Talk:Intelligent design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Intelligent design.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Featured article star Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)
Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Intelligent design FAQ.

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Notes to editors:
  1. This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
  2. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
  3. Please use edit summaries.
  4. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics.
Archive
Archives
2002–2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
Points that have already been discussed 

Contents

[edit] Chance or Dance

I see a linkspam to Chance or Dance was appropriately deleted. I wonder if it may be appropriate to reinsert the book under further reading without the promotional hyperlinks? The book does seem to be about limited critical analysis of ID within a framework of God-belief.

Chance or Dance: An Evaluation of Design provides an overview of design and clarification of the controversial Intelligent Design (ID) movement, and ultimately concludes that there is no scientific proof behind Intelligent Design...
The authors discuss that the idea of design is far more expansive than the ID movement’s version of it...
The book concludes with an argument for the correlation of faith and sensory experience and with the suggestion that science has been successful at describing processes, but has failed at explaining origins.
Chance or Dance is ideal for students and general readers interested in understanding how modern science gives evidence for the creation of nature by the God of the Bible.

Is there a reason for not including it as a further reading book?--ZayZayEM (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Others may chime in, but I don't have a problem with including it in Further Reading, using the description "Criticiam of the Intelligent Design movement from a Christian perspective" or some similar wording. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
At first glance it would seem to add some balance. Too often people mistakenly think ID = religionists, evolution = atheists which is demomstrably false. I have Christian friends who have nothing but contempt for ID. Angry Christian (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elusive definition of ID

I'm a little confused. Today I looked at the DI's web page and found this criticism of a Wired article:

"Leaving aside the ridiculously false assertion that ID proponents are trying to use scientific methodology to prove divine intervention....."[1]

Does anyone find this contradictory, to both the article and previous utterances of the DI? --Trishm (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some inconsistency in the statements of the DI. But this is for several reasons, not the least of which is that if they say they are trying to prove divine intervention, they will get burned in court. So they cannot say that at least all the time. They have to say it when they are talking to their base or trying to raise money, since that is the only way people will give them money. So you find all kinds of weird statements and hairsplitting from the DI about whether there are supernatural or numinous or immaterial or whatever effects visible in nature. They want to define things very carefully to pass legal muster but still enable them to raise money, have support from religious groups and make their basic claims. And I think they enjoy just issuing confusing statements, as most religious arguments are full of confusing statements of a similar nature.--Filll (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems fair enough, it's ridiculously false to assert that ID proponents are trying to use scientific methodology for anything – their case is built on misrepresentation and dubious philosophy. .. dave souza, talk 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically the "previous utterances of the DI" have repeatedly contradicted themselves, so that isn't too surprising. Basically the loophole that Scalia left in Edwards was for a scientific theory of divine intervention, and that is the loophole that ID was "cdesigned" to fill. On one hand, as a matter of dogma, they say that they cannot speculate on the nature of the cdesigner. On the other hand, they admit that they believe the cdesigner to be the Christian God.
The DI says that it is using science (although it isn't, it's a requirement of Edwards) to demonstrate (prove) the handiwork of the designer (divine intervention). So while Crowther can parse words, the only problems with that statement are (a) they aren't using the scientific method, they are merely pretending to, and (b) science cannot prove anything. But yes, in terms of common English, Crowther is contradicting the ID movement. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting on one hand they claim ID is science and should be considered a challenge to evolution, on the other they admit they have no developed theory whatsoever and therefore ID cannot challenge anything. This is what makes the intelligent design creationism movement so much fun to watch. This is what makes the ID "lab" so funny. Without a testable theory what exactly are they testing in this super secret ID bunker? Angry Christian (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Glancing over the whole article, slight violation of Neutral Point of View rule could be recognized, I think. Article is concentrated on single-sided scientifical evaluation of the topic. Criticism on aggressive ID-ists claim to be a science - it is OK, ID is not a science. Denying of evolution and natural selection - agree, is pseudo-scientific. But does every not-science authomatically be a pseudo-science? Are Plato and Aristotle pseudo-scientists? Have they something, what could be used against natural selection directly? Vice versa, does naturalism contradict to dualism in general? OK, it is out of scientifical method, because it is out of the logic - it is about existence of the logic itself. The whole philosophy could be then stated as a non-science. Is it pseudo-science then? Or the logic itself - if it is accepted as objective property of the World - is it not a kind of "intellectual design"? Probably there is lack of some remark in introductionary part - the article is not about intelligence of the world in common sense - it is about certain aggressive movement The Intelligent Design? Or perhaps one should be more accurate with the identification of Intellectual Design concept as pseudo-scientific - not every recognition of intelligence in the World is pseudo-scientific and not every intellectual activity should be evaluated in scientific terms. When ID is simply expression of subjective worldview, not contradicting to the science and not claiming revise scientific methods - it is simply and neutrally not-science, nothing more. Could it be true? Of course it could - not all the Thruth in the World is covered by the science. Mingis. 09:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern-day non-science that purports to be science, and illegitimately lays claim to the trappings of science, is pseudoscience. This is implicit in the prefix "pseudo-" which means pretended. Pseudoscience is non-science pretending to be science. Mathematics, logic and legitimate philosophy generally do not pretend to be science. HrafnTalkStalk 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was little bit confused at first glance because the article is not about an intellectual design of the World in common sense, but about certain movement having proper name Intelligent Design. May be is worth to add some paragraph to the very beginning, that not every attempt to look at the World as being initially intellectual (like dualistic philosophy does) should be necessary covered by the term Intelligent Design? Mingis. 11:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.59.93 (talk)

The phrase "intelligent design" has meant a number of things over the years, and still is a common phrase in engineerng for other things. This is noted in the text of the article. However, in the mid-80s, the intelligent design movement basically took the phrase "intelligent design" for their own, much as their antecedants had taken the phrase "creationism" for their own purposes, which are different than the original meaning of the word.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The disambiguation page linked at the top of the article is really just concerned with ID as we know it – think there should be a link to Slartibartfast? . . dave souza, talk 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to suggest a single position for ID. There are a range of views ranging from a simple belief in a "first cause" to the extreme of some anti-science creationists. Many aspects of ID are compatible with many aspects of evolution. Let's not try to polarize the issue: rather, lets include some common ground. This would be a better article for all. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

another solution would be for you to realize this article is about the flavor of intelligent design popularized by the Discovery Institute and their agents and sympathizers. It is not about first cause, it is not about Raelian intelligent design, and it's not about Mazda rotary motors. Angry Christian (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Vroom vroom! Intelligent Design on wheels! Baegis (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If we are limiting this article to discuss ID only as defined by the Discovery Institute, then this restriction must be stated. We should indicate that other published material on ID is not inculded. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will make this clarification. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
First you need to provide verification from reliable secondary sources that "other published material on ID" is notable, showing that you're not just producing your own original research. Please set out your proposals in a new section at the foot of this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It might be more appropriate to have a disambiguation notice at the top - phrases like "as defined by the Discovery Institute" does not really get the point across that there are unrelated concepts, and, with the quote in the first sentence, merely makes it look like quote attribution. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The largest UFO religion, Raelians, believe in ID and have a book called "Intelligent Design" yet the opening paragrapgh is: Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the United States-based Discovery Institute[6][7] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. This is not true nor is this the best case for ID. With the latest news stating that the chance for life in the Universe is statistically less than science thought, its time to accept that aliens involvement on Mother Earth just statistically became more probable, yet this Raelian concept is totally absent and we focus on Biblical arguments, which is ridiculous. The Bible is not a source of truth in science. However, if ET was involved in ID on other worlds, as humans are soon capable of, it better be listed as a possibility that we take seriously. Evolution has much lower odds when you consider that the Universe is 14 billions years old, the Earth only 4, then we may want to consider that life really did begin out there, Raelians believe that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7351428.stm Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"The largest UFO religion" is rather like being the 'tallest dwarf', and brings with it little presumption of prominence. The Raelians have had little impact (or apparent involvement) in the promotion of the idea of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. There is therefore no reason to consider them to be (even collectively) a "primary proponent" in the context of this article. HrafnTalkStalk 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, this is the 2006 Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers, a recompiled English compilation of the 1974,1975 and 1979 books trying to latch onto the ID bandwaggon. Not notable, but covered by Intelligent design (disambiguation). .. dave souza, talk 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah the joys of watching the Raelians and the Theosophists (see below) fighting over ownership of ID's battered and dishonoured corpse, post-KvD. Funny how they never publicised their putative connection while the concept still had any real life to it. HrafnTalkStalk 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Raelians have sold millions of copies of "Inteligent Design" since 1973 - as Atheists who pre-date your Christian attacks. It remains a high seller. The Wiki version is not apparently meant to include Raelians 80,000 strong and growing worldwide who come here for info (only to find how far off this is and find us unable to define what ID is), then we admit we wrote this against Christians and ignore other Enclopedia ID definitions. The definition should explain what ID is without talking religion. Only after it is fully defined and explained, can you put down the Christians and whomever else you feel like insulting. Defining ID properly doesn't make it right, its just defining it. Can we do that in our Encyclopedia online or are we having too much fun attacking Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnaur (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Any substantiation for these sales figures? 80,000 world-wide is a drop in the ocean -- and tiny in comparison to the number of conservative evangelicals, who are DI-style ID's main boosters. HrafnTalkStalk 09:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And don't you mean since 2006 when the collection of older titles was rebadged as ID? .... dave souza, talk 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the number of conservative evangelicals are a far larger group than the Raelians give credence to your primary proponents argument but warrants additional information stating that the Raelian movement prescribes to the Intelligent Design notion as well although not one of the primary proponents as you define primary based on the size of the group. However, having said that, the Intelligent Design article has been forked out into a number of various categories. I see no harm in the stating that Raelians believe in Intelligent Design but do not place the Christian God as the designer but an alien race. This argument of course already goes over previously treaded ground which is that all proponents of ID are theists which they are not nor does it benefit the article by seeking to establish that all proponents of ID are theists. It should be removed. Also I believe the beginning paragraph is biased and not reported in a scientific way. There is no movement to fundamentally redefine science. There is a movement however to explore the notion that an intelligence whatever or whoever that may be has directed some of the what we see in the natural world. This is of course is open to massive debate but I don't believe they are saying "it is" but that it might be. Why is the scientific community so afraid of discussion about this topic aside from the same old argument that it's so obviously not true and repackaged creationism blah blah blah. Its indicative of the same kind of folks who tried to continually push that the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe. We still discuss those ideas so that we can demonstrate why they are false. If it doesn't stand up - teach it and teach why it doesn't stand up - don't seek it's expulsion but promote it's discussion to further understanding. By not donig so, I believe the scientific community looks afraid and some may think, even if it is incorrectly, that it is a fear of a truth they don't want to face. I say let's bring up the notion, don't call it a theory, and teach science! (Samperon (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ

Could somebody please semi-protect this FAQ -- it has been receiving quite a lot of (mostly IP-based) vandalism lately. HrafnTalkStalk 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI on David Snoke

[edit] Schönborn

Quite some time ago, I translated this article for the German Wikipedia. Now, someone raised an objection concerning the description of Schönborn's position. He refers to [1], and similar statements can be found to two years earlier in [2]. Schönborn says there that he basically supports Intelligent Design being taught in US schools. To me, it seems to be a little bit like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". While I don't think Schönborn changed his mind about theistic evolution (a divine plan exists within evolution, in contrast to someone designed life from outside), the mere fact that he holds this position makes it quite misleading to name him as an example of Theistic Evolution without relativizing it. BTW, what he says is very ambiguous. It is not clear whether he simply uses the word Intelligent Design instead of Theistic Evolution and advocates that to be taught, or whether he really means Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute and as described here in this article. The statements can be read in both ways. --rtc (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists who believe in Creation

[edit] Origins?

