Talk:Intelligent design/Townes RFC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Nobel Prize winning physicist and ID believer says definition is misleading

His name is Charles Townes. Here are his qualifications:

  • PhD (Physics)
  • Professor of Physics emeritus (Astrophysics) University of Berkeley
  • Nobel Prize, National Medal of Science, among other awards he has received.
  • Templeton Prize (2005, for "Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities")
  • Has written extensively on the relationship between religion and science.
  • Believes "Intelligent design is real."
  • Describes himself as a Liberal Protestant Christian.

"I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence — certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible's description of creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it..."

"...People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real... Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent."

"People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, 'Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.' But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading." — Charles Townes. [1]

I believe his view is important and should be mentioned in the article. --Ben 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is really not a very pro-ID statement at all for most defintions of the word ID. He seems to be using ID here in the more general sense of theism. All he is really saying is that evolution and theism don't necessarily conflict with each other. Or am I misreading this? JoshuaZ 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. The link at the end of the quotes provides context (it is from an interview). I can add the interviewer's questions above each of the quotes if you want. The question preceding the second quote is important if you are concerned about the context. The interviewer asked "Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?" So Townes is speaking to that particular intelligent design (the one the DI has been pushing to be taught in schools) when he says the argument is misleading and intelligent design is not anti-evolution.
Considering the number of editors who come to the talk pages who have this view, or ask about it (wondering if ID and evolution are diametrically opposed, as presented in the article currently), and that editors have in fact been asking about this for at least 5 years (seriously, see Talk:Intelligent Design Theory), and that there are numerous examples of this usage on the Internet, I think it is very important to include this view to contrast the advocacy group's definitions.--Ben 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Townes' opinion of ID is not notable in that represents that of a very small minority within the spectrum of beliefs that comprise ID, nor is Townes widely recognized as a promintent or influential ID proponent. His opinion on the matter hardly warrants a footnote much less a sentence or a paragraph. The discussion at Talk:Intelligent Design Theory represents the viewpoints of some editors poorly read on the topic; that is the primary reason why that article now redirects to this one. FeloniousMonk 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. Read the article carefully. The interviewer is pushing the question of ID, and Townes is carefully setting out theistic evolution in response, giving no comfort to the position taken by the DI. His position is similar to that of the Roman Catholic church, and though he's more careful than Shönborn, his words could also be misrepresented as support for the anti-evolution ID. Might be worth a brief paragraph setting this out. ...dave souza, talk 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? He seems qualified enough to comment on intelligent design, it's definitely in his realm of expertise. Plus he personally believes in intelligent design too, just not the version the DI wants taught in schools. The way he sees it, their argument, the idea that intelligent design is inherently anti-evolution, is "unfortunate" and "misleading." I think he's qualified to make that opinion and it should be included in the article, if only to contrast the DI's treatment of ID. Like I said before, a lot of people approach the concept this way and I think they would appreciate Townes' take--both on ID as he sees it (not inconsistent with evolution) and on ID as the DI sees it (misusing the term, and the argument is misleading)--represented, if only in a short paragraph. --Ben 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Physics makes him qualified to discuss a biology topic? Jim62sch 23:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
He is not discussing biology. --Ben 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Townes' qualifications are a non sequitur; the notability of his viewpoint is the only thing that is relevent here. I didn't say he wasn't qualified, I said his opinion is a very minor position. If indeed a lot of people did view ID this way, then there'd be more evidence for that. This viewpoint is seldom invoked or cited by the leading ID proponents, and does not come anywhere near being regularly found in the majority of primary published sources on ID. BTW, that's a nice appeal to authority in the heading for this section. How's it working? FeloniousMonk 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
As good as or better than your appeal to the people. Here is something for you to think about: Why are Dawkins' views included in the article? Is it because he is an authority on the subject? Or is it because you think he is notable? Or because people other than you think he is notable? By your line of reasoning, the only notable people are the most vociferous advocates and people on television and in the newspapers. This is opposed to, say, academics and scientists. --Ben 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Appeal to people? Please. What FM is challenging is the lack of citations, sourced material, or published work that put forward this extremely weak definition of ID. Just because he says 'ID' does not mean he knows what ID is.
That he claims the term 'ID' is being abused, and that his own opinion of ID is at odds with the leading authority's definition is a extremely strong indication that he does not understand what ID actually refers to.
As for Dawkins, it is fairly obvious that he is a leading authority in biology and evolution, the subjects that ID has been contrived to disprove; his books, talks, published works, and peer-reviewed studies are abundant and well-respected in the field. Tez 10:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, Dawkins may be a poor example since, while you might make a case that he is authoritative, he is also quite a vociferous advocate. I guess if only Charles Townes jumped into the fray and started a blog and made a television series, Religion: The root of all evil?, he'd get a mention as you'd then consider him notable (rather than authoritative, which is bad encyclopedic style). Is this right? It seems to follow your line of reasoning. --Ben 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You've learned nothing during your month off, have you? Still the same old Ben.
And yes, Townes is discussing biology. To the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed teaching ID in physics, chemistry, geology, math, art or any other class, only in biology class. Besides, to what other field does evolution (which Townes mentions four times) belong? Jim62sch 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You are being insulting. Please do not talk to me this way. Furthermore, Dr. Townes was clearly not discussing biology in any capacity. --Ben 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dawkins IS a biologist, and Ben lost the question mark in the title of his two programmes (series?). Calling Townes an ID believer in the heading is misleading, perhaps mischievous. It's not ID as we know it, Scotty. ...dave souza, talk 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not ascribe mischievous motives to me. That is insulting. This is what Dr. Townes said: "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real." Dr. Townes believes in intelligent design. Also please address me, not the peanut gallery, because I find it offensive when I am right here and you are talking about me in the third person. Also please do not focus on trivialities like forgetting the question mark, because that is disrupting our discussion. --Ben 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification that you were being misleading rather than mischievous. The question mark is significant because the programmes pose a question rather than making an assertion - have you seen the programmes or listened to the radio interview about them? ..dave souza, talk 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There. Fixed. :) I hope that now, at least, you think I am not trying to pull something on you. Otherwise, I got nothin' and you will just have to keep assuming bad faith for no reason. --Ben 03:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ben, refering to someone in the third person is not insulting. Many people read these pages (in fact, some people might find repeated foci on "you" to be disruptive and insulting). Also, sarcastic comments about "packet corruption" are unnecessary. Now, if you read the entire section, in context, it appears that Townes is talking about theistic evolution. Furthermore, his stance is not very relevant compared to your example of Dawkins. While I strongly disagree with Dawkins, the fact is that he is much more read and more influential on this matter than Townes is. Thus, under wiki policy Dawkins is in. Townes is not notable or influential in this matter and therefore does not go in. JoshuaZ 02:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I find that talking about me in the third person is insulting. I'm sorry you don't understand why. Yes the comments about packet corruption were unnecessary, that is why I erased them. It appears to me Townes is talking about intelligent design, because that's what he said, and he is far more of an expert on the subject than you or I. It appears to me that the current article is talking about Christian Creationism, would you redirect this article to Christian Creationism? That would probably be ok with me, and I'm guessing Dr. Townes as well. Townes goes in because he is a scientist and this is his area of expertise. It is regardless of his notability or influential-ity, as it is his credibility which is the matter at hand, and he is quite credible based on his qualifications. I believe scientists are covered as authoritative under wiki policy.
Apparently in deference to the kind of objections stated above, the reference to Jon Stewart has been deleted. I personally do not have strong feelings whether it is appropriate to offer an example of the numerous parodies of the most widely publicized forms of the ID argument.
What gave rise to this kind of parody and lampooning (of which there was much) was that it was obvious to many millions of reasonably intelligent people that something was amiss about the intelligent design assertion as put forth by the DI affiliates-- a fundamentally theological, religious, or at a minimum non-scientific, assertion was attempted to be passed off as scientific and non-religious. The judge in Kitzmiller came to the same conclusion in a far more articulate way, with the weight of federal law and volumes of testimony in front of him. And what led to all this controversy and anger was a demonstrably duplicitous stance advanced by the Discovery Institute and its affiliates in attempting to implement their agenda of broad academic and sociopolitical change in the US.
Personally, I would want to offer my respect with a measure of sadness about the situation to persons such as Charles Townes who use the term ID in good faith as a philosophical and/or theological term of art, of which there are a number. Unfortunately, the use of the term 'intelligent design' by others in duplicitous and contradictory ways, in a disguised attempt to force creationism on the public schools in the US, has worked its way too far into the public consciousness as something sneaky, a political maneuver or even a con job, for it to be successfully resurrected as a theological or philosophical term of art. I would be extremely surprised to hear someone, today or in the near future, say, for instance, "In what sense are you using the term?" At this stage in time, for the vast majority of folks it doesn't any longer matter whether a user of the term 'intelligent design' chooses to involve literal Biblical creationism, dynamic evolutionary creationism, or any of a wide range of non-Biblical speculative approaches-- the term is kaput as a term of art because it has been so badly corrupted.
Having said that-- it would still be interesting to see if a broad enough sampling of editors, after further discussion, saw fit to include a brief section outlining several of the approaches where it is used as a philosophical or theological term of art today. To me, thus far they appear to be just a new set of slants on the teleological argument. This is already dealt with extremely well in the existing article.
Kenosis 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC regarding opinion of Dr. Townes

