Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 15

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 Computer simulations & irreducible complexity 2 Methodological naturalism 3 Why are there criticizms 4 Existence of God 5 Simplifying the lead section 6 Footnotes are malfunctioning here 7 Evolution vs. Natural Selection 8 Intelligent Design's Self-Defeat 9 NPOV? 10 NPOV--Yes

Computer simulations & irreducible complexity

I recently changed this quote from the article:

"In addition, computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally."^[1]

# ^  Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C., 2003. "The evolutionary origin of complex features." Nature. 2003 May 8;423(6936):139-44.

to read as follows:

"In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally." (Addition highlighted in bold.)

My edit was reverted by FM (with the edit description " 'Possible' already subsumes a claim") although it shouldn't have been. The reference http://www.iscid.org/vignere/vignere-text-evolution.php refutes the claim of evolved irreducible complexity*. The assertion in the article that "computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally", using the Lenski, et. al. paper as a reference, is therefore wrong. What would be ne eded is one that demonstrates unguided evolution of IC in a system by co-optation of previously evolved function, but I'm not aware of any such simulation.

*Until recently, the quote had been followed by the following: "ID advocates...dismiss such computer simulations as being fundamentally flawed^[2] and biologically unrealistic." :# ^  ISCID, 2003. "Vignere Encoded Text Evolution."

--Johnstone 00:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait, you deleted a reference to a peer-reviewed study published in Nature, because an article and online demonstration published by the "The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design", "refutes" it? Amazing! It should be noted that both Dembski and Behe are both Fellows of the ISCID, BTW.

Um, no. Sorry, but that's not sufficient grounds for removal of peer-reviewed work found in PubMed. I'm restoring the reference. Feel free to continue to make your case for whether it needs to attributed as a claim. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you wrote, thinking that you deleted the ref and corresponding footnote. My mistake, sorry. I don't have much of an issue with the statement being attributed as a claim as it is. FeloniousMonk 05:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, I had decided not to duplicate the footnote along with the edited quote. Sorry, I didn't mean to trip you up. (However, in reference to your struck-through comments, I must say that the soundness of an argument should be judged on the quality of its premises and the validness of its logic, not on who authored it, nor where it was published.)--Johnstone 02:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

To use the words "it has been claimed" says "some people say that Avida has shown that complexity can evolve naturally, and some do not". Either Avida does what it claims, or it does not. Has anyone challenged that Avida says what it says? The programme is freely available for download. If so, then you can say "Lenski et al say X, but this has been challenged by Smith and Jones" or something like that. As it stands, the article challenges Lenski, which amounts to original research. Guettarda 13:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the footnote in my post from a few days ago, the article had mentioned just such a challenge, but it was deleted by someone, presumably because it did not correspond to a criticism of ID, yet was in the section titled "Criticism."

In the Lenski et al paper's abstract [3] [I have read the rest of the paper, not just the abstract], it is claimed, "These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection." Elsewhwere, at least one of them, Adami, has said "What we show is that there are irreducibly complex things and they can evolve."[4]. Taken together, these (and possibly other quotes by the researchers) imply the claim made in the article, "computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally."

This has been challenged by ISCID in the article [5] mentioned above, and elsewhere. That article does not argue that the program doesn't function as described by the researchers, but it does argue that the claim of natural evolution of irreducible complexity is false. They essentially argue that since the evolution of simpler logic functions is rewarded in an escalating scale—an intelligently programmed action—by the researchers, it does not correspond to natural selection, which is unguided.--Johnstone 02:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That's peculiar logic; object to modeling by computer, then refute the results by modeling by computer. The Avida program models natural selection, just as ISCID's "Vignere" program attempts to, though its intended use is as a cipher. Using your logic ISCID's refutation is rendered false by the same argument.

Now I am not dismissing the ISCID article categorically as being without merit. I am saying that a) it uses the same method you object to above, and b) this group is predisposed to make inflated claims, which means we need to be very skeptical, even more so than usual in such cases. If they provide additional outside credible, neutral support, or their findings pass peer-review as did the Lenski, Pennock Avida simulation, then we are obligated to give it equal weight, of course. But given everything I've read, their refutation and the manner and venue in which it was presented are insufficient to even consider giving it equal weight here or in the article. There are significant qualitative and quantitative differences in the approach and the results from those they supposedly refute. They'd be a lot more credible if they got little things right, like the spelling of the program they used - it's Vigenere, not "Vignere." FeloniousMonk 05:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You might as well say, "That's peculiar logic; object to arguments that use language, then refute the results by using language." What does the technology used have to do with the soundness of an argument? They were simply using a computer program in an analogous manner, dealing with text, a subject more readily understood by most people than Boolean logic operations, to make apparent what they consider to be incorrect conclusions drawn by Lenski et al. Are they not allowed to argue by analogy? Regarding manner and venue: The vaunted peer review process at Nature didn't prevent the spurious claim of evolution by "natural selection" made by Lenski et al (see reply to Guettarda below). Perhaps Nature is an organization predisposed to publishing inflated claims? But you're right on about "Vignere". What can I say, some people can't spell, especially non-English names! (More accurately still, it's Vigen�re.)--Johnstone 02:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Lenski points out that calling the programme a natural selection simulation is misleading, because the codes actually do evolve complex function. As for the idea ince the evolution of simpler logic functions is rewarded in an escalating scale—an intelligently programmed action—by the researchers, it does not correspond to natural selection, which is unguided - this is flawed - natural selection only works because the system (life) offers rewards to superior "designs". If intelligent design only means non-random evolution, then ID is indistinguishable from natural selection. Guettarda 18:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point that I missed completely. FeloniousMonk 20:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the claim that the Lenski et al research demonstrates evolution by natural selection. Come on. It's really nothing more than an instance of automated artificial selection. The Lenski et al application would only be an example of natural selection if the reward schedule had somehow evolved by itself, without being specified by the programmers beforehand. If non-random evolution only means intelligent design, then natural selection is indistinguishable from ID! You say "natural selection only works because the system (life) offers rewards to superior "designs" This requires a little bit of faith in the creativity of "life." No one has yet devised a computer program that can evolve ever-increasing functional complexity from relative simplicity in an open-ended, non-pre-specified manner like nature is supposed to be able to do.--Johnstone 02:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh? So Lenski et al. are lying in their Nature paper, and all their other publications on this matter? Well, you need to inform Nature of your discovery - I think that they would be very interested in your discovery. As for the rest of it - I am terribly puzzled. You say If non-random evolution only means intelligent design, then natural selection is indistinguishable from ID! No, I said exactly the opposite of it. Please re-read what I said. And as for your statement "This requires a little bit of faith in the creativity of "life."" - I have no idea what to make of it. The payoff of natural selection is that you will leave more descendants. That is the whole principle behind natural selection. That's the most basic idea in natural selection - that individuals which have some genetically based advantage are able to leave more descendents. How does that require "faith in the creativity of life"? It's almost to simple to bother saying. I can't imagine even the most hardcore creationist disagreeing with that idea. Guettarda 03:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

1. "So Lenski et al. are lying...?" Not necessarily. It's more likely that they actually believe it, as it appears you do; I'm sure Nature has already been informed of their error.