This was added between 16:16 and 16:18, 19 March 2008, by 69.114.60.153 (talk · contribs)

In the 5th century BCE, Anaxagoras, a Greek philosopher who fled from Clazomenae to Athens during the Persian War,< ref >Diogenes Laertius II.7< /ref > posited that Mind (nous) organized the world and set it into order.< ref >Diels-Krantz fragment 12 and 13< /re>

Seems possible, but sources need to be confirmed. .. dave souza, talk 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources need to be clarified, preferably with specificity and to a online source. HrafnTalkStalk 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As our description of the provenance of this concept becomes longer and more fleshed out, I wonder if at some point we should not spin off most of it to a subsiduary daughter article. For example, although William Paley is a notable figure for this sort of idea around 1800, I gather that he was not the only one of a fairly large crowd and this was fairly heavily discussed. We could also include the Victorian Era discussion of the idea which happened long before Darwin's publication of Origin of the Species. There were some supporters, but many others who dismissed the idea on theological and scientific grounds, long before Darwin. I think it would make for very interesting reading and we could leave a short summary here.--Filll (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that the ancient history of the argument would be better handled in Teleological argument (which already has an extensive History section) than in a separate article, with just a brief summary & see-also here. HrafnTalkStalk 18:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Ideally any names we not here should be ones picked out by ID proponents or experts on ID as antecedents, such as Paley, and not just any authors of what we think are similar ideas. . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New ID website & book

My GoogleNews feeds often pick up articles from the Disco Boys' Whine and Cheese blog. A recent post turned up news of a new CSC website: 'Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design'. This in turn had info on an upcoming new book Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues. Amazon provides the following information:

  • Editor: H. Wayne House. Contributors: Michael Behe, Eddie Colanter, Logan Gage, Phillip Johnson, Casey Luskin, J. P. Moreland, Jay Richards
  • "H. Wayne House (Th.D., Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; J.D., Regent University School of Law) is Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies and Apologetics, Fatih Seminary in Tacoma, Washington, and Professor of Law, Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, California. He is author or editor of more than twenty books, including The Christian and American Law and Israel: The Land and the People. ... Eddie Colanter is director of bioethics and culture at the Newport Institute for Ethics, Law, and Public Policy." (Luskin & Gage should be familiar to you all)
  • "Intelligent Design 101 brings together leading scholars and researchers from the fields of science and intelligent design studies, such as Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson. Their detailed and insightful essays form an introduction to intelligent design, from the basics of the theory, to its history and growing place in science and education."

It was meant to have been published almost a month ago (by Kregel Publications, who I've never heard of), but is still only available for pre-order.

I'm still struggling to work out how this might fit into a coherent PR strategy on the part of the DI. "Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" still seems to be the best explanation. HrafnTalkStalk 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Talk:Intelligent design movement

At Talk:Intelligent design movement#RfC Legal arms there is a WP:RFC on whether the statements made in Intelligent design movement#Legal arms are adequately supported by the references for that section. A wider range of views would be welcome. HrafnTalkStalk 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical review of ID is welcome

I heartily recommend the PDF to which I added a link. There an objective person (means: does not agree with ID) reviews Niall Shanks's book which tries to critique the Intelligent Design theory. It would be too hard to rewrite the whole ID article in Wikipedia and it would lead to no progress in understanding this debate, but I recommend that those who wish to be objective about this case will read and assess the claims made by Del Ratzsch. I think ID deserves fair review, it is still a theory in development and needs to answer some tough questions. But sadly this heavily anti-ID biased Wikipedia article does no good for public debate, because the truth in Wikipedia is decided through a majority vote. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A "theory" in development? You mean a hypothesis, don't you? -- Alexf42 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Does it even qualify as a hypothesis? I thought a hypothesis was an educated guess based on observation and data. They haven't collected any, they just stare at things and say "that looks complicated, I'll bet it was designed".24.196.95.139 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al.

Page 35, last paragraph of the partial summary judgement award [etc] might be useful here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TalkOrigins Archive as WP:RS

[edit] Argument from ethics?

Apparently, there has been an argument for ID along the lines that evolutionism attributes no moral value to events, and so any moral code would necessarily imply an intelligent creator. This argument seems to be advanced in the movie Expelled: no Intelligence Allowed which is to be released on April 18 2008. Perhaps it has been advanced before. -Pgan002 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure similar arguments have been advanced by creationists before. However, we will not know for sure about the film until more people have seen it and analyzed it and we have more reviews. I will also point out that the existence of a moral code and a conscience and ethics etc all are taken as evidence of evolution operating. So it is sort of a nonsense argument and typical of many of their other arguments.--Filll (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a garbled argument. That "evolutionism attributes no moral value to events" (even if that phrase had any meaning) in no way implies that "any moral code would necessarily imply an intelligent creator". Assuming that by "evolutionism" you/they mean science's methodological naturalism (or even atheists' philosophical naturalism), the argument implies an is/ought conflation. Science deals with what does happen, it offers no judgement on what should happen. The latter question is dealt with, on a daily basis and often without any invocation of any creator, by the field of Moral Philosophy. Then again, given the 'quality' of production we've heard of to date from Expelled, it wouldn't surprise me if they made just such a half-baked argument. HrafnTalkStalk 14:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting dentistry attributes no moral value to events either. Angry Christian (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably I did not phrase it in the most compelling way. Of course it is invalid, but still is an argument. It is not meant to show that ID is science but that ID must be the correct explanation of how the world came to be. So it is different than dentistry. If it is used by proponents, I think it is worth mentioning in the article. Unfortunately the film is unlikely to state it rhetorically, just hint at the rhetorical argument. I saw it in this blog, comment #953. But we obviously have to wait to use the movie as a source. I just thought other editors may have seen it in other sources. -Pgan002 (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We really need a reliable secondary source discussing this point to include it in the article, not sure if any of the reviews have touched on the point – seem to remember Dawkins' review mentioning the conflation of is / ought, so that's probably quite a good source. Out of interest, the point's recently been discussed with the King of Ireland. .. dave souza, talk 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here we are.

The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin.... natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism.... Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.[3]

Perhaps rather specific as a review of the film, surely the point's been make elsewhere? .. dave souza, talk 10:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin's Black Box

The article sidebox said Darwin's Black Box introduced the concept of irreducible complexity - this is not strictly true, as Behe published a couple things before it. "popularised" or "introduced the concept to the public" or something along those lines is more accurate. I've gone with "popularised", which is accurate, but I suppose that the slight paranoia that seeps in when dealing with inveterate quote-miners and spinners (such as the higher-ups in the ID movement) might cause one to dislike that word, so tweak at will. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. In June 1993 Behe first presented his ideas about "irreducible complexity" at the Pajaro Dunes meeting, and with the Timeline of intelligent design#Pandas revised, DI meets ID, Behe's irreducibly complexity argument was published in all but name. While much of the idea may hark back to Thaxton's 1988 conference "Sources of Information Content in DNA," the actual IC argument seems to date to the 1993 meeting. .. dave souza, talk 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience? NPOV problems!

[edit] Barbara Forrest

Previously described as "an expert" without any details of what she's an expert in - I've removed the phrase in case it came across as endorsing her comments. If anyone knows her profession and/or experience, do please add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.92.241 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted - she's a professor of history of science, and has written extensively on the ID movement, and she gave extensive expert testimony in the Kitzmiller trial (over objections from the defendants to her being called) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Discovery Institute" & the "God of Christianity"

There are problems with the lead section of this article:

  • The lead has a limiting POV, that portrays proponents of Intelligent Design as engaging in - what amounts to - a deceptive shell game: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts."
  • There is the inaccurate generalization that the primary proponent of "Intelligent Design" is the "Discovery Institute"
  • There is the inaccurate claim that the promoting of the "God of Christianity" is what "Intelligent Design" is really about.
  • I know of a number of individuals who have never even heard of the Discovery Institute and who do not limit their understanding of the Creative Powers of Consciousness (Intelligent Design) to the popular superstitions of a "God of Christianity".
  • Helena Blavatsky, writing in her book The Secret Doctrine published in 1888, was the first person to use the phrase "intelligent design" to convey her understanding of evolution. In the Theosophical Society she used the phrase to convey the idea that the evolution of the species was guided by an underlying purposeful intelligence in nature. This intelligence is different from the "God" of theistic religions. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. All of this has been discussed ad-nausuem. That article was correct as it was. Peruse the talk page archives here to see responses to your above points. Raul654 (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the archives and have not found responses to the issues I have raised. Therefore, please justify your revert of my edits. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
To browse the archives, there is an archive box towards the top of the page. For example, the issue of whether all leading proponents of Intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute is discussed in /Archive29, /Archive32, as well has here. All except the last issues you have brought up have been specifically addressed at various places in these archives. For the last point, perhaps the article can mention Blavatsky in the Origin section, suitably referenced. However, I don't see how Blavatsky has anything to do with the removal of large amounts of well-sourced information from the lead. silly rabbit (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You've made a lot of allegations but provided not one source to back them up. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and come back when you have not only proper sources, but proper sources that trump Federal Court rulings, the National Academies of Science, etc. Until then, I have to ask you to stop deleting content from the article. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read through the archives, but my concerns continue to be with a number of issues:

  • (1) The erroneous impression is created in the lead section that the Discovery Institute is the primary advocate for Intelligent Design, when in fact it has been part of religious and philosophical traditions for thousands of years. Yes, I am talking about Intellignece influencing evolution, not mere anthropomorphic myths about a one time creation of the world by some "Creator".
  • (2) I did provide a source for a significant proponent for Intelligent Design: the Theosophical Society through Blavatsky's publication of The Secret Doctrine in 1888. Millions have upheld this concept through the various offshoots of Theosophy up through the present day - far more than those of the Discovery Institute. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
are you equating Theosophy with ID? Or claiming ID is inherent within Theosophy? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes the concept of Intelligent Design has always been a basic premise in Theosophy: see Evolution and Intelligent Design in The Secret Doctrine Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Millions may have upheld this concept through the various offshoots of Theosophy, but millions haven't used the term "intelligent design" to describe it. Terms get coopted. Get used to it. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, if we're going to throw in everything that looks a little bit like ID as equivalent to the DI's ID, we may as well redirect this to Crreationism, the containing set. It's necessary to mke reasonable assumptions in order to focus this article, and one of them is to set the focus as the modern movement. I also suspect that Blatsky and the DI were not influenced by each other, but were mutually inspired by William Paley. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a scope issue, not a censorship issue - something like teleological argument

I have never seen any reference to substantiate the hypothesis that Blavatsky was influenced by Paley. And yes, "this is a scope issue" - this article wrongly implies that the Bible thumping fundamentalists of the Discovery Institute "own" the concept of Intelligent Design. They do not, as I have pointed out. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait this is a bit confused. There are of course concepts similar to intelligent design that go back at least 2000 years or more. Even Darwin used the phrase "intelligent design" in one of his letters and possibly other places. However, the modern intelligent design movement, with irreducible complexity and specified complexity harnessed to bolster intelligent design really is driven by the Discovery Institute, no matter what 100 year old or 200 year old or 500 year old or 2500 year old antecedants exist.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fill, my point is that although "Intelligent Design" - as a concept - is broad and goes back into antiquity, this article appears to characterize it as an activist position of the Discovery Institute and other Bible "creationist" fanatics. If that is to be the presentation of this article, then it should be retitled "Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute". We should not poison a well-established philosophical concept by making it appear to be almost exclusive to the Discovery Institute. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Arion, they've done the poisoning at the same time that they co-opted the name. Of course if you've reliable third party sources they can be considered, but looks like you're soapboxing a non-notable claim. .. dave souza, talk 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not how Wikipedia works. The most common usage of a word or term is the one that gets to use it in their article or as the title of their article. Others are relegated to other articles, sometimes in the "See also" list, and sometimes in disambiguation articles.
The term "evolution" covers many concepts; probably hundreds. But most commonly, evolution refers to two related things (1) biological evolution, as observed (2) the theory of evolution, which attempts to explain these observations. So our article evolution describes these, and all the other meanings of the term "evolution" are listed in other articles; take a look at evolution (disambiguation) and evolution (term) for example.
The same is true of "intelligent design". Although it is commonly used in engineering and in software development and has been used for similar teleological beliefs and movements going back millenia, when the average person hears it today, they think of one thing; the modern "intelligent design" associated with the intelligent design movement. People do not think of the engineering usage or the historical usage. So the Discovery Institute efforts get to use the term in their article, since that is the most common usage of the term, at least at this point in time.--Filll (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute should have the spotlight put on them (especially in the article on them) for misusing the term "Intelligent Design" to push a "Creationist" agenda and tricking the general public into associating the term with fundamentalist Christian superstitions, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should fall into the trap of handing over to this activist group the philosophical and theosophical concept of "Intelligent Design" (which many consider refers to a transcendent perspective on evolution). Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to "Right great wrongs". We do not fall into the trap; we just reflect what exists in the real world. If most people in the real world believed that "intelligent design" had something to do with Madame Blatavsky rather than the Discovery Institute, then the article would be written accordingly. However, that is not true, so the article is not written that way.
By the way, the Discovery Institute and the intelligent design movement is not only about fundamentalist Christianity. It has moonies in it. It has Roman Catholics in it. It has Jews in it. It has agnostics and even atheists associated with it. It did have quite a number of Muslims associated with it, but I think it has fewer now since Harun Yahya has declared that intelligent design is a dirty filthy Western evil trap to destroy Islam. But anyway...--Filll (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that the impression created by the emphasis upon the Discovery Institute in the lead makes it appear that they are the "spokesmen" for Intelligent Design. The hoax they have perpetrated upon the public is that their "creationism" in disguise is what is meant by Intelligent Design. It isn't.