Editors with an outside view opinion on this matter please post here. Outline of concerns is included in the section above.

Kindly clarify what an outside view is?
Non-regulars of course. And no cabalism please. I know who's who. ;) Put it in the above section if you frequently talk to the regulars about stuff like this. --Ben 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You can't limit an RFC to "non-regulars." Every RFC is open to the entire community. I've corrected the language above to reflect this. FeloniousMonk 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable. The opinion of the guy is just that, an opinion. If one of the key player would say this, that would be notable, but he is not a key player. As such, his remark has no place in this article. --KimvdLinde
  • Not notable, as I've said before. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No. The issue is credibility. Many people have notable, non-credible opinions about topics. These go in along with the rest of them. His notability is a red herring. From WP:NPOV "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view." and "One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape." and "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources." So it's about being an encyclopedia, drawing from scientific sources, credibility of the scientific sources.--Ben 07:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The credibility of sources is not a central tenent of WP:NPOV, but of WP:RS. From WP:NPOV: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." ... "A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics." ... "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct." See a pattern? "All significant points of view are presented", "includes all different significant theories", "present each of the significant views". Townes credibility is the red herring here. FeloniousMonk 07:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this a newspaper article or an encyclopedia topic? Significance is important when writing a newspaper article. Significance and credibility are important when writing an encyclopedia topic. The reader expects research, not just reporting. This includes the opinions of credible scientists, not just significant and notable advocates or detractors. Otherwise the article can end up solely feeding off of media reports about celebrity opinion rather than providing the reader with an expert opinion. --Ben 09:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think he is notable enough to have a paragraph devoted to him abakharev 03:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable on this issue. I'm inclined to somewhat agree with his position. However, he has had no signficant influence on ID controversy and therefore his opinion on this matter is simply not relevant. JoshuaZ 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable. Hundreds of scientists have idly passed comment on their own idiosyncratic definition of the term 'intelligent design'. Ashmoo 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ben removed the bolding around notable and non-notable of most of the above comments. I have added them back in. Ben, in the future, please do not edit others peoples explicit formating decisions. (If you want such editing to occur you'll be losing a lot of bolds and that thing in red will be a nicer color). Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've also removed his "notes" about editors following their comments. Either he's trolling us, or they're meant to discount the comments of those who comment here and contribute to the article. Either way, they are not constructive but disruptive. Benapgar, you should genuinely rethink such behavior. FeloniousMonk 04:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable on this issue - I think Ashmoo sums it up pretty well. Guettarda 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue here is credibility, not notability. Dr. Townes is both a highly accomplished physicist and a qualified expert on the relationships between religion and science. As such, his comments regarding the Discovery Institute's concept "Intelligent design" are credible and are pertinent to this article, in consideration of accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability. This is especially pertinent considering the number of editors who come to this article sharing his view. Editors like them are a quantifiable representation of what readers would expect from an article entitled "Intelligent design." --Ben 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No. The issue is notability. Many people have credible, non-notable opinions about topics. JoshuaZ 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • JoshuaZ is correct, the issue is notablity. His credibility is a non sequitur. WP:NPOV: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." and "A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics." and "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct." So, it's about significance, notability. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not Notable His (minor, unsourced) personal view of ID is at odds with the leading authorities'. Tez 10:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable Were he discussing quantum physics, it might be a different story. Jim62sch 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable. My quick search fails to find any significant amount of discussion of his slant on the issue in theological or philosophical circles to date, and he certainly has not affected the public discussion noticeably.Kenosis 02:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. If certain editors deem it acceptable to shunt out every view that does not fit their prejudice by decrying them as not significant or notable, then this wikipage is nothing but propaganda for the anti-ID side. It's easy enough, just decide who is notable by whether or not they say what you want shown. Then you can define the issue to suit your tastes. I also find it interesting that mentioning Townes's credentials was regarded as an appeal to authority in one comment, and then slammed for not being the right credentials (they, however, are, since ID is an interdisciplinary study and involves physics) in another. Having it both ways? Nice racket y'all got going on. Izuko 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Townes' view of ID (normally called theistic evolution) is totally compatible with current, mainstream scientific understanding. And that he has the qualifications to rationally determine such are not being undermined. Fine: put the quote in the theistic evolution article. If the point you're trying to support with this quote is that a different interpretation of ID belongs in the article, or that there is widespread belief that the term 'ID' is being abused, you're going to need more than one quote of the kind like Townes' to make that argument. Tez 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to have them discarded as "not notable"? Sorry, but I don't have the patience for games. All that will happen is you guys will raise the bar as high as you need to, in order to keep out dissenting opinions. Izuko 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Notable. Point 1: The guy's a Nobel Prize winner. As such, he is a generally famous and influential person, one of the most notable people to endorse the theory. As such, his endorsement is noteworthy to the story of ID. Point 2: Physics deals with the intrinsic workings of the universe. If a physics Laureate claims there's intelligence behind those intrinsic workings, isn't that notable enough to mention? Applejuicefool 17:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Notable (conditional, mild support) He is a Nobel Prize winning physicist, arguably a famous/influential person in the area of science. That he is not a leading ID proponent is a very good point to bring up, but I've heard this sort of viewpoint before. We should find a prominent person in the debate saying something like this to confirm that the viewpoint is acceptable to mention. If that is done, then this Nobel Laureate's comments might be acceptable. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not Notable I can't seem to find him talking about this anywhere else. I would say that his opinion would be notable if there were numerous sources and publications on the subject. An interview is interesting, but if someone has a really serious contribution to a field such as this I would expect to see some serious publication. Obhaso 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal

This topic is already mentioned in the last paragraph of Intelligent design controversy before the Defining intelligent design as science subsection. The paragraph could be expanded to mention Townes along these lines:

Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which does not conflict with scientific theories. Their faith can include belief in creation and continuing intervention by an intelligent deity without looking to pseudoscience for material evidence. Examples include Cardinal Schönborn who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory", and Charles Townes who responded to questions by saying that "People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view... Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent."

In addition, the Intelligent design in summary section could begin "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific alternative to purely naturalistic explanations for evolution, using an older term evoking religious faith in divine creation." Comments and suggested amendments welcome. ...dave souza, talk 09:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But your suggestion places Townes in an entirely different capacity: as a "religious person" rather than an expert who has studied things like this. Please be careful that you do not discriminate against Dr. Townes for his beliefs, which it looks to me like you are getting very close to doing. You seem to me to be completely ignoring Townes' credentials and entire body of work and treating him as just another "religious person." As a religious person he is not notable, that's clear even to me, and I don't know why you would represent him in that capacity. I don't think this is the right way to go about it at all. --Ben 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ben, your new statement above that Townes is not notable as a religious person is odd, since you linked to an article that describes him as a 90 year old who, throughout his life, has sought to advance ideas and/or institutions that will deepen the world's understanding of God and of spiritual realities and was recently given a prize for this work. It does seem to be an aspect not yet reported fully in his bio on Wikipedia. Anyway, his statements in the article are clearly from a religious perspective. ..dave souza, talk 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You are referencing him as a "religious person," i.e. a "believer" rather than someone who has studied this from a scientific standpoint for most of their life. It's very denigrating. When it comes to the Templeton Prize, 2004's winner was George Ellis, who wrote The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with Stephen Hawking, and, according to Wikipedia, is "considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology." --Ben 21:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm astonished that you find his religious beliefs "very denigrating" - are you saying that only atheists can be proper scientists? ..dave souza, talk 22:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to be astonished at your own misinterpretation, as it seems to imply that I am an idiot, and I'm sure the peanut gallery finds it hilarious. In the unlikely event that you actually misunderstood both my original response and the next: I am saying you are denigrating a substantial part of his life's work on the nature of religion and science by ignoring it and focusing instead on his religious beliefs. "Religious person" instead of "Scientist who has studied religion extensively." I think it's unlikely you misunderstood, so if you can't conduct yourself appropriately and continue to be sarcastic like this, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. --Ben 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely support a concise addition or two in this appropriate place in the article. Thanks, Dave, for pointing it out.Kenosis 13:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dave's solution is reasonable, although I'm still highly unconvinced that Townes should be mentioned. JoshuaZ 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Schonborn's quote better represents the viewpoint and is more informative, and Townes is not notable. This is more accurate, informative, relevant and concise:
Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which does not conflict with scientific theories. Their faith can include belief in creation and continuing intervention by an intelligent deity without looking to pseudoscience for material evidence. Cardinal Schönborn sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory."
In Dave's other proposed change to the Intelligent design in summary section the phrase "using an older term evoking religious faith in divine creation" is confusing and ambiguous and needs to be better defined. What exactly are we trying to see with it? FeloniousMonk 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments, I was hoping for a Swift response. FM, the point I thought should be made early in the article is that ID proponents began claiming scientific status for an older term which to many people still denotes religious faith in creation. The Origins of the term subsection covers this more fully, though not explicitly. I'd quite like a link to the Townes interview, perhaps in a footnote to the section, but it's so confused it's difficult to summarise concisely. Could say "Townes who explained how he thought people were misusing the term, as in his belief both evolution and intelligent design were real and consistent with each other." Part of the difficulty is that he seems to conflate ID with YEC, understandably considering the misinformation the DI puts out, so it's fair to say that he provides an example of the misunderstandings around the term, but the interview may need more interpretation than it's worth. ...dave souza, talk 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A footnote on Townes' opinion would be fine in my opinion. What exactly did you have in mind? FeloniousMonk 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
For a footnote to your suggested paragraph, "Another example is Charles Townes who who explained in an interview his belief that creationists were now misusing the term intelligent design." hopefully covers the important points. ..dave souza, talk 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant some variation of "Another example is Charles Townes who who explained in an interview his belief that creationists were now misusing the term intelligent design." is appropriate in a footnote, not in the article. FeloniousMonk 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, thought you were inviting suggestions for the wording, Fully agree. ...dave souza, talk 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've provided below some more references on this perspective. Perhaps you could draw from them. For example, former Discovery Institute fellow Jeffrey Schloss. --Ben 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More information on this perspective

I will add more as I find it. --Ben 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Article which includes many professional views--of biologists, physicists, ministers, on ID and the ID debate.
The article writer, on PhD biology professor (at Westmont College), Jeffrey Schloss, a former fellow of the Discovery Institute: "Schloss said that while he supports science applying its tools to the question, he disagrees strongly with the institute's stance against evolution. "I think evolutionary theory is compatible with faith." Schloss said."
"I think there's real evidence of intelligent design," Townes said, "but I don't usually use the word because it has been corrupted. I believe God created the universe over time and that evolution is part of God's progress. To say that intelligent design discredits evolution is completely crazy."
This one talks about it from a Catholic point of view. Some quotes:
"Intelligent design doesn’t dispute evolution if all it means is gradual change over time," said Chapman."
"What worries Miller about intelligent design and creationism is that they are playing into the hands of those who contend that evolution invalidates the case for God."
Various quotes from scientists. I'm guessing here, but I think a great many of them think evolutionary theory is perfectly sound. They are mainly from the fine-tuning perspective and have nothing to do with evolution--and before you argue about it, fine-tuning is included in the Wikipedia ID article as a "key concept of intelligent design."
"Along with the vast majority of members of the Abrahamic faith traditions, I believe in a created cosmos. Thus, I believe in an intelligent Creator and Designer of the universe. I have said that I therefore believe in intelligent design, lowercase 'i' and 'd.' But I have trouble with Intelligent Design — uppercase 'I' and 'D' — a movement widely seen as anti-evolutionist."

