Talk:Intelligent design

	Article-specific editing notes.
Please read before starting: 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. Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: 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: NPOV: Pseudoscience and related fringe theories NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". 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). 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.
Important pointers for new editors: 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#Theories and hypotheses. 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. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below or use the searchbox below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Moved "Controversy" section to its own article (finally)

Hey guys, sorry it took me so long to do this. I meant to do it months ago, but it must've slipped my mind. I blame the holidays! :P Anyway, the new article Intelligent design and science is created and I see some reference errors in the summary information in the ID article. I am fixing this now. Please make sure to take a look at this section and the new article and make sure I haven't goofed anything up. Thanks a lot, and I apologize again for my extreme tardiness. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations are fixed. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Clean up Discovery Institute description at beginning of article

This article says that the Discovery Institute SUPPORTS teaching Intelligent Design in the class room. I do not see ANY reference in citation 15 about the Discovery Institute explicitly saying they support teaching ID in the class room. They very well could have, but there is nothing that shows that from this particular reference. It either needs to be removed or you need to find the actual reference that says this. For the time being the DI's education policy suggests otherwise. Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy Pkl728 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone who believes anything to be true not want that to be taught? The entire Kitzmiller trial was about ID being taught in schools and DI was heavily involved in that. If the trial isn't already being used as a reference then I'm sure it would work. By the way, their policy on the matter does not say they don't support ID being taught in the class room, it says they don't think it should be required. Of course this is irrelevant since the supreme court has ruled that it can't be taught. N^oformation ^Talk 20:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pkl728, in addition to Noformation's comments, the lead actually doesn't need any references whatsoever, and should stand as a summary for the entire article. The reference you pointed out supports the direct quote in the same sentence, not the claim that the DI advocates teaching ID in schools. Furthermore, if you read the first sentence of the Teach the Controversy article, you'll see more or less the same claim, supported by six different references. I think we can leave this alone. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even realize it was the lede he was talking about otherwise I would have just said that. So yeah, what Misterdub said. N^oformation ^Talk 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) AFAICT, the lead doesn't say the DI supports teaching ID. It says the DI supported its teaching during the Kitzmiller trail. See the conclusion of the trail for sourcing. See also the Wedge Document. Given especially their history, we can't use a primary source like the DI to combat reliable ones.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's what I'm saying. Where does the source that is attributed to that line say that DI supported teaching that? All I see is that the school board consulted with them but it doesn't even say about what? I might just be ignorant here, but your sourcing is making it hard to follow where your accusations are coming from. Pkl728 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See the first 6 refs in Teach the Controversy. The main point of the DI is to promulgate the lie that ID is science and that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools. Again, why would anyone who believes anything to be true not want that to be taught? N^oformation ^Talk 22:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@Pk1728, see page 28, 68, and 100, among others. The quotes there are clear and direct. I'm happy to answer legitimate questions, but you've now been provided with 8 sources (2 from me, 6 from Noformation) which were readily available in the article. Please read those sources carefully. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mann_jess Thank you for attempting to provide me with sources to look at! I followed up and clicked on the links and read through the pages, and none of those say that the Discovery Institute is trying to get ID as a school curriculum. It looks like, as mentioned above, they are saying that the flaws of the Evolution Theory should be taught. Is that a bad thing? I still don't see any source material for this quote that is on the main page. Pkl728 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Pkl728, is teaching fake "flaws" to promote a particular religious view a "bad thing"? It's specifically found to be unconstitutional in the Kitzmiller judgement, read through the whole document. Note that they shifted their position during the trialc from teaching explicit ID to teach the controversy, hence the past tense, but as ID is essentially a negative argument against evolutionary science with a false duality (science hasn't an answer for this specific problem, therefore The Designer, hallowed be his unnamed name, is The Answer) it's still promoting ID. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dave souza Well that's a highly deceptive question. If you focus, like they are suggesting, on problems with the theory, how does that promote a particular religious view? If Evolution is false... Supernatural is true? Is that what you are saying? I hope you aren't admitting that if the theory of Evolution has potential flaws that if those flaws are proven to be true then you should accept Jesus Christ as your savior? That is quite the leap. There truly are many things about the theory of Evolution (in terms of abiogenesis and macroevolution) that are highly questionable. Perhaps science will figure something out, but at this point I'm doubting it with all the time that has been available thus far. But once again you are getting off track and making an inference that I don't think is true. Once again I will ask... Do any of these pages explicitly say that the DI thinks that ID should be taught in the class room? The only thing I've seen is that the school board consulted with the DI at one point, but it didn't say in regards to what. You are making a statement of fact with no evidence to support what you are saying. Here is your argument....