2. "If non-random evolution only means intelligent design, then natural selection is indistinguishable from ID! No, I said exactly the opposite of it." Exactly.

3. "That's the most basic idea in natural selection - that individuals which have some genetically based advantage are able to leave more descendents." But what determines whether something is advantageous? Instead of "Who designed the designer?", one might ask, "What evolves the evolver?" A similar regress is implied: The evolver evolves the evolver evolves the evolver... Without functional complexity being injected in there somewhere, there's no good reason for it to increase. At least that seems to be the lesson from computer simulations* so far, where, to get it to happen, it's always necessary to program rules into evolving systems to tell them what's advantageous and what's not.--Johnstone 01:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

*From Merriam-Webster: simulation 3 a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another.

You've answered your own question here "individuals which have some genetically based advantage are able to leave more descendents". --Ian Pitchford 14:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words, a trait is advantageous if it helps an organism survive and reproduce, right? I hardly see how one could disagree with that. Indeed, I'd say it's virtually definitional.

It doesn't answer the question.

Why would increased functional complexity necessarily help an organism survive and reproduce? If there's no natural connection between functional complexity and advantage then, again, there's no good reason for it to increase. The fact that attempts to instantiate creative evolution by natural selection in computers have failed so far tends to support this. (Keep in mind that the connection between complexity and advantage in the Lenski et al demo was due to their programming in a connection in the form of a reward schedule!)--Johnstone 10:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The reward in the programming was more of the resources which enable survival and reproduction. Those entities which didn't succeed in getting the "reward", died out or were out reproduced. There isn't always a connection between functional complexity and advantage in real life, as shown by the diversity of organisms. But if an organism needs resources to persist and thrive, and complexity has proven useful, things like mobility and information processing (e.g. making the right mobility decision in the presence of chemical gradients, etc. Sensory capability, roots, support structures, etc. all have some advantages.--Silverback 14:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. But maybe the benefits of the additional complexity get swamped by the maintenance costs. Let's see a computer demo to see if it's feasible.--Johnstone 23:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you doubting that increased complexity can help an organism reproduce? Surely you can imagine that an organism capable of metabolising different (multiple) foodstuffs has a clear advantage over organisms that are not so complex. Especially in a changing world, in which, say, all glucose has suddenly been reduced to lactic acid. Any organism capable of surviving in different environments will leave not only more descandents, but will also leave them more spread out and more capable.

it's always necessary to program rules into evolving systems

In the real world, there are rules too. Without them, there could have been no selection criteria. What exactly is your point? Ec5618 16:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It was disputed that the sentence in the article, "computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally," must be referred to as a claim. My point is that it is indeed only a claim. (It happens to be a false one at that, since the reference given for the claim is not an example of evolution by natural selection). "In the real world, there are rules too." Why can't the rules simply be allowed to evolve on their own, as is supposed to happen in the real world? Then it would truly be an example of evolution by natural selection rather than an example of automated artifical selection.--Johnstone 23:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you perhaps not understand the concept behind the program? The code represents existing, primordial life. Random mutations in code (DNA) results in organisms with changed code. These new organisms have an advantage over other organisms if they have abilities that allow them to accomplish tasks no other organism could, and if those abilities give them an advantage over those other organisms. In the biological world, that might mean that an organism has developed the ability to metabolise glucose, when all other organisms are metabolising lactic acid. In the digital world, it might mean being able to subtract, when all other organisms are only capable of addition.

Yes, the programmers specified what an advantage would be. It is a simple way of modelling things, if not perfect. In the real world, the laws of physics and chemistry would have set the rules. Every natural world has a set of rules, and these rules define the world. Had the reseachers not invented rules, evolution would have had nothing to guide it. Nevertheless, the organisms were in no way told what the advantages were, they were left to randomly mutate and find out on their own. In the same way, we can now (in hindsight) see that the ability (again) to metabolise glucose would give a biological organism advantage over other organisms, but no-one ever told the evolving creatures (in a natural interpretation of the world). They found out on their own.

And the experiment resulted in irreducible complexity according to the researchers; some organisms were finally capable of mathematical computations of irreducible complexity: the code evolved (developed) naturally, but the endproduct could not be broken into smaller pieces, and it was in no way obvious how these lines of code had written themselves. Just as ID advocates present the eye as an example of irreducible complexity, no part of the code could be removed without the code losing all functionality.

What problems do you have with the experiment, apart from the preconceived set of rules? -- Ec5618 07:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to attempt to explain the researchers' claims for their program. The preconceived set of rules is the main problem I see with the experiment. When people decide to select and evolve a particular trait or traits in an organism, such as a breed of dog, it's called "artificial selection." Fundamentally, this is what was done by the researchers. They chose a particular trait—the ability to perform an "equals" function—and then automated it's selection in a computer program, and provided stepping stones along the way. To me, it's not at all surprising that what they got in the end is an equals function. Evolution by selection it certainly is, but it seems to me that to be justified in calling it "natural selection", the reward for performing an equals function would have had to evolve naturally, just as the production of glucose (and the reward for the metabolizing it) is supposed to have evolved naturally in the real world.

After studying open-ended evolutionary computer programs for years, Stephen Wolfram has stated his "guess" that the "main systematic contribution [of natural selection] is to make things simpler." (He "guesses" that the complexity of life is "almost always the result of essentially random sampling of underlying programs—without any systematic effect of natural selection.") (A New Kind of Science, pp. 398-399) Maybe Wolfram just wasn't looking at the right types of programs, and maybe he's a little bit unusual, etc., but whether or not he's right, it certainly raises the question of what true natural selection accomplishes when programmed in a computer. (So far as I know, open-ended evolution of complex functionality has not occurred.)

Regarding the idea that the Lenski et al demo shows evolution of irreducible complexity: the researchers chose—likely after much searching—an example of functional complexity that happens to have an incremental gradient through which it can be reached, and dropped breadcrumbs all along the way. Certainly that begs the question of whether they evolved IC?--Johnstone 03:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism

One user User:FuelWagon has made it his personal crusade to promote the methodological naturalism (MN) article -- an article that is poorly written and whose material is well-covered in the naturalism (philosophy) article. As such he is trying to make the claim that ID proponents refer to and assail MN more than other similar but related topics such as scientific materialism, naturalism (philosophy), or scientific skepticism. This is clearly not true. While ID proponents use SC, IC, and fine-tuning arguments all the time, there are only a limited few who refer to the anti-supernatural bias in science (some IDers actually have proposed that the intelligence is natural -- an alien lifeform, for example) and those are not consistent in refering to it as MN alone but refer to all the above in their critiques. Therefore the section was removed as it is an inaccurate portrayal. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, "crusade"? Sure. I didn't create the methodological naturalism article. It's been around long before I started editing it. Someone thought it notable. Currently the votes to "merge" or "keep separate" seem to lean slightly in favor of "keep serate". So, if I'm on a "crusade", then everyone in favor of "keeping separate" must be a member of my band of holy warriors I reckon.

Johnson created the term "intelligent design". He created the term "wedge strategy". And he created the term "methodological naturalism".

All these claims are basically false. Joshuaschroeder 21:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms all come up around ID.