Just because many people use a term incorrectly, does not mean that Wikipedia or any reference source should redefine that term, other than to note it's use (or misuse) by a certain segment of the population. For example, just because certain extremists misuse the term "martyr" to refer to murderous suicide bombers- that does not mean we devote the majority of the Wikipedia article on martyrs to suit that violent segment of the world's population. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Googling with the search string
"Intelligent design" "Discovery institute" Behe Dembski
returns 46,800 hits. (Note: This searches the web for pages containing the exact phrases "Intelligent design" and "Discovery institute" as well as the names of both Behe and Dembski.) The corresponding web search for just
"intelligent design" Blavatsky
returns only 596 hits. Similarly, with the same exact phrases, Google scholar returns 205 hits versus only 26 hits. If, as you believe, people are incorrectly using the term "Intelligent design", then the usage is nearly total. I suggest that you consider what would be due weight under the circumstances. As Filll points out, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. The meaning of the term, as the article currently employs it, is thoroughly established, regardless of whether that is the "correct" usage in your view. silly rabbit (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Blatavsky never used the phrase "intelligent design" in The Secret Doctrine. The document that you cited only used the phrase as part of the modern (2006) introduction. Therefore it would seem that the DI has a prior claim on the phrase. Given that Blatavsky never used the phrase and there is no clear link between her conception and the DI et al's modern concept of ID, I've eliminated the paragraph you inserted. HrafnTalkStalk 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Helena Blavatsky was the first person to use the phrase "intelligent design" in a published book. She uses it in The Secret Doctrine published in 1888. (Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy. Volume 2, page 654). I have restored the paragraph in the "Origins of the concept" section. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...Um, lad, this is how she uses it:
“ But, fortunately, the greatest, the most eminent thinkers and Scientists of the day are now beginning to rise against this "Pedigree," and even Darwin's natural selection theory, though its author had never, probably, contemplated such widely stretched conclusions. The remarkable work of the Russian Scientist N. T. Danilevsky -- "Darwinism, a Critical Investigation of the Theory" -- upsets it completely and without appeal, and so does de Quatrefages in his last work. Our readers are recommended to examine the learned paper by Dr. Bourges -- read by its author, a member of the Paris Anthropological Society at a recent official meeting of the latter -- called "Evolutionary Psychology; the Evolution of Spirit, etc." in which he reconciles entirely the two teachings -- namely, those of the physical and spiritual evolutions. He explains the origin of the variety of organic forms, made to fit their environments with such evident intelligent design, by the existence and the mutual help and interaction of two principles in (manifest) nature, the inner Conscious Principle adapting itself to physical nature and the innate potentialities in the latter. Thus the French Scientist has to return to our old friend -- Archaeus, or the life-Principle -- without naming it, as Dr. Richardson has done in England in his "Nerve-Force," etc. The same idea was recently developed in Germany by Baron Hellenbach, in his remarkable work, "Individuality in the light of Biology and modern Philosophy." ”
That is... Not the same as usding it to refer to a philosophy, and, frankly, you're building castles in the air out of nothing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "Intelligent design" does not occur in the link provided above. I suggest that unless someone can personally vouch that the term was, in fact, used in the 19th century, that we dub this one "verification failed". Jossi, have you checked it out? silly rabbit (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase does occur for the first time in a published work just as I have noted and where I have noted it. Furthermore, of the hundreds - and perhaps thousands of Theosophical and neo-Theosophical - books that have been published since 1888, the theme of "intelligent design" is a fundamental principle in the theories that have been explored regarding the various expressions of energy and matter. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give references. Google scholar gives only 52 hits for "intelligent design" + theosophy (out of 9000 hits for theosophy). Furthermore, only 6 hits are to be found prior to 1990. If the notion of intelligent design is so fundamental, why does it seem to be so absent in the literature? silly rabbit (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion, as you yourself say, this is a scope issue since the Theosophical idea of "intelligent design" is distinct and independent from Discovery Instritutes'. So why don't you create an article Intelligent design (Theosophy) to describe the former. That should be fine as long as you have secondary sources to reference it. Abecedare (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion does sound good. However, it would only make sense if this article was only on the general theme of "Intelligent design" and a separate article was created entitled Intelligent design (Discovery Institute).
As a side note, there are thousands of books and articles from Theosophy - many dealing with the "intelligent design" concept. I suspect that there are not as many from (or about) the Discovery Institute (no I do not have a specific number). Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it better to first create a Intelligent design (Theosophy) article and bring it up to a state comparable to this one, before debating the article naming issues ? That way you won't be debating in the abstract and will have an opportunity to concretely demonstrate (through the cited references) that the theosophical concept of ID is as notable as the DI's. Abecedare (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If multiple secondary sources can be found, say prior to 1990, dealing with Intelligent design and theosophy, then I would have no problem including it in the article. But the references need to be solid. They need to stick. silly rabbit (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Pre-"Of Pandas and People" uses of "intelligent design" are descriptive of other things. OPaP marks the first time someone tried to claim that "intelligent design" was a thing in and of itself, specifically a field of scientific inquiry with researchers at work in it. Descriptive uses, inclusive of those in theosophy, exist going back at least to the 1840s, as William Safire noted. Confusing descriptive uses for reified "intelligent design" doesn't take us forward. This is pretty simple stuff. Maybe we need something brief in the intro to note this, for while the issue is easily resolved, the confusion is unfortunately quite common. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unattributed "critics"

Statements attributed to "critics" without any specific attribution that would allow verification:

  • Intelligent design#Intelligent designer:
    • "Some critics have said that if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory"."
    • "Critics have asserted that intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred."
  • Intelligent design#Intelligence as an observable quality: "Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science."

Beyond the purely WP:V issue, I think from a style viewpoint we should avoid overuse of "critics", particularly when baldly stated without giving any indication of the identity or expertise of the critics -- both from a readability and a credibility viewpoint. HrafnTalkStalk 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to properly attribute the views and add sources as needed; I fixed one yesterday. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I cleared up a three-month-old fact-tag yesterday. I am however lousy at remembering which critic has said what over the years -- I have trouble enough at times remembering where I read something last week for inclusion in an article. HrafnTalkStalk 04:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in framing the question(s)

[edit] Arion 3x3's method of participation

It looks to me that Arion 3x3 is edit warring and ignoring consensus. I think it's gotten disruptive to the point that we need to ask him to stop and if he continues to follow the steps at WP:DE. Comments, thoughts? Odd nature (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him a little latitude because I'm pretty sure he has trouble with English, but some sort of intervention wouldn't be a bad idea. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Poor English skills doesn't explain the edit warring and ignoring consensus, though, does it? 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your AGF expressions. (trouble with English?) Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a tendency to misread statements, or get mistaken impressions from English sources. It's not all the time, but often enough that it might not be a bad idea to step back a little at times when you fall into disputes, and double check your sources and what others are saying. It can be a bit frustrating. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:DUCK. Could I be wrong? Certainly. Am I wrong? Time will tell. Odd nature (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So you claim that I "have a tendency to misread statements, or get mistaken impressions from English sources." I respectfully disagree, and request a specific example. Incidently, I always check my sources, and on this talk page, I justified every position I took and answered every objection with very specific factual answers - and provided references that others claimed not to exist. (I have lived in the Chicago area most of my life. What language did you think we speak in Chicago?) Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having engaged Arion 3x3 in discussions for months now, I would have to agree he definitely misreads and/or misrepresents plain English statements. It might be willful however, and not just the result of ignorance.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Filll for that accusation that I engage in "willful" misrepresentation. (I thought Wikipedia had a policy regarding personal attacks.) Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...I'm afraid this really isn't helping out my former views, here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. It might be willful...
  2. Thank you Filll for that accusation that I engage in "willful" misrepresentation
Did anyone else's mind just boggle? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's a good illustration of the problem. However, after this incident, where Arion said I had said DanaUllman was intentionally misleasding people, when I had specifically said he wasn't doing so intentionally, the boggling was minimal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The only other option that I am aware of is inadvertant misreading or misrepresentation, due to just plain errata. However, over a period of months and many dozens of examples, this probability of this option starts to approach zero. Sorry. I do not intend to attack anyone. And I do not want to cast any aspersions here, but what other conclusions can one draw after hearing similar statements for months on end? It is quite unfortunate. I apologize if this has offended anyone. --Filll (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are... other possibilities, but I'm not sure there's any way to politely bring them up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering this is not the first questioning of my editorial integrity by Filll, my pointing out the inappropriateness of his statement "It might be willful however" should not make anyone's mind "boggle".
  • Also, I seriously question what logical justification there is for this discussion to be on this discussion page. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arion 3x3, the biggest contribution you could make here in the intelligent design area is to write a separate article on Intelligent design in theosophy. Any other tendentious argumentation and assorted blathering is just disruption. Instead, try doing a bit of real work. --Filll (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than spending time discussing another editor (& alluding to "tendentious argumentation and assorted blathering"), I have made specific suggestions to improve the quality and accuracy of this article:
(1) Include in the historical sketch of the "Origins of the concept" the contribution of 19th century Theosophy - which rejected Christian "Creationism".
(2) Improve the lead by clarifying who it is that asserts that ID advocates have avoided "specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." As it reads now, it gives the impression that Wikipedia is stating that ID advocates are engaged in this attempt at deception. Although I agree that many "Creationists" are engaged in this game of deception, when there is a controversial statement such as this, an encyclopedia article has to attribute who is stating it. It can not be left as a simple statement of fact on the part of the article (and by association, Wikipedia). Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) is based on your evident misunderstanding of Blavatsky's use of two words as part of a description; ignore that and there's no reason to include a minor group's non-influential views. (2) has so many people saying it that it would be impractical. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply,

(1) There is no "evident misunderstanding" - since Theosophy's version of "Intelligent Design" was well developed and extensive from the latter part of the 19th into the 21st century. I happen to know this subject well, and even taught university classes in which we explored Theosophy's possible role in influencing religious thought in the 20th century to incorporate evolution into modern belief systems (including the Roman Catholic Chuirch). As for Helena Blavatsky using the term "intelligent design, here is another example from 1885:

"On the other hand the design displayed in the mechanism, the order shown in the preservation - destruction and renewal of things forbid us to regard the world as the offspring of chance, and force us to recognize an intelligent design." ( Collected Writings of H.P. Blavatsky Vol VI page 316)

(2) There is an established principle that controversial claims in Wikipedia need to have attribution in the text, with reference notes backing them. We have the refs. We only need to add the attribution - within that lead sentence - as to who is making the assertion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see two problems:

  1. We have a gap of over a century between Blavatsky's passing mention of "intelligent design" and the document you cited, which does not even contain her mention of it, but appears to lay claim to the phrase now that the ID movement has lost legitimacy, post-Kitzmiller.
  2. Even were we to fill in this gap, we have no indication that the Theosophical view is sufficiently prominent that WP:DUE would require its mention. This would require quality secondary or tertiary sources (per WP:PSTS) to establish.