1. The DI believes in Intelligent Design.

2. The DI advocates teaching flaws with the Theory of Evolution.

3. Therefore, the DI advocates teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom.

This does not look like a sound argument to me. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkl728 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Pkl728, the dichotomy is not dave souza's, but the DI's. They have a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" which has the purpose of discrediting evolution and promoting ID:

“

Forget intelligent design, [leaders of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture] argued, with its theological implications. Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it. [...] But what the center calls a compromise, most scientists call a creationist agenda that's couched in the language of science.

”

Source

The DI may not explicitly state they want ID taught in schools, but they are certainly presenting it as the only alternative to biological evolution. This is clear from our secondary sources. Furthermore, the DI is known to misrepresent their intentions in order to push their agenda. Hell! The whole concept of ID is really just a ruse to teach Christianity's special creation in US public school science classes. These facts are also clear from our secondary sources. It doesn't matter what you or I think about ID or evolution--and abiogenesis is not within evolution's scope, by the way--the only thing that matters is what the sources state. The sources are very clear that ID is intentionally disingenuous as to their stated goals and are pretending a controversy over evolution exists for the express purpose of teaching ID/creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, this source shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label. The "controversy" is ID, therefore teaching the controversy is teaching ID. This is what the sources say and what must be represented in this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@MisterDub This is starting to get ridiculous. If I'm supposed to swallow that many peer-reviewed papers (from the other section [design and science]) that are pro-ID don't count as peer-reviewed papers for ID because they don't explicitly say "Intelligent Design" in the article then you can't make the argument that this statement is valid because you've still shown me no source of where the DI said that they support teaching ID in the class room. You just said it yourself... "The DI may not explicitly state they want ID taught in schools..." but by golly, I'm going to imply that they do. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. You are still making the same flawed argument with no actual support. You are inferring things based on a bias against the DI. I'm still of the opinion that this needs to be removed.Pkl728 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And you're still wrong. Secondary sources are preferred over primary ones, so we don't need the DI's explicit endorsement of it. Please see below for dave souza's excellent comment containing even more sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Page 69 :-) . . dave souza, talk 22:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dave souza Once again not a source for what you are explaining. The page you have linked basically states that the DI believes that ID is a better explanation and that they would like to have it supplant Evolution Theory at some point. This still doesn't mean that they are for teaching ID in the classroom as the section in question suggests. Pkl728 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

See below, as you don't seem to have noticed phase III: pursuing possible legal assistance “in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.” . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula

The above section discusses the lead statement that the DI and its CSC "advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula" which they did. They also began denying that, and claiming they just wanted to teach the Controversy by introducing ID anti-evolution texts in schools, an argument that caused some amusement when they repeated this denial, and were shown a copy of Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook by DI Fellow Dewolf, and CSC Director Meyer.

That book is dated 1999, during a 2003–2004 attempt to include "intelligent design" in the science curriculum it emerged that the the Discovery Institute was increasingly disavowing any desire to have "intelligent design" taught in the public schools and concentrating instead on "teaching the controversy". However, Dewolf told the board, "I believe that a careful review of the legal implications of this policy would reveal that it is fully consistent with state educational requirements, and that there is no reason to fear that it would violate any constitutional restrictions." He added that even if a lawsuit were to be filed, "there are a variety of organizations who are committed to open discussion in this area and who I believe would agree to defend the board's position if it were to adopt this policy. I personally would volunteer to assist the board in identifying such counsel."