So does theistic realism which would make more sense than inclusinon of MN which has nothing to do with arguments in favor of ID but is rather a criticism that certain IDers make wrt to the "controversy". Joshuaschroeder 21:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an article on ID could be considered complete without explaining "wedge strategy" or without explaining "methodological naturalism".

Wedge strategy is still there.

It is a term unto itself, and it is used by both sides of the evolution / creation debate. How listing one of Johnson's invented vocabulary terms is an "inaccurate portrayal", I'm not sure. Every other term he's invented gets its own section and its own article. For some reason, you hold "methodological naturalism" different from the rest.

The other terms in the section are fine-tuning, IC, and SC. None were invented by Johnson or have any explicit claims vis-a-vis the scientific method.

Yes, ID'ers are against philosophical naturalism, because philosophical naturalism is not just scientific naturalism, but also religious naturalism, i.e. atheism. But ID'ers also have a special place for methodological naturalism, which is the idea of using only natural methods in scientific investigations.

Without using quotes, can you describe this "special place"? I don't understand where you are coming from.

This is separate from religious beliefs and/or philosophical naturalism. Why you want to collapse them into one article, I don't know, but other editors support keeping them separate, the vocabulary is an inherent part of the ID debate which means it should be separate, and for whatever reason, you want to delete any reference to it in the ID article, delete the methodological naturalism article, and call anyone who opposes you a crusader. FuelWagon 20:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are there criticizms

I don't see why there is a special criticizme part after each point in this article. There are no such sections in the evolution article. If you evolutionists are going to try to even make a pretense of honoring different ideas, why not try being fair? Either add valid criticizms to the evolution article, or take out these. Your bias is showing

WP:NPOV says to state all views and attribute them. It is also holds that mainstream views are more important than fringe views. That is exactly what is followed here.

The evolution article discusses creationism and links through to more detailed articles. There is extensive discussion about what to include at talk:evolution/Creationism and you are welcome to contribute.

There is no scientific controversy over the validity of evolution, whereas there is huge controversy over intelligent design creationism. What you suggest is not NPOV. Dunc|☺ 22:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

--- I understand (and generally agree) that mainstream views should receive mainstream attention. Nevertheless, I find this article to be POV as well.

Example 1: the section on Peer Review raises, and dodges, a crucial question: Do ID articles get rejected from publication because they are unscientific, or because the writers wear the "ID" label? The history of Stephen Meyer's article suggests the latter.

Example 2: As another example, the section "ID as a movement" portrays ID proponents as being essentially propagandists. In particular, Phillip Johnson's quotes are taken, IMO, out of context to mean something at least 90 degrees away from what he seems to intend (yes, I followed the footnote links). If I were going to edit this article in any way, it would be to remove or heavily modify that section.

All in all, this article is a good attempt to provide NPOV information about a controversial topic. I think it could be better.

Jeff Cagle

--70.106.63.200 18:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

On peer review, you are right that there are two POVs here. Although there is probably an element of truth in there being an "evil atheist conspiracy" against ID preventing publications, the ID movement will milk the conspiracy theory for all its worth. Take the Steinberg case in question. The ID-friendly press and even the US govt have been spinning the horrors of reaction to what he did without properly detailing what he did to cause that response in the first place. By comparison, Behe (and another less qualified IDist whose name I can't remember) have recently published a simulation of genetic drift in proteins that is critical of evolution (though it did not offer an alternative) and which was accepted and published totally legitimately without regard for the credentials of the author. If they could offer any legitimate ID theory, it would be published and accepted. It was one of the central aims of the wedge document, but they have failed.

Quotes are interesting. I generally don't like them because creationists tend to quote mine. But the IDists will spin out answers that are 90* to each other depending on who the audience is. They have to keep the creationists on side, but they also have to sound scientific and avoid violating the establishment clause. Dunc|☺ 00:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. Even supposing IDists are 100% oriented towards propaganga, they still deserve to be quoted with regard to context. This section doesn't meet that standard. --jrcagle 14:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no right to "quoting" in an article. Encyclopedias are of a summary nature and are not to become repositories for quotes. That's what wikiquote is for. Reporting criticisms of ID is required by the rules of NPOV, and since the criticisms are substantial compared to the ID work, they deserve substantial space (as opposed to the evolution article where creationism/ID criticism requires little space). It is best not to have a back and forth rebuttal/rerebuttal in an article. If there is something substantive missing from the description of ID positions, include it in the main body and not in the criticisms. As it now stands, I think your objections are mainly stylistic rather than substantive. Joshuaschroeder 12:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your objection to the use of Philip Johnson quotes is amusing to me considering that he himself has never shied away from admitting his full-fledged opposition to scientific mainstream vis-a-vis some chip on his shoulder regarding evolution. Even before ID was around, Johnson was writing propaganda tracts for the creation science movement in an attempt to paint science into an atheistic corner. He freely admits it himself. Joshuaschroeder 12:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry; that won't do. This is not a stylistic objection. If a quote is removed from its context with the result that the speaker is portrayed as saying something different from his intent, then the quote is being abused. It doesn't matter if "he deserves it" or not. It matters to us, the rest of the community, whether Wiki can be a reliable source of information. The "ID as a movement section" is below standard in that regard.--jrcagle 19:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

All quotes presented in the article are presented in their proper context, as the links provided to the original sources bear out. FeloniousMonk 00:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree in two specific instances.

(1) (frame) "Phillip Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement and its unofficial spokesperson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept... (quote) 'This isn't really, and never has been, about science. It's about religion and philosophy.'"

(a) The quote itself is lifted from a pop magazine, for crying out loud. What level of credibility would you give to a Dawkins quote found in USA Today? (b) The quotation contradicts the frame put around it. Is Johnson trying to cast creationism as a scientific concept (as the frame claims), or is he saying that the entire debate is NOT about science (as the quote seems to state)? (c) The quote itself is vague and subject to two interpretations. Is Johnson saying that (1) the entire issue of evolution (both pro and con) has never been about science, or (2) that his own strategy has never been about science, even though he wants to cast creationism as a scientific concept?

Those familiar with Johnson's writings know that he believes -- rightly or wrongly -- that evolution is not a scientific concept, but a philosophical one. That is, (1) is the likely correct understanding of the quote. However, the article -- by pairing this quote together with the other two quotes discussing strategy, and especially by framing his quote with a characterization directly contrary to the quote -- strongly suggests (2). And (2) makes him seem like a blatant liar, or confused: he wants to claim that creationism is scientific, but he actually doesn't believe it's about science at all.

Now -- he may be a blatant liar, or confused, or he may be neither. However, this quote in its manner of presentation is clearly POV, and Wiki deserves better.

(2) The links to Wedge strategy and Teach the Controversy both send readers out to [Wedge Document http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html], contained on a website that is anti-ID. It's inappropriate to link to a primary source contained on a hostile site, for reasons that don't need spelling out. If you can find the same document on a pro-ID site, it will have a much higher level of credibility.

Look: I'm not complaining about the entire article ... it's good. This section is just not of the same quality as the rest. --jrcagle 02:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute have admitted to writing the Wedge Document. The Johnson quotes are in context. Also, there are very few sites that are balanced and not pro- or anti-ID. Dunc|☺ 09:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Existence of God

A lot of the arguments for and against Intelligent Design could fit in the arguments for and against the existence of God (Existence of God) article. Maybe some of the arguments presented in this article could also be included in that article? Probably, most of the arguments presented here could be transferred over.

