Talk:Intelligent design/Removed sockpuppet discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 2006

[edit] User:172.196.11.239, User:172.190.98.116, User:172.196.125.230 & User:172.193.9.65

User:172.196.11.239, User:172.190.98.116, User:172.196.125.230 and User:172.193.9.65 are likely sockpuppets of User:Benapgar who is now permanently blocked for chronic WP:NPA violations. As such, they are blocked as well. Please don't feed the trolls people. FeloniousMonk 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False allegation of vandalism

My repeated defense of an undeniably accurate representation of the content of easily verified sources is not vandalism. KnowledgeSeeker protected this article to preserve a false representaion of sources contributed by renegade admin FeloniousMonk, who claims scientific organizatons have labeled ID as psuedoscience and junk science when none of the organizations he cites use those terms. I accurately attributed the terms to the National Science Teachers Association and to the New Yorker, as per sources FeloniousMonk provided. My contribution is based on no point of view but an appreciation for accurate writing. The behavior of several editors on this page in the face of my neutral and accurate charitable contribution reveals a contempt for truth and for academic rigor, along with a preference for clique loyalty and mob brutality. Don't think you've fooled anyone but yourselves. 172.196.125.230 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you are right is irrelevant - you shouldn't edit war over anything or ever break WP:3RR. Continue the discussion on the talk page, request mediation, seek outside views, etc., but don't edit war, engage in personal attacks or seek to impose your views. Mikker ... 12:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with most of Monk's edits. However, his reversions are correct and appropriate. Changes to the article should be discussed in here, first. It may be a seriously biased article, but it's also one that requires a bit more care in handling than most. Please don't just go and edit it without justifying your changes in here. Izuko 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with Mikkerpikker's and Izuko's (and others') point about consensus process here, I respectully disagree with Izuko's assertion that it is a "seriously biased" article. There can be, and are, remaining points of contention, including among the many my minor caveat above about exactly how the language is necessarily truncated in the second introductory paragraph. The article, however, is anything but seriously biased in light of the facts entered into evidence at the Kitzmiller trial, but rather has been quite restrained, cautious and deferential on the whole, and also very respectful of a long, arduous, cautiously arrived at consensus on a wide range of issues related to this difficult subject.

In light of the facts entered into evidence in the Kitzmiller trial, to me the primary question is not whether ID is legitimately science, but rather whether all the controversy is a result of a more forgiveable ignorance or mere mistake in understanding what reasonably is the range of ideas that can be taught under the auspices of "science," or, per the Wedge Document and other evidence, whether all the controversy is more a result of a somewhat less forgiveable attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the public ("for the sake of the children," of course). It seems to me there is more than adequate evidence to convincingly allow an inference, by a reasonable jury, of either, or both...