By an odd coincidence, early in 2004 Seth Cooper, an attorney with the Discovery Institute contacted Buckingham of Dover School Board and they "discussed the legality of teaching ID and gaps in Darwin’s theory. Late in the 2003-04 school year, Baksa arranged for the science teachers to watch a video from the Discovery Institute entitled “Icons of Evolution” and at a subsequent point, two lawyers from the Discovery Institute made a legal presentation to the Board in executive session." At some point before late July 2004, Buckingham contacted the Thomas More Law Center for legal advice, accepted their offer of legal representation and first learned of the creationist textbook Pandas. Which was long associated with the DI's leading lights, inc. Behe. However in December 2004 the DI's CSC announced "When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools. What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory", a quick backpedal to strengths and weaknesses which despite bravado from DI fellows did not stand up in court.

By 2007 Meyer and another DI fellow were at it again: "A US Supreme Court decision allows teachers to teach biology in a way that incorporates 'a variety of scientific theories…with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.' The new supplemental textbook Explore Evolution, when coordinated with other materials, empowers teachers and students to better fulfill these public educational goals." Once again, a supplemental textbook promoted to schools but oh no we don't want it taught in school. Anyway, the lead statement correctly uses the past tense, detail of their obfuscation can go in the body text. . dave souza, talk 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The "keep it" arguments I see above seem to be "no source says that they advocate teaching ID, but such can be deduced from what is in the sources" . That is synthesis/OR and not allowed in Wikipedia. Second, if it is glaringly obvious from the sources, then shouldn't be glaringly obvious from the sourced material in the article without editors having to synthesize and state it? Or am I missing something? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Only a moron could look at the DI's Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook and not conclude, from the title alone, that they want it taught in public schools. I must have missed the part where we are required to put on our moron hats before we edit this article. Raul654 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@ North8000, you don't seem to have read the above sources very thoroughly. For example, from a DI fellow and the CSC director, "teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover... school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence." . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the supposed OR is not mine. I gave the source equating "Teach the Controversy" and ID, the author of which is Nick Matzke. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To Dave Souza. You are right I didn't read them thoroughly. What I DID look at is that, until your last post, nobody pointed out where any source said that they advocated teaching ID. Now you have done that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@ North8000, as Raul654 pointed out; Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook does rather imply that they advocated teaching ID, sorry you missed the connection and weren't inspired to click the link before commenting. .dave souza, talk 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but superficial me did thoroughly read the 1,000 words of the talk section, which was the subject of my comment.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Always glad to assist. As a quick and simple source, have added Page 69 which notes how the Wedge Strategy Phase III includes pursuing possible legal assistance “in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.” . . dave souza, talk 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Denialism category

While the pseudoscience does seem to fit here (widely-used descriptor that is used neutrally), the "denialism" category seems inappropriate and POV. As ID rests on a religious belief to say it is "denialism" in effect says the underlying belief is denialism. The pseudoscience category is more than sufficient. I see no need to pile on with any debunking category editors can come up with.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources describe it as such, why shouldn't we? Yobol (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yobol, do we have sources that call it denialism? I can understand how ID can be said to be a denial of evolution and it certainly seems to fit the definition of denialism from the Wiki page, but do we have sources for this? I've read Richard Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, which, to the best of my knowledge, was the first and only time such a charge has been issued against ID, but are there secondary sources mentioning this claim? I wouldn't think this one, primary source would be enough to justify inclusion to the category. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just C&Ping explanation from creationism talk page. Change terms as appropriate.