The specific argument that IDC implies is the teleological argument, which is adequately covered in arguments for the existence of God. However, IDC is really quite complex and has subtle differences as well as lings to the teleological argument, so the articles need to exist in parallel. Dunc|☺ 00:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Simplifying the lead section

I attempted to simplify the lead section in this revision and was reverted by User:FeloniousMonk. I moved all but the first paragraph of the introduction to the Intelligent design#Intelligent Design in summary section and substituted this straightforward summary:

Although adherents of ID claim it stands on equal footing with the current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe ^[6] the scientific community rejects this because intelligent design cannot be subjected to the scientific method and so is not science. In summary, the notion that life is directed by a designer does not allow hypothesis to be formulated, cannot be tested, and cannot be proven false. Hence it is not an appropriate subject for scientific inquiry.

I have a number of problems with this revert. I'll start with the one easiest to resolve (and the most petty), the revert was marked as a minor edit. Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Minor_edits says:

Marking a significant change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior...

The change I made was not minor and was not vandalism. The revert should not be minor either. There. Resolved.

Second, I believe my paragraph succinctly summarizes all the objections to intelligent design in the text that it replaces. A short summary is better in an introduction than a lengthy description. Particularly as the text replaced is primarily a rambling set of statements regarding the acceptance of intelligent design in the scientific community. As it constituted a small proportion of the text, I did not include a summary of what appears to be commentary on the response of the ID proponents to the position of the scientific community. If it is necessary to include such a summary I would one additional sentence to my paragraph so that the entire introduction (including an unchanged first paragraph) reads as follows:

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.

Although adherents of ID claim it stands on equal footing with the current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe ^[7] the scientific community rejects this because intelligent design cannot be subjected to the scientific method and so is not science. In summary, the notion that life is directed by a designer does not allow hypothesis to be formulated, cannot be tested, and cannot be proven false. Hence it is not an appropriate subject for scientific inquiry. The proponents of intelligent design do not agree that a theory must be testable by some conceivable physical experiment, regardless of whether the experiment could ever be carried out in practice, before the theory can be called scientific.

Third, the reason given for the revert is that the previous language was the result of months of compromise. I did not remove the previous language, just moved it. (Although I did remove the first 2 sentences from the moved section. That the remaining text could have 2 sentences removed from the beginning of one of it's paragraphs and not be the worse, in my opinion, is indicative of the disorganization of the writing -- that the paragraph does not really have a topic sentence which it speaks to.) Just because it took a long time to write does not mean it's appropriate for an introduction, at least not if it can be summarized as I believe I have done. (See below for what to do with the newly freed up space.)

Fourth, having looked back at some of the talk discussion, it seems clear that some of the central disagreements surrounding ID, and perhaps the objections to my text, is over the definition of science. I think the text proposed here clarifies the issues, as is apt for a summary, and accurately characterizes the positions of either side without taking a position, as is required for NPOV.

In support of my argument that I've made a fair and accurate characterization of the (2 conflicting) definition(s) of science I point to the prior text of the article. It's clear from the text that the general scientific establishment uses the definition of science I present in my text, just as it's clear that ID proponents have problems with this definition. I see no alternative to allowing the scientists to define science, just as we must allow the intelligent design proponents to define intelligent design. As there is conflict in the two groups definition of the word science, the article should make that controversy clear. As scientists have been using the word science for a whole lot longer than ID proponents, and have, in fact, formulated the definition, it is appropriate to present their definition as the established definition for the word, and describe the position of the intelligent design proponents in terms of the established definition. I believe this is consistent with the Wikipedia's ethos.

(I cannot resist injecting my own commentary here, even though this is somewhat tangential to the production of a good Wikipedia article and I run the risk of sidetracking the discussion: The definition of science is well established. It requires theoretical explanations that can be proved either true or false with experiment. You may not agree that such 'philosophical naturalism' makes for good philosophy, but that does not change the definition of science. Science first distinguished itself from the rest of philosophy by insisting on experimental proof of theory, and this abjuration of hand waving is to what science owes it's historical success and popularity.)

In summary, I claim better writing; that I write to the crux of the matter and have produced text that is complete yet concise. In my view, those who would wish more text need to justify the inclusion of the additional detail, or the inclusion of additional topics (like the media's presentation of ID -- who cares?). I believe more detail could be added to the first paragraph, the description of intelligent design. The intro to the article should have more text describing the intelligent design theory. Where is the idea of irreduceable complexity that's AFAIK at the center of intelligent design's. Where's the whole ID is evolution with the flaws addressed concept? I believe my summary of the controversial issues surrounding intelligent design makes room for the central tenets of intelligent design, elements that are currently almost entirely omitted. Details regarding the controversy do not belong in the lead section, but some detail regarding the theory itself surely does. (Frankly, IMO and I believe I have shown, scientific objections to intelligent design do not belong in the body of the article, as ID is not science. Get that issue, one way or the other, out of the way up-front and you don't need to clutter up the article with he-said she-said. Let the anti-intelligent design folks get their own article. Gosh, they could title it Evolution.) --kop 04:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That's quite an essay. WP:RTA. Your edits were reverted because you did not first seek consensus for major changes to a highly contested article. The current intro is result of months of heated debate and compromise. Had you first read the Talk pages here that are archived for your benefit you'd see that the intro has been source of much if not most of the contention here. I'm all for being bold, but there are a number of long-term editors who'd have objected to you rewrite of the intro categorically without prior discussion aside from myself. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with each of your points, but I'm willing to hear you out. BTW, the finer points of ID, SC/IC, do not belong in the intro, which the guidelines dictate should be a short overview of the topic, with detail following in subsequent paragraphs. A complete and NPOV article requires that all significant POVs to the topic be covered, so your suggestion that "the anti-intelligent design folks get their own article" is not going to fly. FeloniousMonk 06:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Your point regards reading the archives is well taken. In my defense what you reverted was my very first edit, and experience with, the intelligent design article. However, my post above was the result of skimming the talk archives (there being a awful lot), making heavy use of the tables of contents. I did not come across anything that illuminiated why my main concern is not addressed:

Is not the central objection to intelligent design that it is not science because it cannot be proven false? If so, then why not clearly present the rational for the objection to ID in the article (and explain it) rather than rely on appeals to authority (the national academy of science, the 'scientific community', the biologists who make up curricula, etc.)?