The present bone of contention, begun before I edited and FeloniousMonk provided sourcing in response, is of course about whether ID is "not science," "pseudoscience," and/or "junk science" (and how can it be summarized as to who said what), and actually relates more to perceptions of the motivations of the proponents of ID than it does to whether ID is science. It plainly is not science, because after all the verious analyses are done, one fact remains: ID's intended inference is somewhere in the range between somewhat etherial and completely spiritual. Pseudoscience may or may not be motivated by hidden agenda(s); while junk science in its most common [more casual] use of the term typically presumes it is motivated by a hidden agenda. So the question is: Among the millions who have spoken out on the subject, what did the scientific community say? And after all the parsing, it turns out that in various combinations of organizations and casual conversation of scientists with reporters, the answer is "all of the above."...Kenosis 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not in any way the bone of contention. Of course it is junk science. The bone of contention is who uses that kind of language. I do, and and I use worse. The contest is not about the motives of proponents of ID, but about the rationale of collaborative writers who misrepresent easily verifiable sources by paraphrasing in such a way as to attribute the most shrill language to the most articulate expositors of the topic. Scientific associations are more astute in their critiques than to resort to vernacular. None of the scientific associations used the vernacular barbs because their language was more specific. Concatenating the explanatory language of a columnist and a teachers association as if it were the language of research associations is simply dishonest. The dishonesty is especially offensive when the references are right there and anyone can see just how eager the writers are to drive home their personal point of view, which I happen to share, that this is pseudoscience.
Mike Pippers comment is especially revealing "Whether or not you are right is irrelevant". There's that ambiguous verb "is" again. It "is" irrelvant to who? To 5/7 or 6/8? Maybe it is irrelvant to 6/10,000; 10,000 being the readers who happen to care if the citations are correctly represented but have enough sense not to cross swords with a mob bent on describing reality in their preferred manner regardles what is right. So far, I see no response explaining why it is accurate or neutral to concatenate statements to the object of a sentence to imply the subject of the sentence used language they simply didn't use. What I see is experiences group members gaming the system while avoiding the actual bone of contention, confident that their numbers and persistence will get them there way, regardless the truth.
I'm not certain which seems more bizarre -- the characterization of accurate edits as "vandalism" or the insistance that precise, simple description of actual facts should be discouraged in favor of an innacurate representation favored by a tiny mob that has formed to control the content. It is no wonder this article failed to pass muster of either the Peer Review process or the nomination for featured article status.
Since a few of you just don't seem to get why it is important to accurately describe events when writing about controversial topics, the problem is that dishonest representations alienate people who should otherwise be engaged in a concensus process. It is especially problematic to write an article about why non-science doesn't meet a scientific standard when the article itself doesn't meet basic literary standards of correct representation and attribution. Relegating the real truth to footnotes doesn't solve the problem. To go from "several bodies approved statements explaining deficiencies in a concept" to "the overwhelming majority of members of those associations view the concept as ridiculous" is simple dishonesty. 172.190.98.116 20:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks, see WP:CIV. In particular kindly do not refer to people as a 'mob'. --Davril2020 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it a personal attack to refer to a group lacking clear order as a "mob"? How is it not a personal attack to refer to my charitable contribution as "Vandalism", or to assert that "Math is not one of your strong points"? How are Kenosis's statements below "classic apathetic whining" not personal attacks? 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