[edit] Benapgar is just another theist with an agenda

It is clear to me that this RFC is simply an attempt by a single contributor and ID-supporter to use the quote mining technique to led more legitimacy to ID as a subject in an article that is trying to be as neutral as possible toward the subject. To wit, Ben is not asking that we include the opinions of all Nobel Prize winners in science on the subject of ID, just the one who applies to most accolades to the subject. I find this kind of advocacy disingenuous, to say the least, and something of a waste of time. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like an attempt by a single contriubtor to give a more accurate picture of ID. It also looks to me that there is a strong attempt by ID-opponents to use the "moving the bar" technique to exclude things that would give a more tempered, rational, and accurate view of ID, so as to better fit their prejudices and points of view. I find this kind of advocasy disingenious, to say the least, as well as disgraceful. Izuko 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
No, ScienceApologist pretty much nails it, especially when one considers the particular history here. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
After looking at Banapgar's history and behavior, I am inclined to strongly agree with ScienceApologist. JoshuaZ 04:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
A rational person would look at the merits of the argument, instead of going after the person making it. Izuko 01:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A rational person would look and see that Townes comment is non-notable, and note that Ben has insulted those who disagree with him, constructed an RfC for his own purposes, used gratuitously large fonts and caps, and ignored any attempts to reason with him. So whats your point? JoshuaZ 01:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
By non-notable, you mean, of course, "doesn't agree with my preconcieved notions." If you're going to insist on playing this card, then what percentage of ID supporters disagree with it? What percentage agree? Where do you get your information? Izuko 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
By non-notable I don't mean "doesn't agree with my preconcieved notions." In fact, I'm inclined to agree with Townes. However, his viewpoint(I'm not commenting on the view itself) is non-notable, in that he has had close to zero influence on discussions about ID. To get a very rough estimate of how non-notable he is, comare the number of google hits for "Townes" + "Intelligent Design" and then substitute for Townes "Behe" "Dembski" "Sarfati" (who is a creationist critical of ID) and about any name which shows up in the article. They all return many more hits than Townes does (in the cases of Behe and Dembski, by multiple orders of magnitude). JoshuaZ 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
For Townes, I get 11,000 - more than enough to suggest that he is notable. For Behe, I get 325,000. Certainly more notbale than Townes, but that doesn't make Townes "not notable." We get back to setting the bar wherever is conveniant. However, the google test is pretty absurd for deciding what is notable within a specialized topic. The "popular" names will always rank higher, regardless of their actual influence on the field. Also, Townes is not the only one saying this. To quote Bruce Gordon, who worked with Dembski, “Intelligent design is compatible with evolution. Many biologists are theistic evolutionists. Design can be understood as built into the initial conditions, so that the subsequent development was continuous and not interrupted by any transcendent intervention. Yet the teleology could still be quantified through the methods of the mathematical techniques of design theory.” (as quoted in The American Spectator, November 2000) Izuko 18:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That seems to me to be distinct from Townes's view. JoshuaZ 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Howso? They are both suggesting that evolution and design are compatible. Though they both mention different means, that does not imply that they see it as the only means, to the exclusion of the particular form offered as an example by the other. If you were to ask either one "does design conflict with evolution," they would both answer no. By the way, Gordon neither affirms nor denies continuous intervention, but only says that it is not required. Izuko 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to erase this as a personal attack, but your friend JoshuaZ says no. So, you say I am an ID supporter. Interesting. I have a question for you: What intelligent design do you think I support? The Discovery Institute's take on it? Townes' take on it? And what do you mean by "ID as a subject?"

Wait.... are you, someone who says I'm disingenuous and an advocate and that all my points are a waste of time, actually using "intelligent design" the same way Townes does? Now THAT would be ironic.--Ben 06:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So you are obviously aware that Townes' view of ID in the quote does not tie up with the definition in the article. Fine - so what point are you trying to support with this quote?
If you're trying to say that there are a significant number of people who use the term 'ID' to mean theistic evolution, can you not see that one quote (with a very vague outline of a fairly generic, non-literalist religious view) of someone's personal opinion will not suffice? At best, with this quote, you could make the point that one Nobel laureate thinks that the term 'ID' refers to theistic evolution (which is already linked to in the article). That is hardly encyclopaedic.
You would need more quotes to get anyone to believe that there is significant use of 'ID' in this way, or possibly a reference to some site/newspaper article/textbook/study/legal proceeding that uses 'ID' in this way. Or a quote from someone speaking in the capacity of representative of a religious/scientific/academic/goverment organisation using 'ID' in this way. Townes' quote above is strictly one person's opinion. At the very least, you could find a quote that actually gives a fully-fledged definition or description! Tez 10:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even arguing that there is significant use of 'ID' in this way (though there is, both significant use of the term this way and a significant understanding of the term this way). I am saying Townes is an expert and until you find someone with the same expertise who disagrees with him about the same thing, his view goes in the article. Why? The article says ID is "pure pseudoscience," and scientists agree, and on Wikipedia we represent the scientific view as the majority, not the minority. It is nothing to do with notability or opinion. The scientific POV is considered ONE point of view, and in this article it should be represented as the majority. Townes view is a scientific point-of-view, not his own, and he is a credible source for this scientific point-of-view.
But you know what? That's not even my main point. You might argue Townes' view is academic, not scientific. Sort of like what Holocaust deniers argue on the Holocaust page--history, like definition, is not science, therefore you have to be notable and Ernst Zundel is more notable plus he is a notable representative of an organisation "researching" the Holocaust. It's a point I've been forced to make because of the refusal of editors to write within the bounds of the article. In the article ID is treated both as singular body of work, and as a subject unto itself. It is however, presented as a singular body of work. There is a constant back and forth recontextualization of intelligent design in the article.
Consider the critiques of the philosophy contained in the article. There are critiques of fine-tuned universe, critiques of teleological argument, more critiques, and then... even more critiques. If ID is "pure pseudoscience," why are there critiques at all? On the water divining page do you have critiques of water divining? Do you have critiques of Extra-sensory perception? Or you do just say "science says this is bullshit, and this is why?" Because that's not what this article does.
The article is not criticizing "the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," the article is using the DI's body of work as a jumping off point to recontextualize ID into Townes' interpretation and then start criticizing the Existence of God, and it's going straight for the throat. It is no wonder there are so many critics of this article.--Ben 21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't help the feeling that I'm being very thoroughly trolled. Recontextualised? Can you show me 2 points in the article which equivocates between two different uses of the term 'ID'? I'll make one more quick point regarding scientific criticism. Note that dowsing and ESP make clear, testable predictions. They can, therefore, be tersely debunked. 'ID' (as presented in the article) is so vague that its being right or wrong is almost meaningless. It's not science for methodological reasons, despite continued proclamations to the contrary from DI and advocates. The weight of controversial material is massive and well-documented. Other than that, I can't even tell what your interpretation of the current article is, how your quote/view is supposed to fit in, or what your point is. Tez 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I mean recontextualized as something similar to a POV fork, where someone would split an article in order to keep it away from criticism. In this case it is the opposite, where someone includes an article or articles (in this case metaphysical cosmology, arguments for the existence of God, etc.) in order to criticise it. In some articles this would be obvious. However, due to the ambiguous and vague nature of the phrase "intelligent design" you can claim that these criticisms are legitimate. You can criticise fine-tuning for example, which has nothing to do with "the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." since fine-tuning has nothing to do with natural selection. You can ask "Who designed the designer" for example. Is this a critique of pseudoscience? What a coincidence that it too is a critique of the cosmological argument.
If you want some specific examples of the actual phrase being used differently compare the following:
"Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to purely naturalistic explanations for evolution."
vs.
"Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of natural theology."