HrafnTalkStalk 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee that if I went out on the street and asked 100 people at random about intelligent design, it is highly unlikely that a single person would mention theosophy. The same is probably true if I asked 1000 people or 10,000 people. By the principles of Wikipedia, we are not here to right great wrongs. You are free to actually document this obscure usage of the term, even if it came first as you claim. I do not find your posturing particularly convincing or compelling, I am sorry. This is an exceedingly obscure usage by an exceedingly obscure sect.--Filll (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be more relevant to ask a hundred reporters, philosophers of science and/or philosophers of religion (I have strong objections to basing WP:DUE on the opinions of people who can't find Florida on a map and think that the Sun rotates around the Earth), but otherwise agree your sentiment. HrafnTalkStalk 06:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee that if I went out on the street and asked 100 people at random about intelligent design, it is highly unlikely that a single person would mention Plato or Thomas Acquinas, yet we allow their contributions to the "Origins of the concept" to be included in the historical sketch. The opinion that Theosophy is "obscure" is just that - a subjective opinion and not a fact. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, I have read 20 scholarly works on intelligent design and not one mentioned theosophy or Blatavsky, but several mentioned Plato and Acquinas. So document the theosophical use of the term and the concept in an article on Intelligent design in theosophy if it is so well supported by references. --Filll (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think such an article would have any chance of meeting WP:NOTE to be honest. HrafnTalkStalk 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ask the 'man in the street' and they'd on average answer something like "Is that the new Ford slogan?" Ask a reporter and they'd probably say Dembski/Behe/Johnson/etc. Ask them and they'd say Paley, Paley'd say Aquinas and Aquinas would say Plato. Ask a philosopher of science or a philosopher of religion, and they'd probably take you two or three steps back at a single hit. Nowhere in that chain of influences would Blavatsky turn up. Because of this, we have no reason, per WP:DUE, to include Blavatsky in this article. HrafnTalkStalk 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Neo-Creationism

I've just been attempting a cleanup of the Category:Creationism hierarchy, and I noticed that Category:Neo-Creationism only has Neo-Creationism and a bunch of articles on ID in it. Would it be worth while merging it into Category:Intelligent design? Strictly speaking ID should be a subcat of NeoCreo -- but that would seem to be rather a tail-wagging the dog approach. I thought I'd raise the idea here before putting it up at WP:CFD. HrafnTalkStalk 09:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Based off the linguistic use of the term "Neo-Creationism" the idea sounds fine. Personally I believe that almost all the disputes that happen on this and similar pages are because of people not accepting what the linguistic use of the word actually is. Anyway, sorry that was off topic (I've been trying to keep up on the posts above). You have my support. I find the first line of the article humorous for whatever reason. Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. Oh please, it's a new term for an old argument. Infonation101 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have so nominated it here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 20. HrafnTalkStalk 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't this the encyclopedia that anybody can edit?

I cannot find the "edit" button on the article. Please help. 72.205.37.144 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that only privileged people can discuss the issues surrounding this article's bias and only very privileged people can actually edit the article. How is this fairness? 72.205.37.144 (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not privileged, just registered. All you have to do is register and log on. The article is currently semi-protected - that is why you cannot see the "edit" button when you are viewing it as an anonymous IP user. Snalwibma (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
They want you to register so that they can ban you. It's a circular game that never ends. This is why cries of censorship continue to register with others. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the mating call of the truly paranoid. Rather than register to get the benefits of wikipedia and actually be able to make a difference in an article you see as biased, all you do is complain about the rules. It's a controversial article, and the rules are there to protect the integrity of wikipedia. Follow the rules and register (or suggest edits here), or just stop coming to the page if it offends you. Redrocket (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, admins are fully capable of blocking your IP, and probably will if you are deemed to be disruptive. Wikipedia isn't really all that hard to get involved in - the only requirement is that you be collegiate and show an interest in improving the article and in justifying your edits to other editors. You should give it a shot, instead of assuming hostility beforehand. Graft | talk 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually they have already started threatening me because I disagree with the palpable bias in this and other articles. 72.205.37.144 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it. Probably a better way of looking at it is that you're being disruptive, you don't have a single edit to an actual article, and you haven't so much as made a single productive suggestion. Complaining and refusing to help isn't going to endear you to anyone. Redrocket (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be the least of my worries. If I were you I'd stay clear of the little chip they'll ask if they can embed in your brain. And whatever you do, DO NOT TAKE THE RED PILL!!! Angry Christian (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

I unprotected the article, since there doesn't seem to have been anything to prompt its remaining locked. If there's a valid reason for it, could we have a brief discussion of it here? Graft | talk 04:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Is this why there is no "edit" button on this article? How can others improve the article if it is locked-down? 72.205.37.144 (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking strictly from a disinterested, non-expert viewpoint- I looked up this article to find out what 'Intelligent Design' meant. It was very clear after reading a few paragraphs that it is very biased against the concept. Reading more, it became apparent that Wikipedia wants to make it as difficult as possible for people to comment on the article. I have no interest in changing the article. It's funny, but when Wikipedia chooses to, they can definitely stack the deck against anyone who disagrees with them! This article is preaching to the choir. Actually, if there was any degree of fairness at all, there would be TWO articles about Intelligent Design. You've clearly got the 'case against' article- now how about the 'case for?' Gbj11 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)gbj11

Please read WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. HrafnTalkStalk 15:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teleological argument, etc.

The fragment "modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." in the second sentence of the article suffers from many flaws. (a) It does not specify who does the modifying, (b) it sets them up as scurrilous and deceptive before they are even introduced (possibly an ad hom), and (c) doesn't seem to justify itself very well. The first reference doesn't prove that the omission was to avoid scrutiny - merely that the omission exists (perhaps this reference was meant to cover the first half of the sentence). The second reference is from a prominent critic of the movement who testified against them; surely a statement bolstered only by her perspective deserves attribution as coming from a critic in the text? I would suggest (1) striking the second reference and (2) striking everything following 'designer'. Graft | talk 05:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a concise statement in the lead, backed up by a respected academic whose analysis of ID is critical rather than a credulous apologia for ID. The modification to avoid explicit Biblical references can be traced to Kenyon's 1984 affidavit for what became Edwards v. Aguillard, "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts." The DI's Witt describes this as "There Kenyon described a science open to intelligent causes but one free of religious presuppositions or assertions about the identity of the designer. ... If Kenyon had held out hope for the term “creation science,” that hope ended with Edwards. However, neither Kenyon nor the authors of Mystery needed to change their methodology. What they now needed more than ever was a consistently distinct vocabulary for a methodology that was already distinct in substance from the biblical creationism found in the Louisiana act.... Thaxton continued to cast around for a term to describe a science open to evidence for intelligent causation and free of religious assumptions, a term without the religious baggage associated with “creation” but one less ponderous than “intelligent cause,” and, at the same time, more general, a term that could refer to the design theory in toto. He found it in a phrase he picked up from a NASA scientist—intelligent desgin."[4] Perhaps a better phrasing would be "modified to overcome legal restictions on the teaching of creation science. See Timeline of intelligent design for furher references. .. dave souza, talk 07:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not clear how the avoision is imputed to the desire to avoid legal hangups (rather than, say, to broaden the definition for philosophical reasons, or to promote wider alliances). Graft | talk 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
See the timeline for further details and sources, noting that Kenyon coined his definition for the Edwards trial, distancing himself from the YEC position that was under consideration (unsuccessfully), and the change to cdesign proponensists followed immediately after the Edwards decision. See the Kitzmiller judgement for analysis of that point. .. dave souza, talk 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the key issue is not whether it was "modified to avoid" or "modified to overcome" - but simply that it is a controversial statement that the article (and by extension Wikipedia) should not be making. Although I agree with the statement, that is my POV, dave souza's POV, and the POV of many other editors. To make that statement in the article NPOV, all that needs to be done is to attribute who has made this assertion. For example: "Various authors, such as Michael Behe and Barbara Forrest, maintain that it is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on Graft's concern here. Hrafn already replied to you above regarding the teleological argument. In a nutshell, intelligent design critics and proponents agree that intelligent design is a modern form of the ideas of William Paley. The concern is whether or not these ideas were repackaged to avoid legal scrunity. The reference (a judicial ruling) would seem rather strongly to support this. Is there a contesting reference? silly rabbit (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The reference to the judicial ruling is excellent. We can refer to that in the sentence, if that works for everyone. All Graft and I are saying is that the characterization of the current religious-political activism should be attributed in the text. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "current religious-political activism", but I have a strange feeling that WP:STICK might be relevant. silly rabbit (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to WP:STICK would apply if I was the only one bringing up this point. As for the "creationist" activism, you can read about it everywhere, including Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... but everyone agrees that ID is based on the teleological argument: proponents, critics, and Judge Jones. This is not a credible point of contention. Hence WP:STICK. Graft's comment is specifically about whether it is appropriate to comment on the reason for the teleological argument to be modified in order to avoid specifying the nature of the designer. silly rabbit (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Read what Graft wrote at the top of this section. No one is talking about the teleological argument, but it is the second part of the sentence that needs to have attribution: "modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." The contention is that just the reference note is not enough. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But your suggested revision failed to distinguish between the first clause and the second. Furthermore, I doubt Behe would have made such a claim, although I could be wrong. silly rabbit (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was clear from Graft's opening comments about that "fragment". For greater clarity, my new suggestion would be to split this into 2 sentences: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God. Various authors, such as Barbara Forrest, maintain that it has been modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My actual comment, to support Arion 3x3 here, is that if you do accept that the sentence must be reformed by attributing it, then the statement loses its weight and must drop out of the intro. I think this would be wrong, since we can agree on the objectivity of all but the very last clause. Losing that neatly resolves the dilemna and maintains the important facts. Graft | talk 04:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would concur that removing the last part of the sentence should solve the problem: " as a method to avoid scrutiny from the courts." Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems ok to me. silly rabbit (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is in reliable source after reliable source, as well as being pretty obvious.--Filll (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"as well as being pretty obvious" is not appropriate sourcing. If you can find an RS where the claim is NOT an inference, then I would not be opposed to its inclusion. I'm reading through the Kitzmiller ruling to see if it qualifies; also possibly the Wedge document would work as a source. Graft | talk 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Submitted as Proof of Concept

[edit] NPOV violated

[edit] Too Americentric

This just might be the most Americentric article on WP. Bad. Revence27 41.222.0.21 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's an American subject virtually confined to that country. There's a section on the few that have escaped the US. .. dave souza, talk 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the movie was made and released in America, and aimed at American audiences, it's inevitable that the article appear Americentric. Since it's the nature of the subject, it's not really a major issue. Doc Tropics 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What "movie" are you talking about? Secondly, why are some discussions "off-topic" or "soap-boxing" but others are not? 72.205.37.144 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is not about a movie. However, it is about an advocacy movement that emerged in response to a United States court decision, and that is almost entirely confined to the United States. The reason that creationism advocates went from "creation science" to "intelligent design" in their terminology is specifically because U.S. courts ruled that teaching "creation science" in public schools was illegal. --FOo (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, sorry about that, I was jumping between this article and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and got confused about which page I was on. But the response to IP 41's comment remains the same....ID is an almost exclusively Amercian movement with little international presence or impact, therefore the article is destined to be Americentric. Doc Tropics 08:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don’t think the subject of the article being too Americentric is really that big of an issue since everything that seems to be related to it is American.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, US-centrism is a problem with this article. I'm going to make a small edit near the beginning to try and situate it as a US phenomenon.Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted that edit because it looks redundant. The Discovery Institute is a U.S. organization. It's enough to state that the primary proponents are associated with it. No need to belabor the geographic location. And besides not all "primary" proponents are in the U.S. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