I see a lot of writing and complaining here, but little or no movement towards obtaining a username and participating in the discussion. This is classic apathetic whining, particularly at this stage of the article's development, after many thousands of person-hours have been required to analyze and summarize the numerous components of this difficult subject, as well as hammer out consensus as to what material can be summarized in what paragraph. Many obvious advocates of ID participated in these discussions. The system is not perfect, and some remain angry about the immense sums of hours and thought involved. By my view, the entire section on Peer Review [in the article] is ridiculous and I've said so. There is nothing to peer review, because the ID inference is a ghost. Yet, the editors respected consensus, remained restrained, and allowed every reasonable benefit of doubt in the discussion. This is but one of many ways in which the editors have, so to speak, bent over backwards here.
By all means do obtain a username to which your points, whatever they may be, can reasonably be attached, indeed by all means do urge those with similar perspectives to obtain usernames and participate, and do by all means proceed to affect the consensus based upon the strength of presented fact, and the results will potentially be different than what you presently observe...Kenosis 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Your response contains a personal attack against me, denigrating my persistant articulate concern as "classic apathetic whining" and accusing me of not participating in a discussion when I am the only one responding substantively to the question at hand. The question is whether it is accurate to concatenate comments by two unrelated groups to imply one made statements in fact made by the other. This has nothing to do with point of view and everything to do with basic accuracy in literature. I am not here to discuss the system at Wikipeda -- I am here to discuss what professionals and professional organizations used what terms in regard to the subject of the article.
Please stop gaming the system, arguing from authority and attacking the person. Respond to the matter at hand. If you are legitimately interested in responding to the well-document easy-to-resolve strictly literary concern I have presented and which you have twice confirmed as valid, who I am and whether or not I register a user name will make no difference. On the other hand, if the object is to accuse me of whining, of apathy, of vandalism and of lacking in math skills, my adaptation of a user name would only provide a more concise target against which to launch continued personal attacks. 172.196.11.239 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
A few points. First, repeated POV edits are vandalism. Second, while Kenosis's comment was probably on the wrong side of WP:CIVIL it does not excuse your behavior. Third, you may want to read argument from authority since I don't think it means what you think it means. Fourth, as a general piece of advice describing oneself as "articulate" will not endear you to many. Fifth, "mob" has strongly negative connotations. JoshuaZ 23:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to refer to original sources, and not to Wikipedia articles to define concepts such as logical fallicies. An appeal to authority says "S believes B, therefore B is true." An argument of authority can also take the form of "If I believe B, then B is true." This is the form of argument you and others rely on in this present discourse. I instead offer the argument that if in X document, Y said Z=A, the accurate way to depict Y's statement is to say "In X document, Y said Z=A". As I understand the proposed language you support with the implicit authority of your group, you prefer "Y 'views' Z as B because in X document Y said Z=A and we think A=B".
The concern with negative connontations here on your part seems to be entirely for those you percieve about youself or your allies. Second, typing the characters "P O V" into a network doesn't explain how correctly attributing statements to the correct source in any way advances any point of view. Thirdly, the concept of point of view is subjective and your assertion that I represent a point of view you seem unable to define does little to inform your personal attack accusing me of the crime of vandalism. Fourth, your advice on how to win endearment rings hollow, as you have not demonstrated an inclination to endear yourself to simple advice that sources be correctly cited, much less to the person who offers the advice. Fifth, I am not looking for a hug or a kiss -- I am contributing because the information contained herein is incorrect and it is repeated ad infinitum across the Web if not corrected. I am not contributing to your club, I am serving readers who might otherwise be misinformed because of the dynamics of your club.