"The stated purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents."
vs.
"One of the arguments of intelligent design proponents that includes more than just biology is that we live in a fine-tuned universe, with many features that make life possible that cannot be attributed to chance."
And some more:
"Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science." (emphasis added)
And who is forumlating these arguments?
"Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist.... ...Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken... The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case."
"Intelligent design's arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer."
"Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. They do not state that God is the designer, but the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene."
It seems to me there are maybe even three different "intelligent designs" being talked about in this article. One is the DI's ID. Another is Townes' ID. And still another is Dembski's ID, which is junk science just being used by DI's ID. Demsbki's is mathematical physics, not inherently anti-evolution.--Ben 02:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This whole thing seems to be an argument over definitions. A possible solution might be to add a disambiguation at the top along the lines of:
This article is about the idea that life is too complex to evolved and whose chief proponent is the Discovery Institute. For the idea that an Intelligence guided the evolution of life on Earth please see theistic evolution'
Ashmoo 03:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I already tried that [2][3]. Numerous times and in numerous different ways. I was even blocked for 3RR over it. Twice. FeloniousMonk (he has 7 times as many edits to this article as anyone else on Wikipedia) says it is POV and factually inaccurate. --Ben 05:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Your first quote is part of the explanation of 'ID' as used in the article. The second quote simply says that the designer argument has a long history, and ID is an elaboration of those previous arguments in light of the theory of evolution. There is no recontextualising or equivocation there. The 3rd quote again is inline with 'ID' as the article defines it. Your 4th quote simply says that some proponents (and Gonzalez is affiliated with DI) make some additional arguments that might imply that life is designed, or are implied if life were designed. Your 5th quote is an critique of one of the central arguments of ID (the ID that is explicitly outlined in the article): the design hypothesis is the hypothesis that the universe/world/life was designed and that we can see evidence for such.
As for the other quotes (where you've asked 'who is making these arguments?'):
  • "Beyond the debate over..." - Jerry Coyne, UChicago, writing for The New Republic
  • "Intelligent design deliberately..." - United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
  • "Intelligent design's arguments are carefully formulated..." - Phillip E. Johnson (and others)
  • "Intelligent design arguments are formulated..." - ibid
It's all in the article. Note carefully that no one is arguing against the existence of god. And I still don't understand your objections. Tez 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The objection is that this article is being used as a soapbox to critique philosophical arguments for the existence of God, rather than critiquing the Discovery Institute's body of work. The fact that editors, who clearly control what goes in and what stays out of the article, refuse to even correctly identify the subject of the article as being about the Discovery Institute's work, though on the talk page they constantly use this as an argument, should tip anyone off. Look, you don't have to agree with me, I think you should, but do you at least understand why I see it this way? Because if you understand why I see it this way perhaps you can convince me that I'm wrong, instead of me trying to convince you that you are wrong. All you are doing is saying my argument is weak, you are not arguing in favor of any alternative.--Ben 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand, the first sentence of the article mentions that ID is almost wholely an idea of Discovery Institute. Ashmoo 23:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain, since I don't get that at all from the first sentence. Maybe you mean the second sentence? The leading proponents one? That one is closer, but it does not attribute the concept to DI, it simply says that the DI is an advocate of the concept. It actually is worse because it implies the concept is its own subject, like Townes perspective on it, irrespective of the DI. --Ben 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you guys are engaging in Wikipedia:Information suppression in order to maintain your lock on the subject. If attempts to disambiguate the subject have been deleted by certain editors, then it's pretty clear that it's not just the inability to distinguish between DI and ID, but rather an attempt to hide certain facts about ID to give readers only one side of the story. If you want to discuss only the DI version of ID, do so in an article restricted to DI and let the ID article actually start meeting wikipedia's standards. I don't know anything about Ben or his past, nor do I care to. On this issue, he's dead on. Izuko 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say it is actually information inclusion, but I think we are coming from the same position regarding this article's issues. The difference, I think, between you and me is that I think the article should be about the DI's version of ID. I don't think an article about the Townes kind of ID, or philosophical ID, would work out in the end. That is something I previously thought the article should be about too, so I think I know where you are coming from. It would probably get really big and start turning into a philosophical essay, rather than be encyclopedic. I've even argued that before that it should be about intelligent design as a philosophy, but I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't work out, and the DI's ID is notable enough to have its own article. The problem is that the current article mixes both of them up. Not just in terms of the topic "intelligent design," but the article itself. You might want to read something I wrote a while ago when I was trying to figure out why this is such a big issue for everyone [4]. (note that this is before I made up my mind about what the article should be about, and in some places I argue more along the lines of what I think your views are on the content of the article, that it should be about the philosophical perspective, and not DI's.) --Ben 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with there being an article on the DI's verion of ID. But that cannot remain the only discussion of it. Not everyone involved in ID is part of the DI, and not everone who has worked with the DI is dedicated to their views. An important aspect of the ID community is being intentionally scuttled in this issue. I think the best thing to do would be similar to an above suggestion: make the ID entery a disambiguation page and branch it out. Let the DI school have their page, let the Polynai school have theirs, whatever. It's not the perfect solution, but since it seems that some editors won't allow all the information to come to light so long as it's all on one page, it may be the only alternative. Izuko 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben: Can you not follow footnotes? Are you engaging in a little game where you make everyone else do your reading comprehension for you? There's reading between the lines, and there's simply not reading the lines at all. The first sentence of the article contains a direct quote and it is attibuted to the DI. I hope at this point you understand that the article does not confuse, recontextualize, or equivocate usage of the term 'ID'. The article consistenly articulates views that conform to the DI definition of ID. Fine. So the next point is whether an alternative understanding of the term has significant, popular, or even mainstream support. Well:

Izuko, Ben: I'll say this; Ben has at least tried to show a cross-section of quotes using ID in an alternative fashion in the quotes he's gathered in the More information on this perspective section above. Unfortunately, each one supports the point that the main usage is the view propounded by the DI, as the article represents:

  • Quote from the Sacramento Bee: that article goes to lengths to explain that 'intelligent design' is from the DI. Townes is essentially saying that he wants to call his theological outlook 'intelligent design', but the term has been taken. Townes is doing the recontextualizing there.
  • New York Daily News quote: He explicitly says he can't use the term 'intelligent design' because it has been corrupted ie. that its main usage refers to (presumably what he believes to be) an invalid idea (the DI version, which is pitted against evolution).
  • National Catholic News quote: ID would be something else if the term 'ID' referred to something else? Well, duh. Unfortunately, the antecedent of that 'if' isn't true. The article itself says that DI's backing is widely acknowledged.
  • Godandscience.org quote selection: None of those quotes use the term intelligent design, many are out of context, and mainly refer to some weak theistic evolution worldview.
  • Science and Theology News quote: Simply states that his personal definition of intelligent design (lowercase 'i', 'd') is at odds with the popular notion (uppercase 'i', 'd').

Others have mentioned quote-mining. I'm afraid if Ben is attempting that (and I'm not saying you are), you aren't doing a very good job. It is simply the case that the overwhelming usage, as supported by many textbooks, the media, court cases, releases from scientific and religious groups and individuals, and even the quotes and articles you've supplied, is the one outlined by the DI. Tez 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Wow, where to begin... First, we'll start wit hthe Sacramento Bee. The article does not, as you suggest, explain that ID is from the DI. It lists the DI as a leading proponent (not even the leading proponent) of ID. As for the second one, for Townes to say that he doesn't use the word because he feels it has become corrupted presupposes that it does not properly mean just the DI version. You've picked up on the aspect you like, but completely ignored the context. National Catholic News - to acknowledge the DI's backing does not mean that they control the entire DI issue any more than the US - USSR alliance during WWII means that we were communist or controlled by Moscow. Sometimes interests coincide. That's three, right off the bad. Sorry, but no matter how much you try to hide it, this is nothing but information suppression. Izuko 18:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the linked Sacramento Bee article: "A biology professor at a Christian college, Jeffrey Schloss is a sought-after voice in the national discussion on intelligent design vs. evolution - which, broadly put, seems to pit God against science." This widely agrees with the definiton of ID in the article, and is at odds with Townes' personal use of the term 'ID'.
Another quote from the article, from the middle of the second page of the pdf: "Leading proponents of intelligent design, such as the public policy group Discovery Institute in Seattle, maintain that intelligent design is not about God." So you agree the DI is at least a leading proponent of 'ID' as used in the article. Then you must agree that the term 'ID' is used as the DI frames it, since it lists the DI as one of its leading proponents, without further qualification. The DI cannot be a leading proponent of a version of ID it doesn't agree with.
Next: "but I don't usually use the word because it has been corrupted." The presupposition is that it used to mean what Townes wants the phrase to mean, but no longer - it has been corrupted into the twisted version that the DI puts forward.
From National Catholic News, the passage I was alluding to was this: "The push behind intelligent design is widely acknowledged to be coming from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute". No other sources are attributed. Maybe there are other backers of DI's definition (which, again, is contrary to the idea that there are competing definitions), but none are mentioned. No other definition of 'ID' (except the negative, implicit definition of ID as some idea that isn't the DI's version) is put forward, in any of the quotes or articles. Not encyclopaedic, not a decidible definition, not useful, not significant. If these are the shots your bat is being used to play, I'd start blaming my tools. Tez 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sacramento Bee - Your quote does not even come close to supporting your point. "...which, broadly put, seems to pit God against science." "Seems," here is a very key word, considering that the article is that it isn't as it seems, or at the very least, that Jeffrey Schloss does not accept that ID is at odds with evolution. Again, you're ignoring context.
DI being a leading proponent of ID does not mean they are the the ones with the sole right to decide what the term means (see the link I put above about NPOV and information suppresion, note the part where it discusses that groups do not "own" words), nor does the article support this conclusion. And the DI can be a proponent of ID without agreeing with everyone regarding all the details, just like I can be a fan of rock and roll without liking the Doors.
The fact that a term has been corrupted in the public eye does not mean it has ceased to have its meaning. This article is about what ID is, not what the public thinks it is. Again, go back to ownership of terms. The DI does not own ID, nor does the public.
Catholic News - Note the line “Intelligent design doesn’t dispute evolution if all it means is gradual change over time,” said Chapman. Chapman is head of the DI. Chapman says that ID doesn't dispute evolution (later on, in that same paragraph, Chapman does on to explain that what it disputes is that necessity and chance are sufficient). Chapman then draws a distinction between ID and creationists and criticizes the Dover School Board.
Nor do I fail to notice that Ben had posted the links as examples of people who agree with the view that you guys deem "not notable." You, on the other hand, do not evaluate or argue against them in that respect, but attempt to discredit them by showing that they don't prove something that was not intended to be proven. Nice bit of sleight of hand there. The articles I defended, and my points still stand as valid. Now, what do you say we stop this stupid game where you say that things say what they don't and don't say what they do. We can keep going back and forth about it, but it's not going to get anywhere. The slight of hand and misdirection just isn't going to work. Izuko 04:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel at this point it suffices to say that you have yet to show a coherent alternative to DI's ID that is consistently called ID. Otherwise you would have discussed it and its inclusion into the article, instead of trying to insert quotes from people incorrectly using the term. All the articles compare personal opinions against DI's version of ID, all these quoted people wanting to call their own, idiosyncratic, vaguely explained religious outlooks 'intelligent design' notwithstanding. Until these is a coherent alternative definition that can be sourced and put in the article, all the above is pretty moot. Tez 10:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What I am insisting on is the criteria being used to judge notability, so that I know whether any references will be dismissed out of hand, or whether they will actually be given fair consideration. Can you do that? Izuko 01:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure. It would depend on what alternative definition of 'ID' you are attempting to introduce, but given the gist of things above, I'd accept statements from, say, the Vatican, or the Church of England, or any other large religious organisation, or any of it's leading members (eg. the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury) speaking in the capacity of representative of said organisation. Further, you have to provide something that doesn't just say that the current use of 'Intelligent Design' is deplorable abuse of terms, but actually goes into specific detail of what this alternative Intelligent Design entails, preferrably in a way that distinguishes it from other, well-covered and linked-to beliefs, like theistic evolution, ID, or creationism, say. In other words, something that almost exactly says "Well, in fact, Intelligent Design refers to this concept".
On the flip-side, the sort of thing I (personally, that is -- I can't fight consensus) won't accept is a handful of quotes from religious/scientific characters merely stating that their own (poorly explained, disparate) views on intelligent design don't conform to the mainstream, unless all you're trying to get into the article is a sentence saying "the term Intelliegent Design is often poorly understood, and misused by those not familiar with DI's work" somewhere appropriate. In which case, quote-mining is probably overkill. In fact, I'd let that in now, in the appropriate place. Tez 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for giving a standard. I had hoped for something a bit more quantifiable, but this does give me something to work with. Of course, it also brings up other questions, such as independant researchers, and the fact that enough disparate views become evidence that the DI does not "own" the word, and that there are different views and interpretations, aside from the DI's. Also that the DI is not monolithic and that some of the people who get funding from it may not accept every jot and tittle that the DI pushes. But it's something that I can work with. Izuko 13:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben is being bad again