This isn't an article about theism. It's about creationism, a belief that runs directly opposed to evolution. It is, essentially, denial of scientific evidence of evolution. Regardless, categories are there because the article might be of interest to people who are interested in that category. The LGBT category would be appropriate on, for example, the article about Benedict XVI, not because he's gay, but because he has teachings directly related to the LGBT community. By putting this article in the denialism category, we are not saying that creationism IS denialism. Rather it saying that creationism may be a subject of interest to those interested in denialism. Farsight001 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I follow your logic, but it doesn't seem compatible with policy. Categorization is so byzantine, however, I may be mistaken. Yopienso (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Pope is not in the LGBT category, and I guess that wouldn't fly. Yopienso (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and also "Categorization must be verifiable: it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" (source). So, do we have sources verifying this? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Source 140 notes the Council of Europe report that notes "denial of evolution of species"; other sources that explicitly link ID and denialism include the NCSE, book about HIV denialism, book about general denialism, book about climage change denialism...Yobol (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources aren't the end-all be-all of a discussion. You can find sources to justify pretty much any position you want an article to state. Sometimes material can be verified, but is still not worthy of inclusion because it is not neutral. Categories don't have caveats about what you mean or where it applies. They are essentially labels for a subject in the editorial voice. As such, care should be taken when using them to avoid NPOV issues. As ID is tied up in the religious belief about a god creating life as we know it, the article is skewed towards a certain point of view when it is categorized as denialism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources, Yobol. It sounds like the category is fitting to me.

The Devil's Advocate, if reliable sources aren't "the end-all be-all of a discussion," then how else do we decide into which categories to place articles? What other criteria ought we to consider? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How about WP:NPOV? I mean, that's a pretty important aspect of Wikipedia. That is provided separately from WP:V for a reason. Neutrality and verifiability are not interchangeable. Being able to verify it as a notable claim is not the same as proving it worthy of inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring what independent reliable sources say about a subject to satisfy preconceived editorial biases seems to me to be the very essence of a NPOV violation. Yobol (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course RSs end debate; Yobol's NCSE document is definitive. Yopienso (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

@Devil's Advocate: The NCSE is a mainstream source that is considered neutral. Since it is an advocacy organization, I realize that could make a reasonable person call it biased, but for WP purposes, it is neutral because it reflects--and, yes, advocates--the mainstream scientific thought.