Further, to refer to a crowd organized around the dictate that "there are no rules" as a mob formally conforms with the standard definition of "mob" as an "unruly crowd". If you don't want to be part of one, try conforming to some standard rules of language, which you will find more stable than the anomy customs of your editorial club. 172.196.11.239 00:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Excuse me, but "classic apathetic whining" is an intentional and considered judgment of the character of the anonymous user's point which cherrypicked inaccurately the content of my statement. It is not uncivil nor personal. To characterize a group of editors who have established their willingness to participate in consensus building as a 'mob' is personal and uncivil.
I will not even go over it point by point, but if you read my statement above and the response and my counter-response, you will note the anonymous contributor took at least three points of mine and twisted them or neglected them in her/his myopic argument above. The most important of these points was that I clearly identified a relevant part of the issue in my first statement of this section as "and how it can be summarized [in the article's introductory paragraph of limited length] as to who said what". I stand by my statement above, all of it, as well as by this statement. Good day...Kenosis 23:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
(ec)Agreed. There was no personal attack on Kenosis' part, nor really on anyone elses. In fact, the anon who refuses to get a user name is behaving as a troll would. In addition, (as it is clear that both anon IPs belong to the same person) the syntax used by the user, and the concentration on this article only, would seem to indicate that a sock-check might be in order. •Jim62sch• 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Accusing me of "Behaving as a troll would..." 1) avoids the content related matter at hand and 2) does not veil the personal attack that characterizes me as a "troll" because my contributon seems to challenge the intellect of other editors. My activity can also be described as behaving as a concerned editor might. If the organization does not want users to edit under their IP, they can easily configure the software to prevent it. There is no rule requiring casual contrbutors to register a user name to fix errors in articles. Piling on more bad-faith accusations against me in no way advances dialogue toward consensus. It does, however, reveal the dynamics of the group. 172.196.11.239 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this cool, revealing one's agenda point by point. And, having said that I close this discussion with this anon by noting, Don't feed the troll. •Jim62sch• 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
How about Don't insult the donors. Can we discuss the topic and lay off the insults?
Whatever agenda it is you infer, let me repeat the statements you buried with your repeated personal attacks -- this is my only "agenda" in this discussion: factual, accurate writing:
I offer the argument that if in X document, Y said Z=A, the accurate way to depict Y's statement is to say "In X document, Y said Z=A".
As I understand the proposed language you support with the implicit authority of your group, you prefer "Y 'views' Z as B because in X document Y said Z=A and we think A=B".172.196.11.239 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If characterizing my considered charitable contributions as "whining" is civil and assumes good faith we might not reside on the same planet.
I searched the page for various parts of the string you quote from yourself "and how it can be summarized ... as to who said what" and found nothing but the lone comment in your 23:38 26 March entry immediately above this one. I did find a statement you wrote about how to treat perceptions of casual conversations of ostensible scientists with ostensible reporters and your suggestion of how these conversastion can be concatenated to imply support from signed statements of specific organizations. Your suggestion that "after all the parsing" your preferred paraphrase of those statements is more accurate than the statements themselves rings hollow. 172.196.11.239 00:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus

Recent comments on this page from Peter Menke[1] Ragesoss [2][3] and Hinotori[4] mirror my specific concern about the representation of specific citations discussed at length above.[5][6] The presence of these unresolved concerns reveals a lack of consensus and a refusal by those who claim consensus to recognize concerns that have repeatedly been raised about this matter by neutral parties with no point of view other than the accuracy of the presentation. 172.196.11.239 03:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusive Christian, Discovery Institute advocacy of ID refuted

"Great Islamic scholars like Ghazali wrote large volumes about design in animals, plants, and the human body. What Intelligent Design theorists like Behe or Dembski do today is to refine the same argument with the findings of modern science."

"Such a philosophy of science which strips nature of any transcendent significance by viewing it as a result of "blind chance" instead of intelligent design, deprives it of any meaning save as an object of the scientist's and technologist's absolute domination, mastery and control, or even as a plaything of idle curiosity to be studied "disinterestedly" for its "own sake.""

Er, the above two links are identical. The same article. Was this a mistake?
Yep. It's now fixed.

"I can see in the current trend toward the acceptance of ‘intelligent design’ a movement toward a more accurate, objective understanding of God as our Creator."

Who wrote this article? I can't for the life of me find the author's name.
Neither could I, but the Khalifah Institute publishes it under their name as an apparent house editorial -- its essentially written under a title equivilant to an office of the Islamic Pope...
This leads to what is basically an "article not found" page.
Oh, I punched submit on my way out the door. I could find neither the article nor the cache, so I didn't mean to mention it.
And I'm not sure what this has to do with Intelligent Design at all; it's clearly about Creationism. The words "Intelligent Design" aren't even mentioned.
The book must've been written by trolls (not) - they all signed their edits with IP numbers. In reality, the writers initially embraced the title "Islam:Intelligent Design" then went with the more traditional Islamic language "Law of Nature"
The issue is that the editors who have taken ownership of this article, falsely claiming consensus after having rejected all other imput as not what "we" want, have attempted to define intelligent design in their own terms as a strictly Christian concept. The word doesn't appear in some articles on Islamic ideas about intelligent design because the native term in the Qur'an is not in English - the word is Taskhir. ("the easily observable fact that nature... has been constrained by Allah")
  • Islamic creationism- "the ideas of Islamic creationists are closer to those of the Intelligent Design school than to Young Earth Creationism."
In fact, they are virtually identical except one is expressed in English and the other in Farsi, one refers to "God" as the designer, and Tashkir refers to "Allah". Muslim scholars cited in these links are saying essentially "What you are calling intelligent design is what we have been saying all along."
Okay, so your supporting links amount to an article saying that Muslims should support intelligent design, an article by an unknown author, a nonexistent article, and an aticle about Creationism in Islam. I must confess that I'm somewhat underwhelmed. --Ashenai 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Asheni, I agree with you here. Additionally, what B the anon seems to misunderstand is the concept of leading propenents vs the bandwaggoners. I don't recall any Muslims getting up before a school board in Pennsylvania, or Kansas, or Georgia, or Tennessee, or anywhere else for that matter advocating ID. In fact, these sites seem to be related to creationism and the teleological argument. •Jim62sch• 11:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You account for four of six links. I redacted one as an error, which reduces your underwhelming concern to three of five.
One says historic Islamic scholars have written about "Design" in nature.[7] Please excuse the article writer for not saying "Intelligent design as explained by the Discovery Institute". Maybe "Great Islamic scholars like Ghazali" who "wrote large volumes about design in nature" were instead writing about "ignorant design" or "chance design"? Does it say they should believe it because it is a wrong idea, or because the Discovery Institute says to? No, udner the title "intelligent design" it says Muslims should beleive it because it is what their scholars have long taught.
Another advocates intelligent design based on the Koran and on Islamic scholarship.[8] Again, since it does not advocate based on the teachings of the Discovery Institute, it must not be intelligent design. This Wikipedia article embraces the circular reasoning that intelligent design is what the Discovery Institute teaches, so if anyone else in all of history has adovocated the notion that the world exists because an intelligent force, being or whatever designed it but the advocates weren't related to the Discovery Institute, their notion can't be called intelligent design.
Another is an article from the Khalifah Institute,[9] which you devalue because the institute published it under the house name. The letter appears elsewhere under the title "The Caliph Speaks" [10] which is a regular feature of the Kalifah Institute - their house editorial so to speak. Who is the Caliph? The Islamic equivilant of the Christian Pope, basically, but there is no Caliph these days. The Kalifah institute uses the first person style to speak in the voice of the non-existant top Islamic official, but apparently there is a specific individual who is recognized as "the Caliph" or "ummah" by the Kalifah Institute.[11] In an article under the heading "Caliph Speaks, we find yet another reference that indicates intelligent design is central to Islamic science: Regardless of how obvious it is that there was an Intelligent Design behind the creation of this most marvelous universe there are still those who attempt to deny that obvious reality, not from any scientific or logical rigour, but only from a some sad, bizarre desire to affirm their Godless beliefs against an increasingly overwhelming body of evidence that God does actually exist.
Another is a Wikibook. The book must've been written by trolls (not) - they all signed their edits with IP numbers. In reality, the writers initially embraced the title "Islam:Intelligent Design" then went with the more traditional Islamic language "Law of Nature"
The issue is that the editors who have taken ownership of this article, falsely claiming consensus after having rejected all other input as not what "we" want, have attempted to define intelligent design in their own terms as a proper noun that refers to a strictly Christian concept. In fact, the the phrase is a conceptual construct shared by adherants of many religions, especially by some Muslims. The word doesn't appear in some articles on Islamic ideas about intelligent design because the native term in the Qur'an is not in English - the word is Tashkir --- roughly defined as "taming". "The Qur'an speaks of the taming of the moon, sun, night, day, sea, rivers, mountains (for the prophet David), wind (for Solomon), and all that is in the heavens and on earth (for man). The meaning in all these instances is that these phenomena have been so created as to render them tame to man and available for man's use and benefit."[12] 172.196.11.239 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you that ID is supposed to be distinct from Creationism and is supposed to be scientific, not religious. The idea that people should support ID because of their religion completely undermines the scientific credibility of the concept. Not only does it ("coincidentally") have the same old conclusions as Creationism but it shares the same basis: religious faith, not scientific evidence.