Hey, all. Benapgar's been adding spurious WP:OR notices to a variety of articles on atheism, either without explanation in Talk or with a misleading explanation. Given the lack of proper explanation and his track record here, I felt that the best response is to simply revert these additions. Just wanted to kee you all in the loop. Alienus 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's the right move, thanks. FeloniousMonk 22:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked you've argued exactly the same thing.--Ben 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And why are you lurking here if you don't even want to participate in the discussion (which clearly you don't)? Just so you can make comments about me? --Ben 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What? I posted an explanation on talk on all three pages, and not only that, I also directed the talk to my concerns on the primary page (here). And why is what I said "misleading?" You think I'm trying to pull something on you? By all means, tell me what it is on that talk page. -Ben 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a concern with talk sections called "Benapgar is just another theist with an agenda" and "Ben is being bad again," since they seem to violate WP:CIVIL and come dangerously close to WP:NPA. Can't we just focus on the issues here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ben made those titles: [5] [6] JoshuaZ 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wedge strategy & Teaching the controversy

Conversation moved from talk ID because it was disruptive: [7] FeloniousMonk 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"If you can't take the heat, simply take the heat out of the kitchen. It's your kitchen damn it! Get out!"--Ben 22:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is how the article looks to me. It looks to me as if the article is written using a wedge strategy, akin to the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy, and then the article teaches the controversy, again, akin to the Discovery Institute.

How does the wedge strategy work, as a tactic? This is my understanding of the use of a "wedge" in a political strategy: It is simply that one concept is used to, in a way, pry open space to promote still another concept. The Discovery Institute's "wedge" is their "intelligent design" theories. The DI develops and/or takes possession of theories which the CSC can use to promote Christian culture. The "hole" which they are prying apart is based on perceived flaws in, not just, evolutionary theory, but evolution as a paradigm of understanding. They hole they use is the possibility, not any scientific actuality, of alternative paradigms. The hole in this article is similar. Here we have "intelligent design." It can be specific, it can be vague, but it is quite ambiguous. Now, the article, as claimed by all editors here, discusses the Discovery Institute's version, and only the Discovery Institute's version, ID being, the editors often claim, wholly a product of the Discovery Institute. However, editors refuse to portray the article as such. The article, I find, is constantly suggesting not that this is the Discovery Institute's version, but all versions of ID. Including Townes' version.† This is done through various rhetorical suggestions throughout the article, such as "Origins of the term," which the title and accompanying text suggest the article is discussing all version of ID. This is also done through inclusion of related ideas, fine-tuning for example, hich member's of the DI separately use to boost evidence for separate theories, but are not part of a single theory of "Intelligent design." This suggests a broader scope for the article. This is how the wedge works, by opening up the definition to include not only the ID's single theory, but a collection of theories which are then presented as if they were a single theory.

The article is then used to "teach the controversy." The controversy being the existence of God, not the creation-evolution controversy, which, according to the definition and claims of editors, is actually what the article should be about. The article then critiques philosophical arguments for the existence of God, not Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design. It can do so because the wedge has been driven in. It sets up the philosophies concerning the existence of God as a controversial, when, as a philosopher should know, the various perspectives and opinions are not "doing battle" with one another. They are simply different opinions and perspectives on the world, living quite peacefully side by side. Some are stronger arguments than others, but it is not a battle. However, they are necessarily placed into controversy by virtue of the wedge. The wedge takes aspects of DI ID and applies them to all versions of Intelligent design, thus, various philosophies can be described as pseudoscientific, and forces the reader to "choose sides." Science or DI's intelligent design, the wedge which is broadening the subject to all versions of intelligent design remaining elusive to the reader. The DI's attempts to "teach the controversy," when it comes to evolution, are intended to suggest to whomever is being taught that evolutionary theory is not sound, and evolution should rightly be criticized in certain unscientific and unreasonable ways. Likewise, this article's teaching the controversy, when it comes to the existence of God is also saying that various philosophical arguments, quite historical and sound arguments and perspectives, should ALL be equated with the Discovery Institute, as the subject is ALL arguments concerning the existence of God--all versions of Intelligent design--and as such deserve strong criticism and deserve to be represented as being faulty, unsound, and generally poor arguments. This is the same way the DI treats evolution, and when I read the article, I think the same thing is happening within this article.

In summary, the article, it is claimed, discusses the Discovery Institute's ID. However, I see it as discussing a broader version of Intelligent design. While the article constantly refers back to the Discovery Institute, it is in fact, unbeknownst to the reader, dealing with a broad version. In doing so, it ends up "teaching the controversy." This, I believe, is why there are so many editors who have problems with this article. It is not because they are POV pushers, or even pro-ID advocates--Discovery Institute version or otherwise--, but because the context of the article is faulty. And the faulty context of the article has resulted in an article which seems, to many people, to be misrepresenting intelligent design and anti-theitical in nature.

For those of you who think I have some sort of vendetta against editors here, as ScienceApologist has thought, I assure you that, while I am extremely displeased with the conduct of many of the editors, this is a clear extension from my very first post on these talk pages, in which I said ID is not pseudoscience, it is philosophy. That is my personal take on what intelligent design is. The same take as Dr. Townes'. I came to realize that some editors here took a different approach (and, again, posted as such on these talk pages, and indeed attempted to discuss the two different approaches to this article, yet little interest was generated [8]). This approach I believe has become corrupted, for one reason or another, as I've outlined above. It is not a bad or wrong approach. It is a different approach, and I am willing to concede that this approach is more appropriate than mine. However, I will not concede that the way the article has been written follows this approach accurately and specifically and most importantly, on topic.