Also, please post comments in chronological order. If you are responding to a specific editor, you may do so as I just did. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I was not saying anything about the source being neutral or not. The category is not neutral. Neutrality isn't something that has to be verified since we usually understand what it means. Simply think about what the term suggests. If the suggestion is more of an argument than a statement of fact, it is not neutral. Here it suggests that people who believe the world is too complicated to have been the result of anything but divine intervention are not rational. Maybe you feel that to be the case, but it is no different than saying people who believe in God are crazy. Whether it is what you intend to suggest is not relevant either. The reader is not going to know what you intend to say.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is not about "people who believe the world is too complicated to have been the result of anything but divine intervention". It is about the deliberate attempt to teach religion as science in US public schools. The sources are pretty clear.  — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Denialism is a WP category that has already passed muster; neutrality questions do not apply. Creationism and intelligent design do deny that evolution--the mainstream scientific theory of the origin of species--is true. This fact implies nothing about how rational their proponents may or may not be, but merely identifies their denial of the most widely accepted explanation of the diversity of life. (Some individuals may believe deniers are irrational, but that opinion is not intrinsic to the term.) Yopienso (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, what you intend the category to mean is quite irrelevant. Categories do not come with caveats. It does not say "denialism (with respect to evolution)" but instead says "denialism" and nothing more. ID is first and foremost a claim that a divine being created the universe and life as we know it. So, one could easily interpret the denialism category as saying anyone who believes in some form of divine creation is denying reality. You can say "that's not what it is saying" but you really are only arguing that is not what you intend for it to say. Whether you intend to say it or not, that it can be easily taken as saying that means the category should not be included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@TDA, Intelligent design is not "believing in divine creation"; intelligent design is the denial of Evolution. That's it. Full stop. We have a plethora of sources indicating this, including proponents of ID themselves, who vehemently deny any attachment to anything "divine". The category fits because sources say it fits, that's the best we can do.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the only consideration. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Something can be perfectly verifiable but still unacceptable because of NPOV considerations. You ask any regular person what Intelligent Design is about they will probably respond that it claims the universe/life must have had a divine creator (the lede says this outright). If you then tell them that ID is denialism, do you think they will perceive your remark as meaning it denies evolution? No, they will perceive the denialism label as suggesting that the idea of God creating life and/or the universe is false.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, the lead takes the definition of ID directly from the Discovery Institute: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" (emphasis added). It is therefore, by definition, a denial of the modern evolutionary synthesis over which there is no controversy in the mainstream scientific community. There is nothing NPOV about this; it's a fact. If readers don't understand why this is a fact because they have a different perception about ID, they should read the article and find out what ID actually is. We cannot cover all of people's (mis)perceptions here, let alone with the inclusion/exclusion of a single category... nor must we. Our duty as editors is to represent the sources accurately, not to hold the hands of readers. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at that quote more carefully. It says "certain features of the universe" and a process "such as" evolution by natural selection. It was clearly not limiting the definition to evolution, but including other aspects of the universe and science. Also, this wording does not say evolution is wrong, only that it does not believe this was the result of an "undirected process" as opposed to a process directed by a divine being.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Those "certain features of the universe" are biological, and evolution by natural selection is one of the two undirected processes with which the DI takes issue (the other being abiogenesis). That definition, taken in the utmost strictest sense, doesn't limit their scope to evolution, but their modus operandi, as recorded by many secondary sources, is attacking evolution. Just look at their public campaign to "Teach the Controversy," which wrongfully claims that a scientific controversy exists over whether or not evolution is true. Also, ID is not theistic evolution, which views evolution as a guided process; ID proponents are expressly evolution-deniers. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The material regarding the "fine-tuned universe" claim strongly demonstrates it is not just about biology.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're saying they're not denialist because their denial has fuzzy boundaries? So it denies physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. in addition to refuting evolution. Big surprise. The disciplines of science are interconnected. The most compelling evidence of evolution itself are from interdisciplinary or completely unrelated fields altogether which themselves have to be refuted in turn. For example, C-14 dating, stratigraphy, plate tectonics, animal husbandry, artificial life simulation programs, astronomy, population genetics, etc. If anything else it only strengthens their being denialist - "various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence".

That in addition to all the hallmarks of denialism:

• Conspiracy theories - Mainstream science and the government are silencing ID proponents by not allowing Christian creationism to be taught at schools! Think of the children!
• Cherry picking - Oh the coelacanth is alive despite its entire group being presumed to be extinct! That single error naturally proves that the fossil record is false. Or does it? Or how about the Cambrian explosion. Nobody knows what caused it, therefore it must be divine! Proof at last! Completely ignoring the pretty clear evidence of succession in the rest of the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic and Cenozoic besides of course.
• False experts - Thaxton is a physical chemist, Dembski is a mathematician, Snoke is a physicist, etc. the closest thing to an actual biologist is Behe, and he's a biochemist. And not particularly brilliant at that.
• Moving the goalpost - Show me the transitional groups between tetrapods and fish. Oh you've found Tiktaalik? Show me the transitional groups between Tiktaalik and tetrapods then!

And no. WP:NPOV relies on WP:V I'm afraid. It's how you determine due weight in the first place. It's mentioned right in the lead of WP:NPOV: "These three core policies (including WP:OR) jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another"

