current paragraph in without inciting "churn", then might I suggest that eliminating it will eliminate the churn? Once again, it does not make sense to me that it is explaining scientific terms, since these terms can be understood without any reference to ID. If that is the main argument for keeping it in, then I say drop it. I won't push this any further, though, if noone else sees it this way. Wmarkham 03:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, back for one other comment: Just because Dembski defends against some criticism does not necessarily imply that anyone made that criticism. That logic would make it easy for him to put words in his opponents' mouths. Okay, I'm really done this time. --Wmarkham 04:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

ID proponents who are not theists

There are none. The closest you can come to is Mike Denton who is now "switched over" to the theist camp according to LeaderU. Therefore the edit for accuracy is legitimately made. Joshuaschroeder 08:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the edit. --JPotter 16:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why is this point even relevant? Theism is a consequence of accepting ID. Well duh. Did you forget that non-theism is a consequence of accepting strict naturalism? Theists and non-theists have opposite agendas. By making this point, you cleverly make people believe that ID people have religious agendas while conveniently disguising the fact that anti-ID people often have anti-religious agendas. Smells like bias to me. --David Pesta 00:53, Feb 13, 2006 (CST) (new contributor)

All ID people have religious--indeed, Christian--agendas, as Dembski and Johnson and the rest have made explicitly clear. On the other hand, lots of theistic scientists (and laypeople) side with evolutionary theory, Kenneth Miller being the most prominent. Willerror 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a good reason for this that you need to be careful not to overlook:
If someone publicly supports ID, even mildly consider the possibility, they open themselves to harsh attack and personal criticism. People who don't have a religious agenda don't have much of an incentive to have their reputation unfairly destroyed. This weeds out those who would otherwise support ID. --David Pesta 19:11, Feb 18, 2006 (CST) (new contributor)

I would also challenge Willerror by pointing out that theistic evolution is another form of intelligent design. The issue always boils down to theism vs. materialism and theistic evolution falls on the side of theism. Furthermore, mainstream science, which is based upon naturalism, would never accept research in the area of theistic evolution. Why? Again, because theistic evolution is a form of intelligent design. --David Pesta 19:04, Apr 13, 2006 (CST) (new contributor)

Dispute flag

I wonder if anon could explain why they added the boilerplate? --JPotter 21:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

notes

OK, I've been accumulating a bare bones outline about "Intelligent Design" here. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the ID article is so freaking long and so dense with vocabulary. There are a fixed number of sources, about half a dozen topics, and each topic basically has two points of view. Am I missing something? Are there important topics that I've missed? I'm still trying to find some good sound-bite quotes from both sides that give a good POV as to what each side thinks ID really is. anyone got some sourced quotes? FuelWagon 23:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I put together my own notes about what I think can be improved with the article on my talk page. (It is a bit long; sorry.) I focus on the introduction. I haven't looked at your notes yet, but I'll let you know what I think. Wmarkham 02:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Your version has some issues of it's own; without getting into details of something that is peripheral to the article itself, it whitewashes over the fact that there is a clear conflict between what the leading ID proponents claim ID is to the public and policymakers, and what they say ID is when speaking to each other, their supporters and constituents. It completely ignores that the leading promoters of ID, the Discovery Institute Fellows, Dembski, Johnson, et al., engage in dissemblance and duplicity about what ID really is as a matter of stated policy. These points are central and necessary to understanding ID in context and necessary for understanding the criticism of ID; an accurate and complete ID article must cover these points early. As I've said here before, an article on ID that attempts to cover ID without any context around its proponents is like an article on Catholicism that doesn't mention the Vatican — incomplete and deficient. Paraphrasing Ian Pitchford, Wikipedia shouldn't aid ID proponents in dissembling. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In some instances there is even a third ID discourse, in addition to the two discourses of IDists mentioned above by FM (that is to say (1) that presented to the public and policymakers and (2) that presented to each other). This is the discourse presented to reviews of ID publications, especially those lavishly draped in the language of mathematics, probability theory and computation. It is treacherous terrain, since any effort to understand what any of this means within the accepted standards of mathematics inevitably leads to the conclusion that it means nothing, but then runs into the typical response that "this is not mathematics".--CSTAR 04:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So, there is another topic that needs to be added. Something about "motivation", perhaps, and there might be an "internal versus external motivation" section with quotes made to policymakers and quotes made when preaching to the choir. I'm thinking there may also need to be a "history" topic/section with a brief history of who, what, where, when this thing happened. Yes? FuelWagon 18:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there's much to be said for starting over and simplifying the entry. The entry would be much more compact if the arguments from evolutionary biology were kept higher order and brief, rather than grappling with each individual issue raised by ID, which causes the constant back and forth that confuses so many people. Alternatively, you could just say something like, "Evolutionary biologists do not agree that complexity cannot be explained by ordinary biological principles." And let it go at that. I don't think this is the place for a tutorial on how biology works for each issue raised by ID. And anything short of that is going to continue to confuse.