Surely there is quite enough encyclopedic information on the Discovery Institute's version of Intelligent design that this article should have no problems except for the occasional vandal or passionate advocate.

†And this is why I wanted Townes quote in the article. Not to broaden the scope of the article, but in fact, to narrow it. Townes quote identifies that there are different and separate ideas of intelligent design, and the reader would then have a "way out" from interpreting the article as representative of all version of intelligent design. It would clarify to the reader that the article is only about the DI's version (and anything that is contradictory could be chalked up to poor writing).

In my previous version [9], I used an ad hominem argument against editors here in an attempt both to strengthen and clarify my argument. I accused editors of doing the above purposefully and maliciously--though not necessarily completely conciously--and accused them of having devious and underhanded motivations. I believe this is true and I am not ashamed of making these accusations. However, this is not the venue to discuss motivations of particular editors. While I can use my own knowledge of character to strengthen the confidence of my own argument for myself, it is inappropriate to use it in attempt to convince other people, even though I believe I have strong and compelling evidence and that it sheds light onto my opinions and arguments I've included above, and furthermore will foretell the responses I expect to this post.

--(Ben 03:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)) old version


--Ben 11:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with position articulated above with regard to every point the writer puts forth.

It seems to me that it may, though, still be very much an open question whether to devote a brief section to other 20th Century uses of variants of the term ID in teleological argument for the existence of a God. But the possible inclusion of such a section would, it also seems to me, be dependent on evidence of those alternative positions and a reasonably brief summary of them. The evidence of these alternate uses of the term is still somewhat lacking on this talk page, but for one cite to Townes and the already included reference to Schonborn's position...Kenosis 04:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Note, I have completely re-written my concerns, and, while what I am saying should be identical, Kenosis' response may no longer be accurate. --Ben 11:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Duly noted...Kenosis 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben,

  1. be concise
  2. avoid insulting people, including those who might agree with you on a point
  3. read Intelligent design (disambiguation)
dave souza, talk 12:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. If I wanted your advice I'd ask you for it. When I read that it tells me "wow, that was so long I didn't even bother to read it. Next time pls don't write so many words." Especially considering that you didn't even respond to it.
  2. If I wanted your advice I'd ask you for it. For some people, the truth hurts. In the interests of civility I of course removed anything that could be considered insulting, did I miss something?
  3. FeloniousMonk already reverted it. I also think it should be accompanied with an explanation of what the ID article is about on the main article (it only needs to be in the disambig section). There's still the problems I described in the talk section above.
--Ben 22:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Ben, "If I wanted your advice I'd ask you for it" is not civil either. Please calm down. JoshuaZ 23:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted your advice I'd ask you for it.--Ben 00:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should the ID article be strictly on the DI's version? Is it not possible to have an article on the DI that discusses this? I refer, again, to the NPOV tutorial, in the section on word ownership. So long as a usage is both signficant and verifiable (and if you're going to say that a usage isn't significant, then I want the standard for such that is being used), it should be given consideration here. As it is, this page seems to promote one view as ID, regardless of other uses. That is neither necessary, nor proper. Izuko 12:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Because the article would be little more than a curiosity were it not for the wedge strategy and a conspiratorial attempt by the DI affiliates to enforce ID as mandatory "science". There is very little interest in the other various forms of argument for the existence of God on Wikipedia which are quite similar to alternate uses of intelligent design. As noted above, what is required here for inclusion of these alternative uses of ID is reasonable evidence of notabilility-- or, perhaps with enough examples of minor alternate views, the alternatives may deserve collective inclusion as a one-section overview....Kenosis 15:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
"Very little interest" by what criteria? How are you measuring it? And, even without the wedge strategery, this article would hardly be "little more than a curiosity." Have you looked at some of the other articles on wikipedia? Many of them could be considered to be a mere curiosity, yet they're still here. And how does the existance of the wedge strategy justify the decision to force the DI view to completely monopolize the issue, to the extent of even removing information added by others (again, see Information Suppression)? If you're going to violate the NPOV regarding information suppression and word ownership, perhaps you should show why that's appropriate. Starting with, at the very minimum, a measurable definition of notability. Izuko 15:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Please compare the traffic on this talk page with that of the talk pages of various arguments for the existence of God. My participation in this discussion is hereby ended...Kenosis 15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're choosing to end your discussion based on questions you can't answer. As far as the traffic on this talk page, compared to other talk pages regarding God, what does that prove? Quite possibly that people see this page as being far more flawed, thus more discussion? This test would not prove what you hope it proves. Izuko 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Pages with less discussion are rarely better than pages with more discussion. In fact, it has been suggested that a certain baseline level of talkpage chatter is necessary in order for an article to really be considered reliable or based on consensus. While it is not the case that 30 archives worth of talkpages like we have on ID is an indication of higher quality, there is little argument that edits on pages like teleology or watchmaker analogy make far less of a splash than they do on ID. Kenosis is right, this page is popular because ID is a hot-topic. ID is a hot-topic because of the Discovery Institute. --ScienceApologist 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
SEVERAL POINTS: Ben's initial outburst in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF is inexcusable and will be acted upon. His pitiful excuse that, "I used an ad hominem argument against editors here in an attempt both to strengthen and clarify my argument" will not fly. From the beginning, Ben has shown an absolute disregard for the rules of Wikipedia or even the general rules of civility our society is built upon. A troublemaker, Ben continues to make the same specious arguments ad nauseum, each time getting more venomous than the last (in fact, his outbursts have already resulted in a one month ban). FOr the sake of Wikipedia it is time for those of us offended by Ben's behaviour to move to the next step. Jim62sch 16:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
SINGLE POINT: Maybe I should compare fundamentalist Christians to Nazis, and their books to Mein Kampf, like you've done? You talk about my actions on Wikipedia and I'll talk about yours. I, however, don't need to characterize that particular gem for the peanut gallery with WP:This and WP:That.--Ben 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Tit-for-tat is rarely a decent comeback, Ben. The criticisms of your behavior and motivations stand. Why not try getting down off that high horse of yours and admitting that you were wrong? --ScienceApologist 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The discussion about the editors was inappropriate for the article talk pages. --Ben 22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I also notice that somebody seems to have edited the past in this particular thread. Though revising history (and even changing the past) may have its uses, sometimes, in this instance it leads to great confusion about the purpose of this whole discussion.--CSTAR 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The discussion between me and you about the editors was inappropriate for the article talk pages. It is still linked in the italic section above. --Ben 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should post them in an appropriate location instead of deleting them? --ScienceApologist 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You recommended I amend the argument so as not to include any of that [10]. --Ben 22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)