Appeals to authority can be informative, but their not explainatory and hence not conducive to the reader making up his own mind regards POVs. (Oh, and the bit about them getting their own article was a bit tongue in cheek. I couldn't resist.) So there, now I've made the talk archives a richer place ;-)--kop 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added a subsection on defining ID as science. This addresses your points while laying out the issue for the reader without rewriting the intro. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes are malfunctioning here

There is something wrong with the functioning of the footnotes in this article (but I'm not geeky enough to figure out the cause of the problem). Auto-numbered footnote 41 in the section "Additional criticisms of ID" (sub-section "Scientific peer review") refers to auto-numbered reference 37. How can this be??? David

The footnotes are just out of their proper numerical order due to the normal editing of the article. The refs still link to their proper footnote when clicked on, it's just that their corresponding numbers don't match, so it's a cosmetic issue more than anything. Re-ordering the footnotes to align with their refs is a big task that will need to be tackled... and will last only until someone edits the article again. Ref/footnote is not the best system. FeloniousMonk 07:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Cosmetic issue"??? Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. This Wikipedia article (in the subsection "Scientific peer review") says, "The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science [41]...." However, footnote 41 at the end of the article has NOTHING TO DO with the resolution from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but is about a totally unrelated work ("Clarifications Regarding the BSG, Bryan College, and Richard Sternberg"). Instead of being in footnote 41, the information about the resolution from the American Association for the Advancement of Science is found in footnote 37! How is anybody supposed to be able to rely on Wikipedia's footnote system for documentation if all of the numbers in it are INCORRECT??? You say, "The refs still link to their proper footnote when clicked on." This is simply not true! The only thing that happens when you click on the number [41] in the text of the article is that you get sent to the bottom of the page, in the general area of footnote 41 (the WRONG footnote). Nothing whatsoever indicates that the footnote you're really looking for is number 37! Is this kind of thing universal in Wikipedia? If so, Wikipedia's entire system for the most basic sort of documentation is totally unreliable! Please explain how this is just "cosmetic." David

You're not understanding how the references work with the footnotes here. The numbers referencing each footnote are clickable; clicking one takes you to the correct footnote, and clicking the footnote will take you back to the corresponding reference. Their numerical ordering does not affect how each footnote is linked to each reference; hence their numerical ordering is largely cosmetic. It all works perfectly fine except for the few not able to figure out that the refs are clickable. FeloniousMonk 04:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Felonius: Have you actually tried to do what you're describing? Maybe it's a Mac versus PC issue (although I can't imagine how that could be), but when I click on any footnote number in the text of the "Intelligent Design" article, the only thing that happens is that my web browser moves down to the bottom of the page (which is where all the footnotes are). I am using a Macintosh, running OS 10.2, and I have tried clicking on these footnotes using 3 different browsers (Safari, FireFox, and Internet Explorer) with exactly the same results. What is going on??? David

I have tried it; I use it several times a day here. And when I click on a ref, I land in the footnotes section with the corresponding footnote outlined by a dashed lined. When I click on the footnote, the reverse happens, I'm returned to the ref with the ref outlined in small dashes. It works this way with both IE and FireFox for me. It seems to work fine for others as well, since yours is the first complaint about this here. The numerical ordering of the footnotes would be an issue for anyone who prints the article out, but that kinds defeats the reason for having it online and the idea of a wiki. I can re-order the footnotes sometime today, but it's a task that will just be undone in the coming days. As I said before, footnotes are not best system for a dynamic article. FeloniousMonk 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Felonius-- I think we're getting closer to figuring out what the problem is. As I said before, the only thing that happens when I click on a footnote is that I land in the footnotes section-- no particular footnote is indicated in any way (specifically, no "small dashes" or any other markings of any sort are visible). Also, as I mentioned, this is the case with three different browsers on my Mac running on system OS 10.2. Two questions: first, do you use a Mac or PC? (Maybe it is a platform issue.) Second, you say that you "land in the footnotes section with the corresponding footnote outlined by a dashed line"-- by "corresponding" do you mean the correct footnote, or the footnote with the same number as the footnote number in the text (since those are, sadly, two different things)? Also, even if I were the only person in the world not seeing the "small dashes" (I can't believe that's the case, but let's assume it is for the moment) it is still a major flaw if the footnote numbers in the text do not correspond to the numbering of the actual footnotes! It is incredibly confusing, especially for a project whose fundamental commitment is to the clarity and transparency of its documentation process (and, as you point out, it makes the footnotes useless in printed versions of the articles). Surely something can be done about this! David

I'm using PCs running XP sp2. To the right of each footnote number is a circumflex (up arrow, etc), and it is that which the small dashes highlight. When I say "corresponding" I do mean the correct footnote, not the footnote number. I agree footnotes are a flawed system here; Steinsky implemented footnotes here replacing external links some months ago. Footnotes have their advantages, primary being heading off many common objections to contentious content by providing its justification right in the article. Obviously they have their drawbacks too, chief being that the ordering of the footnote numbers quickly becomes disordered (usually due to editors not following through), another is footnotes left orphaned (due to deleted content; again editors not following through), and another is page space (51 footnotes is appx .20 the article length). I've re-ordered the footnotes once or twice over the last few months and will try to do it again today, but footnote janitorial service is a constant task ...and one you get to do next time ;-) FeloniousMonk 20:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, footnotes have been re-ordered. There were 9 orphaned footnotes, which I'm posting here. People can try to work back into the article if so inclined:

1. ^  Jason Rosenhouse, 2005. Why Do Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents?. Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
2. ^ The Design Revolution, pg. 64-65
3. ^  Joseph Boxhorn, 2004. "Observed Instances of Speciation." In TalkOrigins.org; and Chris Stassen, James Meritt, Anneliese Lilje and L. Drew Davis, 1997. "Some More Observed Speciation Events." In TalkOrigins.org.
4. ^  CNN, 2005. "Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional."
5. ^  Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington. September, 2004.[8]
6. ^  Claudia Wallis. Evolution Wars. Time Magazine, 15 August 2005 edition, page 32 [9]
7. ^  Elizabeth Nickson, 2004. "Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin." In Christianity.ca.
8. ^ "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - William Dembski. Science Test. In Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.
9. ^  William Dembski, quoted by Barbara Forrest. In The Newest Evolution of Creationism. Barbara Forrest. Natural History. April, 2002, page 80 [10]

FeloniousMonk 21:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolution vs. Natural Selection

What is grossly lacking from this article is a recognition that Evolution and Natural Selection are different concepts. For example Lamarck and Kammerer attempted to account for evolution, at least in part, through a theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Of course their theories have not been born out by experiment; but my point is, that - as a theory - it implied that there may be other mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection, and this was a testable hypothesis.

Likewise when Behe suggests that natural selection - given the time frames involved - is simply not powerful enough to account for observed facts such as the development of bacterial flagellae, or the biochemical mechanisms of human blood clotting, that is a legitimate criticism which should be tested by experiment. To counter a testable hypothesis with hysterical blether about Creationism is highly 'unscientific'. Indeed the arguments of Behe, and others, take Evolution for granted; and although this is mentioned in the article, subsequent paragraphs persist in describing them as anti-Evolutionists.

The article also does not discuss any possible alternatives to 'God' as the agent of intelligent design, except dismissively and in passing. Is this merely an oversight?

Finally the article does not point out the polemic and emotional nature of much of the criticism of ID. Even if the scientific Establishment was forced to concede that natural selection may not be the sole mechanism of Evolution, that is still a long way from saying the Universe must have been created by YWVH, or Brahma, or whomever. Cspalletta 13:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The article also fails to distinguish between evolution and the modern synthesis, which is what people usually mean when they use the terms natural selection or evolution. It is a term unfamiliar to the public. Darwinism is the term usually used by ID proponents (or dogmatic Darwinism when they're being stymied), but that rings of polemics and is not accurate either. Evolution is the general term used in public vernacular as a catch-all for all of the above, and so that's what's used here. I believe the article makes the distinction when it's required for specific points.