I suggest that a 50,000 foot level of the evolution POV would simply say that (1) ID is irrelevant to evolutionary biology and (2) evolution is not a flawed theory that desperately needs repair, as ID avers. The evolutionary biologist should be allowed to speak for themselves. As the (new) evolution section is now, it addresses a major issue within evolutionary biology (what is the source of large variations in phenotype) that is peripheral to the question of whether ID has anything scientific to contribute more generally. In addition, the speakers are an IDer and a nonbiologist who have muddled the issue.

I would let the evolutionary biologist(s) say something like: (1) ID is an untestable hypothesis because it invokes the participation of an entity about which we have no physical evidence. Because of that we cannot say anything about any Intelligent Beings, etc. The whole point of science is to confine ourselves to what we can observe and measure. It is a very limited endeavor in that respect. ...that standard argument. (2) Evolutionary biology is a highly successful theory that explains both the facts as we observe them--that organisms have changed and become more complex over geologic time scales (fossil record), that organisms are related to one another by common descent (fossil record, comparative anatomy and embryology, confirmed independently by modern molecular biology)--and also provides a whole encyclopedia of mechanisms by which this change and descent may have occurred, one of which is natural selection. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in science and constitutes the Grand Unified Theory of biology that physicists wish they had. (Dawkins says this in a radio interview someone sent me.)

I think that covers most of what the evolutionary biologists need to say. So then the entry would need an intelligent biologist or two saying it. Eperotao 17:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Explanations of Edits

1) Shorter. Simpler. Deleted sentences are unnecessary. Also, I fear that some readers would have interpreted the deleted sentences to mean that the "mainstream scientific community" is a kind of priesthood of atheists who reject ID not because it is bad science but because it lends support to mainstream religion. ID is bad science because it is not testable. So say that and shut up. Don't reinforce the prejudices of some readers. Also, the "origin of the universe" is not a part of biology. Ivar Y 23:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Not again with this. The passages deleted were informative and necessary. We've already discussed this at length with you, telling us to shut up (at least obliquely) is not going to make your proposed edits any more acceptable. There's been no consensus for what you've been proposing for over two weeks now despite your vigorous denials of the obvious. I'm restoring the content you deleted, and please abide by consensus and don't waste the time of others with weeks of objections. FeloniousMonk

I do not know what specific edits Ivar Y made, but the comments above seem reasonable, if a little heated. The origin of the universe is not part of biology. In fact, even the origin of life is an area of biology with much less solidity than the history of evolution starting from the first cells. Everything before that remains somewhat conjectural, unlike what appears in the fossil record.

As for "mainstream scientific community," I too am uncomfortable with this phrase. I think "the mainstream scientific community" is a rhetorical device intended to squelch objection. "MSC" creates the illusion of unity where it probably does not exist. "Scientists" is too broad a category to constitute a community in the usual sense. I would say that no biologist who completely understands how evolution works disagrees with evolution, with the possible exception of IDer Jonathan Wells (which exception prevents the definition from being totally circular I hope). Other "mainstream" scientists who object to evolution (or agree with it) usually turn out not to have any particular background in evolutionary biology. This is somewhat like anthropologists and geologists deciding by popular vote whether to accept quantum theory. It would be more effective and true to say that no working evolutionary biologist gives ID any credence. Eperotao 18:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if "'mainstream scientific community' actually is a rhetorical device intended to squelch objection" it doesn't seem to be effective. The use of the term "mainstream scientific community" is result of objections raised by some at this article and elsewhere that the use of scientific community was prejudicial against creationists who also assert that they too are employing science (it's actually pseudoscience, since any question as to origin or cause is going to be a foregone conclusion). I'm not against using the term 'scientific community' here since it accurately reflects the position statements on ID issued by nearly all professional organizations of the natural sciences, as well as that of the National Academy of Science. Which is why using 'scientific community' or 'mainstream scientific community' is far from being overreaching when speaking of majority of scientists. FeloniousMonk 20:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not say "a majority of scientists"? --goethean ॐ 20:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I could use the laugh. We're now debating the use of the word "mainstream" to describe a category of scientists that has been countered with the term "majority"? First of all, majority could mean only 51% and I think of all the natural biologists who actually get paid to produce results around life on earth, the percentage of them who subscribe to evolution is far higher than 51%. Secondly, and more importanly, a simple google of the phrases "intelligent design" and "mainstream science" shows that the phrase is actually used in various sources to represent the side supporting evolution. FuelWagon 20:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It is silly, but not completely trivial. The words "scientist" and "biologist" are far from equivalent. Many of evolutionary biology's critics are scientists from non-biological disciplines. I think the lukewarm support of, say, 80%? of scientists is less meaningful than the vigorous support of 100% (or 99.99%) of biologists. If one cites the opinions of biologists, especially organismal biologists, then "mainstream" and "community" are legitimate descriptors. I think "the community of biologists" is totally legitimate and then you don't even have to invoke "mainstream." But most writers feel the need to call on the support of other scientists, among whom there is less consensus. And that's when the qualifier "mainstream" becomes a necessary rhetorical device, whose purpose is apparently to exclude the many scientists who don't in fact accept evolution. So why not just say that biologists whole heartedly accept evolution? Eperotao 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)