This is like complaining that the National Institutes of Health is Amerocentric, or that Natural History Museum is Brittocentric.--Filll (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see that your examples are an exact equivalent. Intelligent design is a POV that in theory could be widespread in all countries where there is both religion and science. But in fact it is much more prevelant in the USA than in other countries. All I think the article needs is a brief indication at the beginning that the concept and the debate is mainly in the USA. After all, the encyclopedia bothers to tell us that Los Angeles is a city in the USA, when most people in the world already know that. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
ID is a distinctly American movement: Founded by Americans in response to American court rulings, run by an American think tank funded by American fundies, and aimed at American high school classrooms. The part of the ID movement that's taking place outside of America is a minor sideshow at best. ID is as American as apple pie and baseball, and if foreigners want their own creationism movement, they'll have to get their own cranks and crackpots to come up with their own! Odd nature (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
<sarcasm> I disagree. I mean who is to say that Martians aren't at this very moment establishing the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. I demand that this page take the Martian point of view into account as well! </sarcasm> silly rabbit (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It does...as you would be able to see if you weren't under the influence of their mind-control rays... (if that's a redlink, you're under their control!) Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Europe! Just want to mention that there is no creationism/ID going around here. Even the pope accepts the fact of evolution (but maybe not the theory). We heard about your american creationism/anti-science-movement on TV and the internet, but I personally are not aware of any other place in the world, where there is a public discussion about this. So in my opinion, this article is not too american-centred, simply because only (some) americans care about their religion so much that they want to overthrow science. 88.68.209.169 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you do not quite understand the principles on which Wikipedia operates. We have plenty of articles about Europe here which contain little to no American information. We have plenty of articles about Australia here which contain little to no American information. We have plenty of articles about Japan here which contain little to no information. If the topic is notable, it gets covered, no matter where. Period. No one region or no one country owns Wikipedia. Intelligent design is significant in the US, and whether you realize it or not, creationism and intelligent design does have some minor influence in Europe, as we document in this and other articles. So we cover it. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like we have a little missunderstanding here, let me clarify what I meant. I am fully aware of all the facts you mentioned. When I said that this article is "not too american-centred" I meant solely the content of the article. I understand the question "Is this article american-centred?" as "Shouldn't we talk about the situation in other regions more? Looks like the article only talks about Intelligent Design in the USA and not enough about ID in Europe and other countries." I disagree with that, simply because ID isn't an issue outside of the USA. I assume that the reason for this is a different public opinion on what is acceptable and what is laughable. In the USA it is both respectable to believe in unproven stuff, as well as in disproven stuff. I can only speak for Germany here, but the situation in Europe is much different: If you believe in something that is neither proven nor disproven nobody has a problem with that and your view is regarded as respectable. But when you believe something that is known to be false nobody takes you serious. And because of all that, the article is right in being american-centered, just because americans are the only ones who have that debate. Nobody else cares. 88.68.216.232 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The label argument

[edit] Definition of Science

the article say that proponents of ID "seek to fundamentally redefine science," perhaps they could be more accurately be described as "seeking to broaden the definition of science to include study of the supernatural." As there could be confusion on what fundamentally redefine science means. the link to the science article in wikipedia has a broader definition then the one used here, and that part of the reason there could be confusion. I believe the sources are cited indicate they what the definition to mean, is the best explanation possible, without limits to what can be proven. Also, since this seems key to the issue perhaps the definition(s) of science given by ID should be included. Also, why do they think it is science. Rds865 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be accurate. You can't "broaden" science to include study of the supernatural, since by definition the supernatural is not possible to study scientifically. Science is built on methodological naturalism. Any definition of "science" that alters that would indeed be fundamentally different. Graft | talk 22:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
True, but this requires a careful reading of what "supernatural" means. It doesn't mean that science can't answer any questions about particular subject matter (say, ghosts, angels, and ESP). It means that science can't investigate questions where the terms of the question is phrased in a way to exclude scientific skepticism and methodological naturalism.
Science is perfectly capable of investigating claims of ESP, for instance, even though ESP is sometimes called "supernatural". For instance we can conduct experiments to test whether people are capable of reading minds or predicting the future with greater than chance accuracy. But if the question is phrased such that skepticism is excluded -- for instance, if it's claimed that telepathy doesn't work if anyone involved in the experiment doubts its existence -- then it is now beyond the reach of science.
Similarly, scientific tests of religious claims such as the efficacy of prayer to cure disease have been conducted. But religious claims such as transsubstantiation -- where it is explicitly claimed that all of the detectable, phenomenal "accidents" of the bread and wine are unchanged, but the undetectable, spiritual "essence" is transformed -- cannot be tested by science. This isn't because the subject matter is supernatural, but because the type of claim is one that says right up front, "This claim is about things that cannot be detected." --FOo (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Science can test phenomena claimed to be supernatural, but can only give natural explanations –

Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component. Yet scientists who are religious also perform science without bringing God in as part of their theories. Scientific theories do not include God because scientific theories must be tested. Testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God; therefore, scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable. All scientists work this way, whether they are religious or nonreligious. This is a practical restriction on what science can do, not a philosophical or moral restriction imposed by some elite.[6]

The issue is not the suppression of ID, but the lack of warrant for its scientific claims. And ultimately, ID has an uphill struggle to demonstrate that it is, indeed, science. The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an “intelligent agent” (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system. Untestable claims are not scientific claims. Regardless of their attractiveness as religious ideas (although many people of faith strongly reject intelligent design) intelligent design has not passed muster as science.[7]

dave souza, talk 12:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not EVERYONE believes the agent is God, there are other possibilities and many others recognize that, but they do all share the same fundamental issue, they cannot be tested in the laboratory using the scientific method. And for that, ID will not even be defined in Wiki, we are told only that IT is all Christian (NOT) and IT is wrong (Maybe) and without knowing what IT is. Why do we need to know what ID is anyway, all we need to know is evolution. In fact, every wiki page should just read "see evolution' it is the answer to all things. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of an Intelligent Design Controversy page (request)

[edit] Article structure and the 'controvery' section

[edit] Reversal of earlier opinion

On closer examination, I am withdrawing my earlier proposal. Minus the 'polls' section, the 'controversy' section actually makes sense, it's just that its title fails to distinguish it from ID's ubiquitously controversial nature. It is in fact on the IDM's 'manufacture' of a 'controversy' so that they can turn around and argue for a 'Teach the Controversy' policy -- taking it through from the design-board to collapse at KvD. A better title would be 'Creating and teaching the controversy'.

Working through using the "three issues" in rump-section as a guide, I think the subsections should be reordered into the following order:

  1. Defining science (1st)
  2. Peer review (2nd)
  3. Intelligence as an observable quality (2nd)
  4. Arguments from ignorance (2nd)
  5. Kitzmiller trial (3rd, also the judicial 'end' of 'Teach the Controversy') HrafnTalkStalk 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramsey Centre Conference

Have people see this? Looks like it might result in some interesting stuff. There's a discussion of the event (and its possible implications) here. Guettarda (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What? You mean philosophers aren't scientists? : ) Doc Tropics 06:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theology and ID

The Ramsay Centre conference outlines of papers suggest some very interesting resources for theological views on ID. The most pro-ID one I've noticed is by Josué García who has a go at Dawkins, making a strawman claim that Dawkings postulates a multiverse, therefore it's ok to postulate God. Except in my reading Dawkins just notes multiverses as one theory, not necessarily probable.

Anyway, Möllenbeck's paper responds to the Schönborn paper by saying "John Henry Newman... declared that all attempts to prove design in nature – instead of encouraging belief – would ultimately lead to atheism. He rejected William Paley's Natural Theology (1802) in 1854, five years before Darwin published The Origin of Species."

Which by a bit of googling brought me to The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Edward T. Oakes, 2001. This opens with an apparently favourable review of Johnson's book, but then concludes in the last three paragraphs that Johnson's echo of Paley was already answered by "Cardinal Newman, who leveled devastating artillery against the argument from design, especially in The Idea of a University [in which] he rightly calls any attempt to read the nature of God directly from the universe “physical theology,” which, he says, he has ever viewed with the greatest suspicion: 'True as it may be in itself, still under the circumstances [it] is a false gospel. Half of the truth is a falsehood. . . . . I believe in design because I believe in God, not in a God because I see design.' ” Of course the IDists assert that they don't touch on the nature of God, but then they're the ones denying God the opportunity to create through evolution. Thoughts on adding this info to the article? . .. dave souza, talk 10:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It probably works best as a short paragraph covering Newmans' argument after the one on Paley, ending with a sentence on Oakes' application of it to Johnson. But long term, the article probably really needs to give theological arguments for/against ID its own section. HrafnTalkStalk 14:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph is not explaining what ID is HELP

This is a poorly written article lacking a concise lead section that summarizes the topic. It attacks ID before explaining it and it is NOT accurate. The first sentence is fine, but explain it more without 'POV' that EVERYONE is a Christian theist promoting God (not true). 80,000 Atheist ID ET Raelians disagree with you in the fastest growing UFO religion in the world. This does not accurately represent what ID is regardless of science and quotation. Explain it before attacking it as a secular motive (move those attacks lower). The opening paragraph is POV. Fix it and good luck since even posting these kinds of suggestions gets deleted on the discussion. Again, pointing to strong POV lacks any Encyclopedic professional standard - PLEASE explain before attacking. Can we do that much? I am beginning to think that people do not know what ID is. Do you? "The reason why you dont believe it is because you do not understand what it is." Dr Rogers UNLV in speaking on why people do not believe in evolution. Explain ID so that I understand it as an Atheist who strongly agrees with micro evolution, possible macro evolution and definite ET origins of life with possible advanced involvement as some believe but cannot prove although massive DNA jumps could be explained by that unprovable theory (as science News has been covering lately... Google it).[2]

Contrast what we have with a REAL ENCYCLOPEDIA - this is scholarly and not POV:

intelligent design

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2008

intelligent design theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution , and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose. Thus, despite claims by members of the intelligent-design movement that it is a scientific research program, the work of its adherents has been criticized as unscientific and speculative for inferring a pre-existing intelligence to explain the development of biological structures instead of attempting to develop adequate falsifiable mechanistic explanations. In addition, the theory has been attacked on the grounds that many aspects of nature fail to show any evidence of intelligent design, such as "junk" DNA (see nucleic acid ) and the vestigial webbed feet of the frigate bird (which never lands on water). http://www.encyclopedia.com/beta/doc/1E1-inteldesgn.html Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole wacky space alien religion topic has already been covered further up, most notably by Hrafn and Dave Souza. And with regards to the entry from the Columbia Encyclopedia, aka encyclopedia.com, it is nowhere near as detailed as this article. Frankly, it is a little weak and gives more of a light overview of the topic, if that. It could do with a good bit of additional information. Baegis (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I wont argue that ET is wacky, the point is, the REAL ENCYLOPEDIA covers this professionally without POV that falsely states that ALL ID believers are Christians. ENG-101 taught us that ALL and EVERYONE is probably a misstatement. The only thing we do better is attack Christians and give them full credit for a theory that dates way back before the recent religious controversy. The opening paragraph states "It is a...argument for the existence of God", that simply isn't true, for some YES, but for EVERYONE - absolutely not. I tried to add 'for some' to get it 1/2 right, but that got deleted. Its not what ID is, ID is an idea that explains the real possibility that coded DNA wasn't an accident, one possibility is that advanced genetic engineers (like we now do today on 4 billion yr Earth in a 14 billion year Universe with a high probability that ET life is more advanced than us) was involved in major Phylogeny on the tree of life. Call it crazy, junk science, all good, but only after a College try of defining it for those who want to understand what the claim is. I move we apply the Encyclopedia definition since the controversy is controlled by hardcore evolutionist POV that cannot seem to find a NPOV on ID. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to do some research. •Jim62sch•dissera! 10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What Jim is saying is that many before you have tried to explain this very problem to the totalitarians who rule this article. I can assure you that you that their minds are closed as tightly as their circular arguments and that you will not budge them from their position. They are atheistic evangelists and they pursue with relentless abandon those who brook dissent from their agenda. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Praise the nothing almighty! •Jim62sch•dissera! 11:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This objection is ludicrous and incoherent. You might like the definition in Conservapedia better. Or maybe you might like going to the Discovery Institute website. I think they have more what you are looking for.