Behe's "irreducible complexity" has been pretty convincingly discredited by number of different scientists over the years, but it is still given full due with it's own subsection in the article.

Which specific alternatives to 'God' as the intelligent designer would you like to see discussed? Any designer other than God powerful enough to put ID in motion will by any meaningful definition be omnipotent; in other words, a god. This is discussed in the article.

Since the ID proponents have no actual theory or hypothesis of their own, and ID has offered mainly polemics of a emotional nature itself, is it really a surprise that criticism of ID contains the same?

I think you misunderstand or misstate how science is conducted: It's not that "the scientific Establishment was forced to concede that natural selection may not be the sole mechanism of Evolution." It's that new knowledge and technologies revealed new evidence that needed to be accounted for and integrated. Science, working through the scientific method, then came to new theories incorporating or discarding previous explanations depending on their merits. This is the normal course of doing science and part of it's power; it has the ability to evolve. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design's Self-Defeat

I have long understood that intelligent design has no real physical evidence. However, something finally occured to me. ID advocates argue that such entities such as pandas and humans are too complex to have developed through accepted scientific processes. Therefore, they must have been "designed", and the design must have been implemented by some Great Implementor/Creator/God. However, if a peacock is too complex to arise by chance, how could an all-powerful creator? Voila, self-defeating argument. If it wasn't original research, I'd put it in. Superm401 | Talk 01:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Already in article, although it shouldn't be. See "What designed the designer?" Dembski's answer to the quesation is as follows: "...with design, the question is not whether design theorists have resolved all lingering questions about the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. Such questions will always remain. Rather the question is whether design does useful conceptual work—a question

that [ such] criticism leaves unanswered...Now the designer...is as far as we can tell, not a part of nature... Consequently there is no "marker" attached to this designer indicating that this designer is in turn designed. The theory of intelligent design therefore avoids the 'design regress'... The question whether the designer is designed simply does not arise within a scientific theory of design." (The Design Revolution, pp. 198-199)

Unless one believes that it was planned by a Creator, a regress is also implied by Darwinian evolution (if feasible) in that it depends on matter and energy and underying rules, which in turn must have somehow evolved, etc., especially being that everything is so fine-tuned. The regress question has as much to do with ID as it does with evolution, and should have a similar amount of the article dedicated to it—none.--Johnstone 01:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"The theory of intelligent design therefore avoids the 'design regress'... " Quoting Ian Pitchford: 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 clichè. And one that heads off objections on First Amendment grounds, I'd add. Two birds, one stone.

The reason why the article ignores infinite regression applying to evolution is because it doesn't; it's a specious claim. The fine-tuning argument is an assumption based on an anthropomorphization and a tautology. As intuitively tempting as it may be to conclude from the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe that the issue of infinite regression has as much to do with with evolution as it does with ID, the inference is unsound. Considering the fact that we are observing the universe in which we arose, it's only natural that it would appear designed after the fact, since it is by its constraints that life arose in it in this form. Just because a suit fits well does not mean it was bespoke. FeloniousMonk 16:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're understating the fine-tuned universe argument. A better analogy would be a spacesuit that would be incapable of sustaining any kind of life at all if only one of a large number of settings were only infinitesimally different, due to unstable/chaotic conditions that would ensue. For example, Roger Penrose has calculated that in order to permit the existence of life, the universe must have an accuracy of 1 in 1^10^123 (i.e., 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power). If one believes that this is the only universe, then it's unimaginably improbable (and in desperate need of an explanation).--Johnstone 11:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But that's the great thing about probabilities - the probability of something happening which has already happened, is 1 (which, but your notation is also a 1, since 1^x = 1...yeah, I realise that's not what you're saying, but it's amusing nonetheless). So the whole "fine tuning" thing is irrelevent, because we happened to be in a system which is as it is. p=1.0 - Guettarda 03:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of the following: "Two weeks from today at 4:37:21.383715794455289524888933097574... PM you are going to be doing exactly what you will be doing." True, but it doesn't really explain anything.--Johnstone 11:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's why Cardinal Christoph Schonborn felt he had to say something about multiverse hypotheses (including Everett's many-worlds interpretation, which Dembski has a made a point of attacking, in his effort to deflate inflatons). From there it's not much of a leap to reject quantum mechanics, which is formally equivalent to MWI.--CSTAR 17:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What irony: Proponents of Darwinian evolution pointing to effectively "supernatural"* entities as explanatory resources.--Johnstone 01:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

* From Merriam-Webster's: supernatural: 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.

• Multiverse hypotheses are one among many explanatory resources for Darwinian evolution.
• MWI is formally equivalent to quantum mechanics+decoherence, so explanatory resources provided by one are provided by the other. (The logical term is "conservative extension"). Are you suggesting that QM is not part of the "visible observable universe"?--CSTAR 03:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You're confusingly using the phrase "explanatory resources" differently from how I used it. I used it for things used by multiverse hypotheses. You're using it for things provided by MWI. (Don't do that.)

• Besides multiverse hypotheses, what other explanations do proponents of Darwinian evolution have for the fine-tuning of the universe?

What a horrible question. I have yet to meet a proponent of evolution who had any hand in issues of fine tuning or of quantum mechanical interpretations. As for what other ways one can describe the universe, if cosmic inflation is correct (and it has more and more evidence in its court) than the universe is large enough to accomodate a size that is 10^10^125. Max Tegmark writes about the size of the total universe in his musings on the anthropic principle among other things. If this is the explanation, then it is simply that we live in the part of the universe where the physical laws are the way they are because that's the part of the total universe we live in. It's much the same way as asking why the silicate concentration on our planet is so high or why the helium concentration is so low. We just live in this conditional arrangement, there doesn't need to be anything more than a descriptive explanation (in other words, not all possible tunings are equally propable from the standpoint of life). Joshuaschroeder 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, MWI is only one type of multiverse hypothesis, and can be thought of as supposing continual "forkings" of unseen alternate realities ("worlds") from the known universe. For the purpose of the present discussion, I don't see how it's applicable. The multiverse hypothesis that applies is one with innumerable alternate universes that have no direct connection with this one, other than their means of origination.

• As I understand them, MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QM are equivalent only in the observable effects predicted—as they better be if they are to accurately describe the same reality. However, CI makes accurate predictions about observable phenomena without positing the existence of unobservable, seemingly superfluous entities, as MWI does. (Imagine intelligent design claiming that the effects of the designer are indistinguishable from what one would expect from Darwinian evolution.) I don't know if I'd say that any idea is "part of" something physical, but to claim that either interpretation of QM does not accurately describe the "visible observable universe" would be just plain silly. The question is, if they're unobservable and make no difference in what's predicted, then what purpose is served by the imaginary worlds of MWI, other than matching one's philosophical or aesthetic tastes. (The same question would arise regarding any theory about a designer if it proposed no discernible effects.)