In any case, as offensive as the idea that Muslims should support ID might be, it doesn't amount to a statement that Muslims do. Alienus 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor do Christians support the idea of intellent design. Some Christians do, and so do some Muslims. Citations I provided say recent Christian proponents of ID "refine the same argument" about "about design in animals, plants, and the human body" long held by some Muslims.
Whose suppositions are those that say ID is "supposed" to be distinct from creationism? Of course John West says so, but in doing so, he defines for his own purposes what is creationism.[13]. But does he claim the Pope doesn't believe "God created the world" albeit in some convoluted mostly circumstantial manner? What about books titled Intelligent Design Creationism[14], or Mere Creation; Science, Faith & Intelligent Design in the introduction of which Dembski says ID is "a theory of creation that puts Christians in the strongest possible position"?[15] What about the article by Natural History Magazine in which Barbara Forrests' overview called it "The Newest Evolution of Creationism"[16], or the Physics Today article that called it "Creationsim in a Cheap Tuxedo"[17]? Then there is the gilded court decision so central to this article: "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.'[18]? Or the New Yorker ("unlike earlier generations of creationists")[19]? Wired Magazine ("the next generation of creation science")[20]? MIT Press [21]? The ACLU [22]?
To say "The idea that people should support ID because of their religion completely undermines the scientific credibility of the concept" attempts to construct an argument around a perception of what should be, but does not represent what is. It presumes the fallacy that if "Scotsmen drink a lot" a person who doesn't drink a lot is not a Scotsman. Islamic proponents of ID say their books have advocated it for centuries. Apparently they don't say to support it because their books say to, they say to support it because it is true in nature, and by the way, they say their books tell the truth.
Expositors of Islamic "science" (which to us might not be considered science at all, but to us, neither is ID) and even the Qu'ran have for centuries discussed design in nature. To whom are these myths "offensive"? Maybe to you, but I extend more tolerance. If your are offended by the subject matter, perhaps you need to recuse from editing this content. The idea here isn't to write ideas that seem coherent to us, but to accurately write major views of topics at hand. One major view holds that Islam teachers have long advocated the role of design in nature, and that their arguments are "identical" to those currently advanced by the intelligent design movement which uses the broadly descriptive phrase "intelligent design". 172.196.11.239 07:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of anyone claiming that intelligent design creationism is an exclusively Christian phenomenon. There used to be a reference to Young and Edis's book, which discusses support for ID in Islamic circles. This isn't anything new. What the article says is that all of the "leading proponents" are associated with DI. None of what you have presented suggests otherwise. Are any of these Islamic scholars/intellectuals considered to be "leading proponents"? If so, please cite a reputable source that asserts as much. Beyond that, I don't see what point you are trying to make here. I am unaware of anyone claiming that ID is an exclusively Christian phenomenon. Can you please point to the part of the article which says this? I am not aware of anyone here who is particularly attached to the idea that all of the leading proponents of ID are associated with the DI, but rather, that they are interesting in maintaining a factually accurate article. Please provide references that support the assertion that there are leading proponents of ID who are not associated with the DI. I'm happy to discuss the validity of references and who should we trust to say whether person X or person Y should be considered a leading proponent. But to use these links to determine whether or not one of these people should be considered a "leading proponent" would violate our policy on "original research". Guettarda 06:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, except for Dembski, who sees ID as a way to "glorify Christ". Nonetheless, you are right, if the "anon" can find valid refs to support his assertions, and if there is evidence that the people cited are "leading proponents" then we'll have to take a look at the sentence in question. However, I merely sense a continuation of an old crusade on this page, undertaken in a slightly new manner. •Jim62sch• 11:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Are any of these Islamic scholars/intellectuals considered to be "leading proponents"?
Are you saying American proponents of ID are "leading proponents" in the Islamic world?
What good does it do readers that there "used to be a link" exposing Muslim proponents of ID? Controlling editors have been repeatedly advised that "leading" is a weasel word. A pastor who advises his congregation to embrace ID is a "leading proponent". The President of the United States is a "leading proponent" when he advocates ID. This has been said before but squashed from the so-called consensus: the decision to define popular United States proponents as "leading proponents" rests on "original research". Between that pastors tiny congregation, and the 6 billion people of the world, how do we define which people are led by "leading proponents"? Obviously, if Muslims have discussed the intelligence of design in nature for centuries, they were not led by a recently formed Western Christian institution.
The leaders of the Intelligent Design Network are leading proponents, but IDN is not an organizational affiliate of DI. Islamonline.net[23] the 609th top ranked site on the Web[24] uses an indirect article to refer to DI's leadership role -- they call DI "a" leading proponent. Mustafa Akyol seems to be a leading Islamic Turkish proponent, at least by his articles in National Review and interviews on BBC. He has cooperated with DI, which he is in touch with but we have no evidence of any formal affiliation. (172.196.11.239 07:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. I mentioned that there used to be a link to the book - it isn't a surprise to me, and since I wasn't the editor who added the reference, I doubt I'm the only person who is aware of this.
  2. It doesn't matter how we define leading proponents so much as it matters how our sources define leading proponents. Hence the reference to OR.
  3. This article is not about the idea of "intelligence in design" (the teleological argument) in general or in a broad sense. This article is about the pseudosientific presentation of the idea which originated in the 1980s among American creationists and which is being pushed as part of an alternative to "materialistic" science. This article cannot cover every possible usage of the idea of "intelligence in design" - it can't even cover every approach to it from a religious or "scientific" point of view. Have a look at Intelligent design (disambiguation) for pointers as to the breadth of usage.
  4. The Islamonline.net article that you linked to is a news story that appears to be primarily derived from wire sources. There is nothing in that article to suggest that the author is taking a position on DI's role in ID relative to other organisations, nor is there any indication that this is more than a passing reference. You can't take the use of "a" vs. "the" as being of any significance in this article. Guettarda 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, IDN is a DI affiliate. FeloniousMonk 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

'Tis an odd thing how that "i'm an anonymous charitable contributor in search only of precision" thing tends to work when it comes to the subject of ID these days...Kenosis 16:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)