The thing is, different wikis and different encyclopediae function on different principles. Wikipedia functions using something called WP:NPOV. What NPOV states is that if there is more than one view, the mainstream view in that field takes precedence, and the views are presented in proportion to their prominence. So, intelligent design purports to be science and a method of explaining biology. Among professional biologists, way more than 99 percent of all professional biologists think intelligent design is nonsense. And so, we write this article accordingly. You see?

If you do not like NPOV, you are welcome to choose one of hundreds of other wikis.--Filll (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill - this is not a debate about NPOV, it is about wiki serving to provide information. T majority of wikipedians want wiki to provide an honest definition FIRST since people come here to learn about things - defining it is a priority. I would not remove anything in this article at all, it is just poorly organized since the first paragraph does not serve nor in any attempt to define what is ID. I know Christians promote IT, IT is wrong, science is against IT, but I don't know what IT is. For that I have to go deep into the article to see what people think IT is. This is sloppy and poorly done and it is far below the scholarly work in other articles. It appears to be the work a few who quickly undo any improvement and are unwilling to allow definition before interjecting their POV. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting this comment without reply speaks volumes to the integrity of this multi-user blog:

The problem is, Lord Filll the Almighty, that this article does not approach NPOV. This article is FPOV and thus it will remain so long as you have your thumb in the pie. The OP does not speak of vague general problems, he speaks of the same problems that hundreds of others have already complained about while you and a handful of your cohorts have ignored time and time again. You and your accessories have defended your POV and your editorial position by any means necessary. Have you ever once considered the possibility that like all humans, you might be occasionally in error?
But I don't want to provoke an emotional response from you.
Rather, we should all put this in context so as to not take ourselves too seriously. Wikipedia is a website with lengthy articles about strange sexual practices, female undergarments and obscure STAR WARS characters. WP isn't an encyclopedia and your not an editor. This is a multi-user weblog and your just an admin who has staked out some turf (including this article) as your own.
You have that power.
People would respect you more if you claimed that power rather than using the pretense of NPOV to defend your POV with circular arguments.

You can hide behind your privileges but that doesn't change reality. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As an atheist and an editor, I agree that the official version online for ID needs some serious work. This is far from NPOV as you can get. Work on it, this gives wiki a bad name. Try to be an Encyclopedia, if you can't maybe you should join the bloggers, this site is for information at a scholarly level, what you have in the first several paragraphs are some recent events and not enough information to describe what ID is. You told me ID is junk science but you have not told me what 'ID' is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.234.118.9 (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the encyclopaedia quote is exceptionally bad and unscholarly. Whoever wrote it understands neither ID nor the critiques of ID. Guettarda (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. The first sentence is particularly bad in that it is (1) ungrammatical (it should read "intelligent design theory is that..." or similar) and (2) makes a use of the word "theory" that is very sloppy in this context. Other flaws include equating creationism with "the biblical account of creation" (thus excluding Progressive creationism and the like) and stating that "unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old", when many ID-proponents are in fact also YECs. It's a crappy piece of writing. HrafnTalkStalk 09:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is intelligent design an assertion or a view?

Recently KillerChihuahua reverted my edit of the lead sentence. I'm not aware of any specific discussion of the word "assertion" in the first sentence, but I really do think that the term "view" is more appropriate here. I'd like to subject this to a straight-up straw poll of the regular editors here. Please state whether you prefer "view" or "assertion", and (optionally) give a reason for your preference. silly rabbit (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • View. Intelligent design is not merely the assertion, but the associated viewpoint. An assertion is, in this context, an articulated concept or, at best, a particular articulation of a concept. Thus, referring to ID as this particular assertion falsely equates the concept with this particular quote of Michael Behe's. The concept of intelligent design, whether articulated in specifically this way or not, is the subject of the article. silly rabbit (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Before you demand a change like this you should consider the fact that this has been discussed for several years, by literally hundreds upon hundreds of editors, and there has been at least several hundred kilobytes of discussion on this, and maybe a few megabytes. So to come in out of the blue and state that everyone else who came before you is wrong and you are the only one who has it right is not likely to be too easy to sell. You are arguing against a huge amount of consensus. And did you know that we operate by consensus on Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We also operate by being WP:BOLD. I am quite happy to seek consensus, and I really did feel that the change was quite minor. The word "view" is obviously more suitable than the word "assertion". If you would care to cast a vote in the straw poll, perhaps consensus will change. If you would like to lecture me about the importance of obtaining consensus, perhaps you would prefer to do so on my own talk page? silly rabbit (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I think you should be experienced enough to know something about FA articles. And I was not aware that the archives of this talk page are inaccessible to you. Perhaps you might want to lodge a complaint?--Filll (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already guidance on this at the top of this page and it says "Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', assertion...". If we are talking scientifically then is is an assertion. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That would seem to address the issue of the appropriateness of terminology such as "theory" and "hypothesis". I don't think that directly addresses my objection to the word "assertion". Other possibilities attempted in the past are "claim" and "proposition" (see below). silly rabbit (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, I'd like to reopen the issue of whether assertion truly is the correct word. The term "assertion" was added, with rather little discussion by Kenosis here. (I note that even though the article was featured at that time, and the lead had been discussed extensively "in the archives", Filll managed not to bite off Kenosis's head.) Prior to that in the consensus lead, the word was "claim". Even earlier, another word which had a lot of support at one point was "proposition", although I'm not sure when that was changed. There was some discussion of this in Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive46, but this largely focused on the unsuitability of the word "claim" by the Wikipedia:Words to avoid guideline, and seemed to be part of a larger debate on use of the word claim in other parts of the article. I don't think either word is entirely appropriate, although I do feel that "claim" is preferable to "assertion". I think we should explore some alternative term: "view" is my own preference, although perhaps there is some other, still more suitable word. silly rabbit (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to try to change consensus. I see nothing wrong with assertion, and view is just too vague I think.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I like claim, but people with a very rigid view of that Words to avoid essay-thing keep trying to remove it in favour of other, less accurate words. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and acres of talkpage go with the scientific meaning of theory and with that the word "assertion" is correct. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think assertion is not the best word to convey the meaning intended in that first sentence. The word "theory" or "view" would be preferable. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ID is most assuredly not a "theory" - as the claim is that ID is "scientific" then the scientific use of "theory" must be used, and ID is manifestly lacking in any attribute of an actual scientific theory. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it is not a scientific theory, but ID proponents argue it as if it is a scientific theory and they make assertions when they do. This is going to end up on WP:LAME if we are not careful. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a belief, and if you want to interpret that as having the invisible word "religious" in front of it, I wouldn't argue. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
(Directed at SheffieldSteel) Evolutionary theory is also a "belief", is it not? The theory negates religion, and scientists believe in evolution to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.199.218 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Evolution is a term for the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms, and the theory describes various mechanisms of that process. .. dave souza, talk 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c. Reply originally directed at Nescio) The use of the word is grammatically misleading here. The sentence under consideration is:
Intelligent design is the assertion 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".
Intelligent design is not an assertion. An assertion is a particular act of asserting: it refers to a particular statement by a particular individual. In this sentence, the direct quote further reinforces this confusion, making it appear as though Intelligent design refers to this particular statement by the Discovery Institute. But intelligent is not "an assertion" in this sense: it is a "position" (a "philosophical position" or what have you), a "view", a "concept". silly rabbit (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


I suspect if you investigate you will find "assertion" is a polyseme.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect if you look it up on Wiktionary you will find "The act of asserting, or that which is asserted; positive declaration or averment; affirmation; statement asserted; position advanced." which is precisely what we need at this position in the sentence. It is a position which is advanced by the DI. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why not come right out and say that it is "...the position that..."? This seems more precise to me. silly rabbit (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Assertion is more clear.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For the philosophical position and view that is "intelligent design", I suggest using the word "theory" instead of "assertion" (which is not a correct use grammatically in that sentence). The use of the word "theory" is not limited to just science. A quick check of a number of dictionaries confirms that. [8] Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The word has a specific meaning in science, and ID is pretend science so their use of it deliberately introuduces confusion which is completely inappropriate here. .. dave souza, talk 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Assertion works ok for me, as has been properly sourced it's a claim and a philosophical argument based on religious beliefs, certainly not a "view". . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am 100% indifferent on this change. As long as it's not theory, per Dave. Baegis (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm more comfortable with "assertion" -- the ID movement contains plenty of YECS whose agreement with ID is as an acceptable neocreationist facade on their deeper (Flood Geology etc) views rather than as a worldview that they value for its own sake. For this reason, I would consider "view or "belief" to be an inaccurate characterisation. HrafnTalkStalk 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Assertion. Lots of people believe in God or mystery. That doesn't make them IDists. ID goes beyond the view and to the assertion. People can have the opinion that there are aspects of the universe that cannot have originated through natural means and still be solidly in the evolution camp. The what sets ID apart is the assertion that their belief is (a) true, and (b) "scientifically" testable (although you have to redefine science to allow supernatural causation...and even then, ID still ends up an argument from personal incredulity). Guettarda (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Assertion has been used quite fine for some time. I have not been convinced that any proposed substitution is better. ID is a forceful viewpoint, I feel assertion appropriately illustrates the aggressive/confrontational nature of ID movement.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subdividing See also

Is there any consensus at all to split up the See also section into easier subheadings? Here is my proposal, which was reverted by KillerChihuahua (again). I think ideally there are nearly enough subheadings here to catch all of the links. Any thoughts? criticisms? hate-mail? silly rabbit (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken some of the pressure off by eliminating the links that were already (and far more prominently) in the ID template at the top. We probably do need some level of categorisation though. Here's some suggestions for categories:

  • Arguments in favour
  • Related creationist topics
  • Criticisms
  • Parodies
  • Politics and controversy

HrafnTalkStalk 03:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to put almost all of the links under subheadings here. I felt it necessary to add a "Science" section to catch the links Junk science, Pseudoscience, and Origin of life (which is a redirect to Abiogenesis). Undoubtedly other categorizations may be possible. The first four links are still without a heading, though. silly rabbit (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguments in favour
Criticism
Parodies
Related topics in creationism
Science

[edit] Discussion on presenting 'what ID is'

Absolutely, subheadings will be an essential part of re-organizing. Major sections should be
  • What is it (exhaustive definition - keep all opinion and slander out)
  • Proponents (opinions + any science))
  • Opponents (opinions + any science)
  • Cross refs (lots here so very important)

Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But the article DOES begin by explaining exactly what ID is:

"Intelligent design is the assertion 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". It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science"... etc.