This is all interesting and fun, but the discussion seems to be wandering away from the topic a bit, which, if anything, is whether the "What designed the designer" ("What", not "Who"?) belongs in this article.--Johnstone 11:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It does. It is a common and central objection to the logic of ID. FeloniousMonk 16:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are dealing with science, then it certainly does. Joshuaschroeder 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This thread is a direct descendant of the fine-tuning argument comment.

Re: explanatory resources. Multiverse hypotheses provide explanatory resources, in that they undermine various universal probability bound arguments (which I'm sure you know Dembski calls probabilistic resources). Indeed mutiverse hypotheses also require explanatory resources. My point was that QM+decoherence provides the same explanatory resources as MWI (because it is a conservative extension of QM) but without requiring the inflated ontology of MWI.--CSTAR 16:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. I agree this is (somewhat) off topic, but relevant since Dembski makes an issue of it. However, anything more on this should be said on one of our talk pages.--CSTAR 16:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

I am just curious if I am the only one who sees an NPOV issue with this article. All bias aside, I can lend some to creativity, but it seems that this heavily stinks of bias. Even the opening paragraph seems to lead a reader down the opinion of the writer, and not necessarily down a factual understanding of Intelligent Design. Not trying to debate the merits of ID, simply the neutrality of the article.

As a reference, see: Evolution Creationism

I would claim that all 3 of these are controversial, however ID seems to reek of an anti-theory bias. If I am the only one that sees this, I will kindly take my marbles and go home.

No, I don't think that the article is biased against ID. ID is controvertial because it claims to be a "scientific" hypothesis, but it makes no predictions of its own. It is asserted to be science when in fact it is not. It tries to get inserted into textbooks without going through the stages of development, experimentation, peer review, publication, etc. Evolution is not controvertial in a scientific sense - it's about as solid and uncontrovertial as living science gets. It's the underlying idea in all biology and the health sciences, the assumption that holds everything together. Most creationists, even YECs, accept most of the logic behind evolutionary theory and the reality of evolution. Creation isn't controvertial in the same way as ID either - it's an old and established theological idea. Of course it isn't science, it's theology. Guettarda 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so. I was just curious if the brush used the paint the picture was biased. Perhaps it's simply my bias reading that the article is biased, but I'd like to think not. It just seems that the article is, perhaps, not as "informative"-crafted as it could/should be.Tonsofjunk 03:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree that the article does focus on critiques of ID to a large extent. But like Guerttarda, I think that since ID is such a contentious issue that the article should reflect that, whereas there is not the same debate over creationism or evolution so obviously those articles will be different. Creationism is firmly established as theology and evolution is firmly established as science, whereas ID is science to one group of people and theology to another group. To take out the sections that critique ID would actually create a more POV article by making ID seem non-controversial. Both sides are presented, though if you feel that there are more arguments against ID than for, you could always add supporting evidence that shows ID in a more positive light. However, there will always be what you termed an "anti-theory bias" because ID is technically not a scientific theory. -Parallel or Together? 04:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, creationism isn't so much firmly established as it is well known. Not a great many people ascribe to it, even within christianty, whereas evolution is embraced by people of all faiths and persuasions.

As for adding more arguments for ID; please do. If they exist, they should be added to the article.

Finally, about bias, when I read the article I find that the scientific status of ID is not very clearly defined. And biased reader could easily gloss over the arguments, and continue to believe that ID is scientific. Perhaps accusations of bias should mention specific problems. -- Ec5618 05:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I said creationism was firmly established as theology, meaning that there is a consensus that it is theology rather than science. I didn't mean that sentence to be read as stating that creationism was a widely held view, so I apologize if that was confusing. I think our goals are the same - that any reasonable evidence either for or against ID should be included. The only reason this article appears to not have neutral POV is that there are more reasonable critiques of ID than supports. Anyone worried about that can add arguments for ID, just as anyone feeling that it is possible to gloss over the critiques could add more arguments against. For the record, I admit that I disagree with ID, and think that attempting to present it as a science is misleading and even laughable, but I am trying to look at it from a neutral point of view. -Parallel or Together? 08:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV--Yes

I certainly see NPOV on this one. As a theory, ID is intended to simply detect design among biological information. The philosophy behind it and the nature of the source of intelligence(s) is beyond the scope of ID. See these:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=526

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2824&callingPage=discoMainPage

--Swmeyer 23:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute makes dissembling its agenda a matter of policy. Just as it also makes obfuscation of that policy a matter of policy as well. This is covered in the article and supported by many, many credible cites. You should consider reading them. The NPOV template is unjustified. FeloniousMonk 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Merely the statement that "The Discovery Institute makes dissembling its agenda a matter of policy" shows your bias in this discussion. Let me point out some examples of problems on the page:

(1)

"The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design 'and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life' are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own"

--This does appear to the conclusion of this paper. However, ID's response should be given. It is a little, but more needs to be said. For example, Stephen Meyer's:

The essence of these arguments seems to be that the unobservable character of a designing agent renders it inaccessible to empirical investigation and thus precludes the possibility of testing any theory of design. Thus the criterion of demarcation employed here conjoins "observability and testability." Both are asserted as necessary to scientific status, and the converse of one (unobservability) is asserted to preclude the possibility of the other (testability).

First, observability and testability are not both necessary to scientific status, because observability at least is not necessary to scientific status, as theoretical physics has abundantly demonstrated. Many entities and events cannot be directly observed or studied—in practice or in principle. The postulation of such entities is no less the product of scientific inquiry for that. Many sciences are in fact directly charged with the job of inferring the unobservable from the observable. Forces, fields, atoms, quarks, past events, mental states, subsurface geological features, molecular biological structures—all are unobservables inferred from observable phenomena. Nevertheless, most are unambiguously the result of scientific inquiry.

Second, unobservability does not preclude testability: claims about unobservables are routinely tested in science indirectly against observable phenomena. That is, the existence of unobservable entities is established by testing the explanatory power that would result if a given hypothetical entity (i.e., an unobservable) were accepted as actual. This process usually involves some assessment of the established or theoretically plausible causal powers of a given unobservable entity. In any case, many scientific theories must be evaluated indirectly by comparing their explanatory power against competing hypotheses.

(2) "Many design theorists believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems, which explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection."

--This makes it too simple--Dembski's math can be found here to show how it is more than simply an intuitive inference, but rather, an elimination of chance and, thus, inferring design based on specification.

(3) "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. Critics argue this violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, ID proponent Behe concedes 'You can't prove intelligent design by experiment'."

--Again, this is too simple. While I am not a subscriber to Time and can't verify the quote from Behe/context/etc., ID proponents actually do think there are ways to do research. Here are a few that have already been done.

(4) "For instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is not yet understood scientifically, although the first stages have been reproduced in the Miller-Urey experiment.)"

--The Miller-Urey experiment is debatable--it may be better phrased as "may have been". See this:

By 1970, though, most geochemists were convinced that the Earth’s primitive atmosphere was nothing like this, but instead consisted of gasses emitted from volcanoes--mainly carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor.