Oh, and like what everyone else have been saying, ID is not theistic evolution. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sorry, but WP:NPOV is not dependent on WP:V. The policies aren't isolated (I wasn't suggesting they were), but they don't have a tiered relationship either. WP:V does not trump WP:NPOV. Just because you can "prove" something does not mean you can include it if the effect skews the page towards a certain POV, intentionally or unintentionally. Pseudoscience is a perfectly suitable category that already covers all the issues you mention above. Denialism just has the effect of implying the core belief of ID is false, that a divine entity created all we know.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@TDA, you're not presenting any new arguments, and your past arguments have not gained traction to form consensus. "The category causes offense": WP:NOTCENSORED; "The category isn't representative of ID": WP:V; "The category isn't neutral": WP:RNPOV, WP:DUE. You need to present new sources, otherwise this boils down to WP:IDHT, which is tendentious. It's time to move on. (Unless high quality secondary reliable sources are presented, I probably won't be back)   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you're one of those people who always confuse WP:NPOV with equal validity. Please read the entire policy again. Do not merely assume that because "NPOV" begins with "neutral", that we automatically give equal weight to every mutually contradictory idea. Skewing is not forbidden nor is it a bad thing. NPOV is actually a policy that dictates how to skew articles in the right way, a way that coincides with weight given to the topic in reliable sources. And reliable sources is WP:V. If the most reliable sources view it as denialist, it is denialist.

And how many times must you be told that ID is not theistic evolution? Its "core beliefs" are irrelevant, what matters is its goals and its tactics. One of the most vocal opponents of ID is the Catholic Church, which does believe that a divine entity created all we know, but also does not deny verifiable empirical findings on specious grounds as ID does. The latter is not denialist, the former is. See the difference now? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing anything. You all are apparently thinking that satisfying WP:V means WP:NPOV no longer applies, but that is not how it works. You can have hundreds of reliable sources saying one thing, but still violate policy by stating it in the editorial voice. "Denialism" provided as a category does not clarify that it is denialism for denying evolution or whatever else you say it is denying. You are expecting readers to make that connection for you, which is the problem. Readers will make their own connections and some of those connections will be that this category is saying people who believe God created everything are in denial. Saying "well that's not the correct connection to make and surely every reader will know what we are talking about" is not a valid argument. I am not saying that the term denialism should be "censored" from the article, just that the category is inappropriate because it doesn't describe what aspects of the subject constitute denialism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Advocate, you are talking to a wall. What these people don't at all care about is the tone of the article. It is not an article about ID, it is an article against ID and it makes no attempt to gloss over that. Specifically adding denialism to the tone of the article is just more of the same: Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.

These editors that own the article deny that some authors outside of the Discovery Institute, who might count themselves as theistic evolutionists, have referred to the term and some concepts of ID as teleology. These authors would include John Polkinghorne, Freeman Dyson, Owen Gingerich. But these editors insist that only Discovery Institute defines what the term means and they deny that these other authors are significant. And then since the DI is in denial about what they are doing, they use that to color the entire term and everyone who ascribes to teleology. It's sorta like racism where some people have witnessed, or been victimized, or have watched on television that some people of a particular race have committed acts of violence, even directed to persons of other races. Then they conclude that all people of that race must be violent or criminal.

Not all people who are theists, not all people who believe in teleological explanations of reality, are in denial of reality, but the editors that own this article want to make sure that the reader understands that these people are in denial. They want to leave no doubt.

Even though many people at many times have pointed out the non-neutral tone and some non-neutral content of the article, these editors continue to deny it. They reinforce their denialism by awarding themselves featured article status, thus lifting this article above reproach. They also get rid of any editor that steadfastly stands up to them and the obvious bias in the article. 71.169.183.160 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that wonderful WP:SOAPBOX, IP. Are we done now?

The Devil's Advocate, it is clear where consensus lies. If you don't like the result, you can seek an outside opinion. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To The DA and the IP: some of your comments are factual, and I'm thinking particularly of the reference to Polkinghorne, et al, but they don't apply to this article. I had the same misunderstanding when I first here, thinking it was about a broad concept, whereas it is of an extremely narrow subject: This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute. That's right at the top of the article. So, even though other individuals use the term "ID," that's not what this article is about. The DI does deny that evolution, as taught by mainstream science, is correct: Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false. In context:

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection—which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false. Its persists in spite of the evidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend it with theological arguments about creation and design suggests that its persistence has nothing to do with science at all. Yopienso (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)