It's hard to go into much more detail than that, because the ID-proponents themselves don't seem to have a coherent definition: ID is intended to be a "big tent" that can accommodate as many different sorts of creationist as they can manage to fit in. --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is only hard, if you dont try. And that defintion fails to try at all. Here is a much better opening paragraph that defines what ID is without POV:

Intelligent design is the assertion 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. Inteligent Design (ID) is therefore "Specified complexity" originating from the information theory when claiming that the genetic messages transmitted by DNA in the cells of all organisms are complex and specified by intelligence, and therefore must have originated with an intelligent agent.[45] The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified".[71] He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That is great, except it is wrong and reads like a promotional document for the Discovery Institute. There are two main ideas in intelligent design: "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity". Both have been examined by the relevant experts and found severely wanting; failures in other words. You have left out all required NPOV material and the other main idea in ID, and in fact the more major of the two ideas.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That is the most incomprehensible "definition" of ID I have ever read. And dembksi is a theologian, hasn't done maths in years. Midnight Gardener (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Defined ID without POV? No. Defined ID without accuracy? Yes. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk about it - yes evolution is a fact, but so is the fact that more species could be spread across the Universe through genetic engineering and colonization, than would ever naturally occur through the required long periods of evolutionary progress. It is statistically more probable that if advanced life evolved anywhere in the Universe in the first 14 billions years, that it is more likely that other advanced life came from their efforts of seeding and engineering life, than natural and improbable advanced evolution elsewhere (due to that long time period required and the less than .01% probability that intelligent life can occur at all)[3]. You want scientific method to prove it, well we have it... every time we gene splice and engineer new life, new chromosomal changes through intelligent design humans do today in the lab, it is a reality, we prove it every time we do it, and that is something that science lacks is the observable natural evolution of a new phylogenetic classification (or chromosomal evolution[4]) in the lab[5]. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's statistically highly probable that someone has been producing % probabilities out of some orifice. These statements are obviously entirely speculative, while the natural evolution of new species has been observed. .. dave souza, talk 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Meant to say that we are required by policy to make necessary assumptions, particularly regarding evolution, and by WP:TALK to confine discussion on this page to specific improvements to the article. Any continuation of this discursion will have to be deleted. .. dave souza, talk 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The statistics are real, but they keep getting deleted by the evolution police who refuse to define what ID is and delete/undo it every time someone tries to define it. Very hard to discuss improving the article when even the discussion gets deleted. I am going to document and CHANGE the first paragraph with the required refs. I am on the ID Wiki Group and its time to fix this article - NO POV - just definition in the opening article - then the current POV can follow as common POV but we will define ID first - state what ID is followed by all the great info of how we all HATE Christians (I promise to keep that hatred and denouncement in tact - not a sentence of the current POV will be lost and YES that will be an improvment). Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets talk about it - yes evolution is a fact, but so is the fact that more species could be spread across the Universe through genetic engineering and colonization, than would ever naturally occur through the required long periods of evolutionary progress

  • I don't understand what this has to do with our article.

It is statistically more probable that if advanced life evolved anywhere in the Universe in the first 14 billions years, that it is more likely that other advanced life came from their efforts of seeding and engineering life, than natural and improbable advanced evolution elsewhere (due to that long time period required and the less than .01% probability that intelligent life can occur at all)

  • Again - what does that have to do with this article? Can you please provide a source that links this to ID in some way?

You want scientific method to prove it, well we have it... every time we gene splice and engineer new life, new chromosomal changes through intelligent design humans do today in the lab, it is a reality, we prove it every time we do it, and that is something that science lacks is the observable natural evolution of a new phylogenetic classification (or chromosomal evolution[2]) in the lab[3]

  • Again, what does this have to do with the article? What does this have to do with the sentences that precede it? What are you talking about?
  • What is the significance of your links to the website associated with Ridley's textbook or the ancient book chapter from Nitecki?

The statistics are real, but they keep getting deleted by the evolution police who refuse to define what ID is and delete/undo it every time someone tries to define it.

  • What statistics? The 0.01% estimate which, it's clear from your source, is just a wild guess? Why would it possibly belong in this article? What does it have to do with ID?
  • What "evolution police" are you talking about? I am utterly confused.

Very hard to discuss improving the article when even the discussion gets deleted

  • It would help if you were discussing the article. You aren't.

I am going to document and CHANGE the first paragraph with the required refs.

  • That's a good start. I take it you've spent the last two days familiarising yourself with what ID is? Your previous post suggests that you weren't familiar with either the writings of either the proponents or the critics. If you've done something to remedy that in the last two days, I'm impressed. That's a lot of ground to cover in two days.

I am on the ID Wiki Group and its time to fix this article

  • It might be useful to first identify what you think is wrong with the article. It's usually helpful to identify the problem first, then try to fix it.

NO POV

  • Everything has a point of view.

- just definition in the opening article -

  • I don't understand what you are talking about? Is there more than one article?

then the current POV can follow as common POV

  • The current article presents the matter from the neutral point of view - it presents all notable perspectives (at least those that I am aware of), in a balanced way. And what do you mean "as common POV"? And follow what? Are you still talking about more than one article here?

but we will define ID first

  • The article does that.

- state what ID is followed by all the great info of how we all HATE Christians

  • No, that would not be appropriate. Whatever your problems with Christians and Christianity, I would ask that you keep them off Wikipedia. Please check your prejudice before you start editing here.

The first thing you need to understand is that this a project to write an encyclopaedia. Hate speech - whether directed at your fellow editors, are you appear to be doing here, or directed at some outside group - is totally unacceptable. I don't care how much you hate those of us who are Christian - keep it off the project. Guettarda (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The bias is blatant

This whole article should be reworked. It is the most blatantly biased Wikipedia article I have read yet, incessantly reminding us that BIG SCIENCE rejects ID as "discredited" and "unscientific". The whole thing comes off like a nervous drive by shooting of anyone who would dare question big science instead of just reporting the history of the movement. Tomdahlberg (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)tomdahlberg

I hope you enjoyed the film. However, you misunderstand Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to present the mainstream view most prominently, as can be seen by reviewing WP:NPOV. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Big Science? Is that in anyway related to Big Pharma? Are they related or just kissing cousins? Do they go to family picnics together with the Big Liberal Media Bias? I want to go! Baegis (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We have an article on BIG SCIENCE. Avb 10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The VERY STRONG CONSENSUS and superlative is that wikipedia actually serves the purpose of providing definition of ideas and concepts before POV (not in place of consensus POV), it is the priority and the purpose of this site. When I want to learn about something, this is the place to learn, so definition is the top priority, not the last and I assure you that is the consensus. Now, instead of focusing on the POV, take another look at how this information (that I also agree with) should be layed out to present the definition of what ID is FIRST (this will take at least two paragraphs), and then follow it the proponents/opponents POV (which is all we know about ID from the current first paragraph which attacks IT without ever defining what IT is). All good info, just poorly presented. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD, and read the article more carefully. Looking at your effort above, is poor old Behe out in the cold now, and whatever happened to the abrupt appearance of cdesign proponentsists? Also see WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE – this isn't a sales brochure and we provide all expert views on the subject, not just those favouring ID. .. dave souza, talk 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, no sales brochure, for or against, until after it is defined without a POV (thats what we need and what we don't have today).Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 06:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is shockingly and disturbingly biased, and puts Wikipedia's objectivity and NPOV into question. This clearly has proved to be its Achilles’ heel, as it seems unable to provide a dispassionate and objective article on ID. Clearly, the writers have strayed from Wikipedia's stated "strength" of making it difficult to "censor and impose bias." Unfortunately, this is the case in this article.

Examples: "It is a modern form of..." rather than "According to xxx it is a modern form of..."; or "The unequivocal consensus...is..." rather than "Although the majority of those in the scientific community believe xxx, many other scientists state that..."

Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself and should at a minimum flag this article as not neutral and biased toward one side of this issue. To let this article stand as is underscores Wikipedia's detractors who believe it to be, at its core, a left-leaning, anti-religious organization. .(And stand by for ad hominem attacks on this writer who has simply observed this heavy-handed bias...shave and a haircut, _______). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicanalysis (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

_ _ _ two bits, if my understanding of the idiom is correct. As it says at the top, this article must follow NPOV with particular attention to NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The examples you raise have been carefully considered to reflect the weight presented by references, and the suggestions you make fail NPOV by giving undue weight to an extreme minority view which should be shown in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is a community project, and you should be ashamed of attacking editors by caricaturing their views in a way which does not comply with WP:CIVIL. Please have a good look at Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ which discusses the issues in more detail, . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience?

I have seen ID described as pseudoscience because it does not make falsifiable claims. THis is not true. Show evolution to be true and you show ID to be false. Secondly, even if this were true, would the fact that it can't be proven wrong not then be an argument in favor of it, or are only false things allowed as theories? Lordofthemarsh (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is the idea that animals change. Evolution has been shown to be true. Chernobyl blew up in 1986. A few years ago a robot was sent down there. It found a black sludge. The black sludge was bacteria. This particular type of bacteria was able to absorb Gamma Rays in a method very similar to how plants absorb energy from the sun with photosynthesis. That is a hard evidence observable fact. Nobody made that up, change happens in animals and we call that phenomina Evolution. There is no hard evidence that supports ID, just like there is no hard evidence that supports the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

-RAmen Bridger.anderson (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not really the place for this. We do not do debates. However, just this once, I will point out that there are many reasons that ID is not science, not just falsification. If you want to understand more about this, look at demarcation problem for example, where you will see that falsification is actually pretty much obsolete in the philosophy of science. Also you are peddling the same false dichotomy that many intelligent design supporters and creationists try to push; there are more than just the two options "evolution" and "intelligent design" here. Even the Discovery Institute has a paper or two on this that I ran across; check it out. You also do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a temporary explanation for a bunch of data, which are known as scientific facts. ALL theories are false. That is, the theory of gravity is false; and will be replaced by something better. The theory of quantum mechanics is probably incomplete and will be replaced by something better. Plate tectonics is incomplete and will be replaced by something better. And so on and so forth, for all scientific theories; including the theory of evolution.
Except intelligent design. Because it is not a scientific theory. All it says is "We are too stupid to know anything so we just will say that magic dun it".--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, a theory is not a temporary explaination. And no not all theories are false. The theory of evolution is a fact. And yes, this debate is not appropriate on the talk page. 24.46.50.159 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To Filll: This is the perfect place for this, as the description I mentioned is in this article. No, I am not peddling a dichotomy. I do not know of ay other options, but if I were told about them, I would give them the same status: demonstrate any theory incompatible with ID to be true, and you show ID to be false. Show also that it is likely the world came about without a designer, and ID is likely false. If ALL theories are false all the time, then what is the point of science? Not only can we never come up with a full explanation for everything, we can never come up with a full explanation for anything?

I understand perfectly what a scientific theory is; it is you who do not, as you refer to the law of gravity as a theory. If the theory of evolution is false, why stick to it dogmatically? As far as your claim that 'All [ID] says is "We are too stupid to know anything so we just will say that magic dun it"', that is blatantly false. I must ask you. Is there a demonstrable reason why there cannot be a Designer? If not, then you must consider at least the possibility that there is indeed a Designer.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is not the place for debate. And you are wrong in all particulars. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. No scientific theory is ever proved "true", so "[s]how[ing] evolution to be true" is not a potential way of falsifying ID.
  2. The claim that somewhere, somehow, some feature exists that is irreducibly complex is the equivalent of Russell's teapot -- not disprovable, but not credible.
  3. All this is WP:OR. Find a few WP:RSs to say that ID is not pseudoscience and we'll give them WP:DUE weight to the vast number who say that it is.

HrafnTalkStalk 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. Many, or at least several, cdesign proponentists cede at least some credibility that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for some, perhaps not most, of the biological diversity seen today.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Their curate's egg is only bad in parts. . .. dave souza, talk 14:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review of lead

The lead reads (first sentences):

Intelligent design is the assertion 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".[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science.

So ID is an "assertion"? What an odd word to use. Surely it's a bit more than that: it's an argument. In fact it's a syllogism: the universe is too complex to have come into being by chance; the opposite of chance is design; ergo, the universe was designed. But better is to call it an argument. It does argue its case, it doesn't just assert.