Here are Jonathan Wells' note on this paragraph:

On the probable composition of the Earth’s early atmosphere, see Heinrich D. Holland, “Model for the Evolution of the Earth’s Atmosphere,” pp. 447-477 in A. E. J. Engel, Harold L. James & B. F. Leonard (editors), Petrologic Studies: A Volume in Honor of A. F. Buddington (Geological Society of America, 1962); Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 55 (1966): 1365-1372; Marcel Florkin, “Ideas and Experiments in the Field of Prebiological Chemical Evolution,” Comprehensive Biochemistry 29B (1975): 231-260; Sidney W. Fox & Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Revised Edition (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977).

(5) "However, for millenia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates supernatural design; this has come to be known as the teleological argument. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica[13] (thirteenth century), design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and William Paley in his book Natural Theology (nineteenth century) where he makes his watchmaker analogy."

--There were many others, including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Pascal, Hoyle, etc. They might be alluded to or mentioned here because otherwise the persistence of design historically seems less than it actually was, especially given the 2 Christian sources that might indicate suspicion again.

More to come later... --Swmeyer 01:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute's agenda, strategy and method are well-supported and now common knowledge to all long term debate participants; the ID leadership cadre has admitted it is so when pressed or when addressing audiences it considers "safe." They keep the tracts on hand claiming otherwise for the benefit of the Teach the Controversy campaign, a generally unaware public and policymakers. The DI's agenda is only now being defended as not creationist by Johnny-come-latelys to the debate and die-hard Wedge strategy warriors.

On your other specific points, the paraphrased NAS statement is correct as cited [11]. The position of ID proponent's on whether ID is actual science is accurately and sufficiently represented (And exceeding in proportion to it's credibility, I'd add). Further, Access Research Network, "discovery.org" and "designinference.com", etc. are all pro-ID reference sources, maintained by leading participants in the debate. They cannot be given the same weight as neutral, credible sources. Discovery.org is the Discovery Institute's own website, while ARN and designinference.com are offshoots. I am not saying they have no credibility or place in the article (as they are cited). I am saying that a) they are making extraordinary scientific claims that are largely disputed by mainstream scientists, and b) they are predisposed to make such claims, as it is called for in their published agenda. This means we need to be very skeptical and maintain a semblance of rigour here, even more so than usual in such cases. And so they cannot be used here to trump criticisms by mainstream science. Their use here is to illustrate what ID proponents claim. This is followed by what the other side claims, and so on.

I have no doubt that more is to come from you here as you state. I only ask that you first WP:RTA before trying to rewrite the article and justifying with your arguments, most of which have been dealt with here already. FeloniousMonk 02:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, these claims are quite serious:

The Discovery Institute's agenda, strategy and method are well-supported and now common knowledge to all long term debate participants; the ID leadership cadre has admitted it is so when pressed or when addressing audiences it considers "safe." They keep the tracts on hand claiming otherwise for the benefit of the Teach the Controversy campaign, a generally unaware public and policymakers.

You are saying there are two different stories the ID movement tells depending on the audience that are not just about context, but rather, about coercion, deception, and power moves. When asked to defend themselves, what do they say to these charges? They account for it by saying that they did intend to go at philosophical naturalism, but not through deceipt. Instead they wanted to do it through research, reasoned argument, and open debate, all three of which they are doing.

On the issue of NAS and the definition of science, I think mention of middle ground would be helful here. I do notice there is mention that ID sees this as a result of the philosophical naturalism. However, this idea could be expanded moreso to represent ID's view.

Additionally, beyond being wrong (see question 3 here, the way this statement is phrased makes it seem like they are lying when they say there is no way ID can tell us about the designer but only detect one when in fact they reasonably believe it is possible to hold to ID and a religious faith and keep them separate:

Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.

While I agree that neutral sources are the goal, with the allegations made, ID'ers need to be given an opportunity to defend themselves. Even in your notes you elaborate on certain points anti-ID in 5 cases, which could be considered new research without sources, and in 0 cases in favor of ID. Ideally, the 5 notes I mention should be deleted unless sources can be cited. At a minimum, in a couple places there need to be notes similar to what I am pointing out.

While they have a strategy, the merits of their arguments still need to be considered and offered equal space for consideration and defense. While they may be against mainstream natural sciences (although over 400 scientists now are on board about doubts with Darwin's theory), the disagreement is explained by ID'ers. As another example, the dichotomy regarding the definition of science is out of date already. An alternative has been provided here in which scientific knowledge of nature has been distinguished from analogical knowledge of nature.

What about items 2-5? Were they just rejected on face because they point to discovery-related scientists?

I will not just go in and begin making changes ad hoc. I will be sure to have what I say well-supported if I am going to make any changes. I want to work with you here to represent the truth. However, I hope you will allow for an outside administrator to consider my points. Since you wrote the majority of the article and I think it is biased, of course you are not going to side with me.

Swmeyer 13:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Obfuscation on this talk page notwithstanding, this article itself is a model of NPOV. Supernatural phenomena fall outside the scope of science, which is by definition a reasoned investigation of natural phenomena. Jokestress 01:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Science is defined as the following by Merriam's:

Main Entry: sci·ence

Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

You'll notice the keys are a systematic approach and knowledge. Only one of them mentions anything about physical science or the natural/supernatural distinction, and it refers you to natural science! And anyway, if you use your definition, many areas that are accepted as the result of scientific inquiry, such as forces, fields, atoms, quarks, past events, mental states, subsurface geological features, molecular biological structures would not be.

--Swmeyer 01:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think participants here on both sides are pretty well educated and aware of what science is. FeloniousMonk 02:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, did you look at the definition?

SW - dictionary definitions are not "authoritarian" - their job is to document something of the range of usage of a word. Have a look at the scientific method if you need a better understanding of what science is. The definition you quoted ignores the social sciences or other fields which use the scientific method. Science is that which uses the scientific method. That's the operational definition, the only really meaningful one. Guettarda 02:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that dictionaries are attempting to site the meaning of a word, their definitions still carry authority, and so I'm not so sure I am with you on the conclusion that the only meaningful definition of is that which uses the scientific method. Certainly, words have different meanings for different contexts, though, and in context of the community of natural scientists, I am sure science means what Wikipedia has defined it as--requiring the natural component. I found an interesting take on this here that distinguishes between scientific knowledge of nature and analogical knowledge of nature, both important and neither independent of the other.

Swmeyer 03:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No doubt Swmeyer knows all about falsifiability, but I cannot resist noting that when the National Academy says ID cannot be tested by experiment, they mean that ID is not falsifiable. Stephen Meyer's paragraph on testability does not successfully rebut the NAS statement because Meyer does not address the problem that the posited intelligent designer is undefined (not just invisible). Even when molecular biologists posit an "X factor" or similar, it's thought to be a molecule (about which we know a lot) with certain specific characteristics. That's not the case with the Almighty. There's no way to falsify the existence of an entity about which we know nothing and which is capable of virtually anything. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, there has to be something that it can't do and we have to know for sure that it can't do it. Otherwise, there's no way to test whether it has had an effect, at least by the rules or ordinary science.

Science is a game with rules. Religion has its own very clear rules. They are different sandboxes. If you want to play in the science sandbox you have to play by the science rules. That means hypotheses have to be falsifiable. The reason that supernatural phenomena fall outside the purview of science is not that science is necessarily against the supernatural (scientists would love to study God!). It is because science as an endeavor is incapable of telling us anything about the deities' doings. Eperotao 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)