Going on a little further, it would seem, and I would agree, that ID is "a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God." That being so, how about a small revision of these two sentences, like this:

Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science. It asserts 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"

That should keep you all happily occupied for a day or two. PiCo (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about you scroll a page up an look at the discussion that has already taken place on this subject?. Or are you just trying to flame? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a new variation, effectively shifting from "ID is an assertion that.... it is an argument" to "ID is an argument..... it asserts that..." The good side is that it now becomes "an argument that asserts.." rather than "an assertion". The problem is that it pushes the ID proponents' definition into the second sentence, after the secondary analysis of what it really is, and ID supporters are likely to reject that. Worth careful consideration" . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, ID is not itself an argument. It is a variation on an argument for the existence of God, but as it does not explicitly argue for the existence of God (or for or against anything else), it not itself that argument. It acts as an umbrella for a wide range of old and/or repackaged anti-evolution argument, but is not itself any of these arguments. It likewise does not contain any explicit argument, as this would require a form of 'premise + logical reasoning = conclusion', which it lacks. After much debate, the best word we could come up for this philosophical ambiguity is that it is an "assertion". HrafnTalkStalk 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, it is a loose paraphrase of the conclusionary statement of the teleological argument: '...therefore a God who designed life and the universe must exist' → "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause [who most ID proponents admit they think is God]". HrafnTalkStalk 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, we used to have something like that for the intro. After a long debate with ID supporters, we settled on this language instead. Guettarda (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Guettarda. I guess this will be an ongoing issue that people will raise from time to time, especially when, like me, they don't have experience of the history of the article. PiCo (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate use of sources

This should be removed from the article:

While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer,[6][7][8] and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.[9][10]

The sources all appear to be promoting forms of creationism other than ID. WP:QS is clear that questionable sources, including any promotional sources, may only be used in articles about themselves, and this article is not about Young Earth or even Old Earth Creationism. The Verifiability policy further indicates that contentious claims may never be referenced from questionable sources. So that is two separate reasons to remove this. 65.39.195.36 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The above user is a serial sockpuppeteer who is banned from editing creationism-related articles for abusing Tor proxy accounts to cause disruption. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
?? These sources are identified in-text as non-ID creationist sources. I'm not following...--ZayZayEM (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Please DFTT. The exact same issue was brought up at Talk:Young Earth creationism (as well as in other related articles) where multiple editors explained to the Tor-hopping IP why AnswersInGenesis is a reliable source for the views of YECs, and also why it is not covered by the policy governing the use of self published sources. This editor, however, appears to have made it a personal crusade to eliminate any references to AiG from Wikipedia, and to do so in a manner that explicitly violates WP:DE and WP:PROXY. He/she is well-aware that all of this has already been explained elsewhere. This thread should be archived to prevent further time-wasting. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
In reply to ZayZayEM: It doesn't matter that they're identified as such in text. WP:V is clear about where questionable sources can be used and what can be cited from them.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves as described below.

Since this article is not about Young Earth Creationism, sources promoting YEC can't be cited here. Even if they could, the material cited above is contentious, and thus is excluded by the policy. Now, if this is not the actual intent of WP:V, as some contend, then the policy should be rewritten. 91.66.13.46 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay i am starting understand what you mean. Creationists don't check facts, ergo creationist material is QS. However, this article IS about YEC opinions on ID, while not being directly about YEC itself. The sources and materials are used well within policy/guidelines and are not used to support any real-world facts. The QS source is directly used in relation to the QS itself, follows policy.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken New Republic links

The citations linking to the New Republic 92 and 93 are both broken, and no archive link is available. LexisNexis keeps back issues of the New Republic, but I couldn't find the cited articles there. My skills on LexisNexis are somewhat limited, though. Can anyone else who has the time and necessary skill please try to locate these sources? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can look, if it is available in the standard academic version of Lexis.--Stetsonharry (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
NR doesn't like sharing anymore. Has anyone tried the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive (archive.org)? FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Not on my version of Lexis. Reader's Guide Online refers to it as follows:

"Title: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name Other Titles: Review article Personal Author: Coyne, Jerry Journal Name: The New Republic Source: The New Republic v. 233 no. 8/9 (August 22-29 2005) p. 21-33 Publication Year: 2005 Abstract: (omitted)"

From this, it indicates that this article appeared in a "double" issue of TNR. References 92 and 93 give the incorrect impression that there are two separate articles, not one article in a double issue.

Style question: since two succeeding footnotes refer to the same source, shouldn't the second footnote no. 93 be an "ibid"?--Stetsonharry (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I finally got to an entry through EBSCO, but apparently the article has been removed from the index for some unexplained reason. Anyway, I have combined the two duplicate references in a single named reference, and I have done away with the link altogether since apparently no electronic version of the article can be accessed, even with an institutional subscription. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Style answer: my impression is that the guidelines are against 'ibid's or similar -- for one thing, wikipedia articles are dynamic, and you never know when an intervening citation might be added. WP:CITE#Shortened notes is a good alternative. HrafnTalkStalk 05:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Impressions

This section written on intelligent design is obviously done from an atheistic viewpoint... it would be nice if the facts were just presented as facts, and people could be left to make their conclusions based on raw information presented, not based on information manipulated to have an atheistic slant.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.187.201 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll pray for you. ... dave souza, talk 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an atheist by any means, but I don't think that is a fair criticism. Not all religious authorities accept creationism, intelligent design etc. --Stetsonharry (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, yes. ID essentially rejects science as it doesn't presuppose that unknowns are proof of God. From the ID perspective, the Archbishop of Canterbury has an atheistic viewpoint. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting that the anonymous poster presumes that ID should be identified with God as Designer.PiCo (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Lynn Margulis

In the "Peer review" section there is a reference to Lynn Magulis. It should say Lynn Margulis. This is her link in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis Estebangil (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So how possible is it...

To change all the capital-g Gods in this article to be god, so that the article stops pretending to be about Christian god and is thus, gasp, about the idea of god in general? Vael Victus 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Both "God" and "god" are used in the article, and more often that not "God" is used in quotes or specific contexts. Can you be more specific? Thanka. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think God would be the correct usage when used in the context of a monotheist religion (which is ubiquitous in this article). User the lower case implies one god among many, and polytheism. HrafnTalkStalk 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The assumption that Christians are the only ones who believe in monotheism is inappropriate to boot. - Denimadept (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What assumption? Capitalising merely indicates the definitive article. And in any case Intelligent Design is almost exclusively Christian. HrafnTalkStalk 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the assumption made by the person who started this section. Inasmuch as Muslims can be considered heretical Christians, agreed. - Denimadept (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are no Muslim supporters of ID, so the point is moot. HrafnTalkStalk 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Right there in this article, actually. - Denimadept (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As it says, the ICR appears to be more popular, and as I recall there was a shift away as it is of course blasphemous to suggest that there could be another god than Allah, as implied in ID's inherent dissimulation. A minority view which shouldn't be given undue weight against the Kitzmiller assessment that "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity" . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The closest that this section comes to a Muslim ID advocate (as opposed to Creationism advocate more generally) is a Muslim signatory of ASDfD -- and many non-ID creationists sign that. HrafnTalkStalk 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well alright, if you want to capitalize it so you can for some reason give a name to the idea of a god at all, why not call it, "the creator"? I'm seeing christian bias here and I don't like it one bit. (even though they're not the only ones to call their god God apparently) Vael Victus 02:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
PS - if it's still mainly Christian, then you still have to accomodate the people that aren't Christian. Christianity will die soon enough, then what will happen to intelligent design? Vael Victus 02:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links: a forest of advocacy

I note that the external links section in this article is unusually large, and rather a lot of them are to advocacy websites, many of which might well fall afoul of the "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" criterion for exclusion (see Wikipedia:External links). Have the items on this very long list recently been reviewed for appropriateness? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The EL section has always been long, and are regularly pruned. I think a reader that notices the headers (ID perspectives, non-ID perspectives, and media articles) should have a sense of what they're reading. Are there any specific links that bother you? Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the links from the top downwards, it's evident that the first ones are promoting viewpoints that, in the scientific arena in which their proponents firmly place themselves, are those of a tiny fringe at best, and are often simply misrepresentations of science by religious conservatives. It seems to me that the effect of including these links in the external links section, rather than discussing them with an accompanying link within the body of the text if and when it is appropriate to discuss them, is to promote fringe views and pseudoscience through the medium of Wikipedia.
In addition I have a particular problem with evolutionnews.org. The URL itself is misleading, and so is the description in the external links section of our article: "Discovery Institute website tracking media coverage of intelligent design." Actually the site seems to comprise a series of op-eds written by Discovery Institute contributors about selected mainstream press articles. It's a quasi-political blog, basically. The identity of one of the main contributors should set alarm bells ringing: Rob Crowther, who according to the website "holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist," That's right, he's a spin-doctor by profession and proud of it. This is unashamed advocacy intended only to promote intelligent design.
But that really isn't the only one I think is inappropriate. For instance, while William Dembski is an important figure within the Intelligent Design movement, I don't really think it's appropriate to include a link to his blog in the external links of this article. Perhaps in William Dembski, but here I think it gives undue weight to his views as written on his personal website (rather than his academic work and his books). I feel that this is simply a matter of incongruity, a bit like including a link to a personal website belonging to Stephen Hawking in the article about black holes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony, I don't think anyone has ever complained that the ELs are too pro-ID :)
I think you have a point with evolutionnews.com. With regards to Dembski's blog - I'm not sure if there really is a good distinction between the personal opinions of the main ID proponents and "official" ID. But yeah, I see your point. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if you say this is a first, I'm frankly surprised. It looks to me as if the effect of editing down the years has been to produce something resembling an atttempt at "balancing the pros against the cons". There really are quite a lot of bare links to advocacy sites there (I'm referring particularly to the pro-ID ones; there are one or two links there that also seem to be there solely attack ID, such as talkorigins.org, a very broad-ranging website that happens to contain many anti-ID articles.)
Don't misunderstand me: I'm definitely not saying that the Discovery Institute, ARN, ISCID and whatnot shouldn't be covered in an article on ID. I am simply saying that if as now we include, outside the article body and the references, a bare link to a website, we should be especially careful to ensure that the effect isn't inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
I note that ARN, Discovery Institute, etc, are cited quite a lot within the article where they are relevant reliable sources for statements about ID and about their members and themselves. This I consider appropriate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if any guidelines are violated but I agree that some of these are extreme. Wouldn't it be better to link to an article in an established magazine setting forth the case for ID?--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand this undo, given here by difference

["Made up" information userfied to User talk:Doug youvan HrafnTalkStalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ]

I would suggest we look into Minsky and Vinge. Doug youvan (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"I would suggest" that you first establish (i) what the heck 'Minsky and Vinge' is and (ii) what possible relevance it has to the article. HrafnTalkStalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see: http://www.panspermia.org/thirdalt.htm and references within that article and others that branch from the root webpage. Doug youvan (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia . It appears this ID article neglects contributions from the 5th century BC through Arrhenius to Crick and Hoyle. Doug youvan (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am getting heartily sick of this irrelevant disruption. Either cough up WP:RSs (which neither the panspermia site nor wikipedia itself are) showing how this is relevant, or stop posting this crap. HrafnTalkStalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of policies

Doug youvan, as set out in WP:TALK this page is for discussing improvements to the article, and is not for speculative original research which you seem to be proposing. The article is about intelligent design in its modern meaning with all points verified from reliable sources. The questions you raise about possible antecedents are already covered in reasonable detail in the intelligent design#Origins of the concept and intelligent design#Origins of the term sections. If you feel that more detail is needed, you must provide verification that a suitable expert authority has described that detail as relating specifically to intelligent design. Something you think looks similar cannot be included, as that would be original research which Wikipedia policy excludes. Please set out your detailed proposals with the required sources on this talk page for discussion before editing the article, or your changes are likely to be reverted. You may find it best to work up your ideas in your userspace before exposing them to scrutiny and criticism. . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. I had assumed "good faith" meant cooperation between editors on an article's Talk page before a new editorial effort was mounted. My assumption was wrong. Sorry. Doug youvan (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIntelligent_design&diff=218385656&oldid=218337319 Doug youvan (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)