Talk:Intelligent design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Emblem-important.svg
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:

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.

Help-browser.svg

Important pointers for new 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#Theories and hypotheses.
  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. 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.
  5. Please peruse the FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID).

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Featured article 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 so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles
Four groups


sources in middle of first sentence[edit]

For the word "pseudoscience" in the middle of the first sentence (an unusual place, so the sources are really there for that one word) we show two sources. As these were inserted after my analysis of other sources in the lead a few years ago, I read them and checked what they really say:

  1. Boudry, M.; Blancke, S.; Braeckman, J. (2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience". The Quarterly Review of Biology 85 (4): 473–82. https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=952482&fileOId=1088809
  2. Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design" (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 160–186. http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf

The talkpage however needs more discussion about what real sources really say. So I note the following...

  • 1. Boudry.
  • This article use the word "pseudoscience" twice, once in the title and once in the opening sentence. In the body (as opposed to the title) the word is specifically referring to the term "Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC)", which is a term that is clearly being used with consideration and care. (On WP when we see care being taken in difficult terminology, our ears should prick up, because such sources are more specifically relevant to definitional questions.) The only place where the term "intelligent design" is apparently used to refer to this "IDC" is the title, but...
  • Looking at the term "intelligent design" in the body it is contrasted with this term as something which IDC folk claim to be able to see specifically "in nature" (the words "intelligent design in nature" appear more than once in the article, and this way of using the term is constant). It seems clear therefore that the WP article is closest in topic to what Boudry calls IDC, whereas what Boudry tends to use the term "ID" for is for something which people claim to see evidence of in nature.
  • Generally of course titles of articles are not considered good sources for things like definitions, especially if the body of the article is different!
  • 2. Pigliucci.
  • Uses the word "pseudoscience" 5 times. On every occasion the term is used in contrast to "science", and the author is explaining that his own book is about exploring the differences between the two, using those words (which is apparently unusual). In this respect the author says that the Kitzmiller case in America was also exploring this question (although most sources do not use that word). So like Boudry et al, this author uses the word "pseudoscience" in the context of the intelligent design creationist movement. Several times he simply writes "pseudoscience (creationism)".
  • Concerning the term "intelligent design" however, this author clearly does not see it as well defined. He sometimes uses it as a term for creationism or a movement within creationism, indeed he says it is "simply a religious position, not substantially different from standard creationism". He also sometimes uses it for something people claim to see evidence of "in nature" (those exact words once again, same as in Boudry).

My impressions:

  • Pigliucci is one of the closest sources we have to the wording and definition choices we have for this article in WP. But we still have no single source which says "intelligent design" means a specific "strategy" of the creationists, which is what regular editors of this article have claimed the word normally means, and what this article should be about on WP.
  • In fact, both these sources raise the old question of whether this article should be merged to Intelligent Design Movement, and Intelligent Design converted into a WP:BROADCONCEPT article:
  • Firstly because both articles, when they equate "intelligent design" to "pseudoscience" are making it clear that this is precisely what they mean: the creationist movement, which has at least 3 articles on WP.
  • Secondly because these authors clearly see "Intelligent Design" as a less clear term with several meanings even within the context of a discussion of that movement. (And this is a pattern we have seen in basically all sources.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Andrew, come away from that horse, it's not just dead, it's a pile of dried out old bones. - Nick Thorne talk 11:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments on talk pages should not be directed at a person, and so construed as personal. Comments should add content to the discussion about an article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment may not be seen by some as constructive in terms of building content, but on a topic like this, that might be a matter of opinion: it's not unusual to cite WP:DEADHORSE especially where WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI are concerned. This is a clear example of argumentum ad infinitum, and given the policies in place and the consensus of editors and administrators on the matter.... I don't think a request to drop the stick was out of order. It's just my opinion, but I see this as a red herring argument. Thus (as a third party with no previous involvement), I don't think referring to the user making that argument, irrespective of their history with one another, was out of line whatsoever. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but what are you talking about? Above is a post about two sources which now play a more prominent role in this article than last time I posted anything here, which was maybe a year ago. Which dead horse? Which consensus? Which red herring? Which administrators? I think I have never been contacted by any administrators concerning this article except for ones who are in discussion with me as involved editors. Indeed I am not really the type of editor who normally receives warnings from admins. Furthermore if you have no previous involvement it seems odd that you would suddenly write a post here which seems to claim a detailed knowledge of past discussions I have been involved with on this talkpage? But let it be known there is a long history of disruptive posts on this talkpage, and Nick Thorne's editing record with respect to my posts should be looked at if you want to have your opinion taken seriously. You can't just say that because citing "dead horse" is sometimes acceptable it is always acceptable can you?
I suggest that if anyone thinks the above reading of the two mentioned sources, and comparison to the way we are using them, is wrong, the best thing to do is just explain that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster, please calm down. I wasn't even addressing you in that comment (which should be obvious), and was giving an opinion only respective to Isambard's statement and actions regarding Nick Thorne's comment. Specifically, this was regarding the refactoring and removal of his comment on the basis of it being a personal attack, which it was not. I never claimed a knowledge of your history with one another. In fact, I was specifically saying that whether given context or not, such a comment was simply a criticism, and its removal not warranted. No one was warned; Isambard was reverted by an admin for his repeated removal of the user's comment, versus your isolated removal which was reverted by the Nick Thorne himself; which was subsequently undone by Isambard. I restored the comment, and tried to show good form by making a comment here. There's nothing "odd" about it, I claimed no special knowledge, and was not addressing you. Context doesn't matter. This was specifically about how inappropriate it was to refactor another user's comment. As far as consensus, you can clearly see that here on the talk page and in the archives (which I read), where it is discussed ad nauseam; hence the probable reference to a deceased equine by that user. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Quinto Simmaco you have a strange way of saying that you make no claims about the history of the case, and that you do not think context is important. You are still implying that Nick made a criticism, which is the same one that someone made in the past, and that "admins" did or said something about. That is history/context. What was "it" then, when you say "it is discussed"?? Give a diff. It sure ain't in any post of Nick Thorne? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
..I honestly found this quite difficult to follow. What case? I've already clarified my comment, which wasn't even addressed to you, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything Nick said previously to you. You seem to have some axe to grind, but it certainly isn't with me. And neither will I waste my time pulling out diffs for the many times the use of the term pseudoscience was discussed throughout the history of this talk page [by a variety of people] (the "it"). If you're interested, go look. As I said just prior, I came to this talk page only to respond to Isambard, in order to explain my revert, because it was the proper thing to do. And then I responded to you in the interest of being civil. I try my best to use good form, listen to others, and contribute positively. That's also the only reason I responded to you in the first place, despite the fact that I wasn't even really commenting on anything you said. Nothing I said was unclear, or even cause for disagreement. When you asked me to clarify a word (such as "consensus" and "it", both of which were obvious from what I was saying), I did so, once again, to be civil with you. Which I now regret, since you're seeing contention where there is none. I have no idea why you're doing this, but I'm not going to indulge a battlefield mentality. Please leave me out of whatever issues you have with other editors. I have none with you, and if I was even remotely interested before, I certainly don't want to weigh in on your dispute now. Apologies to you and others, by the way, for the confusing indentation. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
QS, neither your first post, nor Nick Thorne's post, mentions past debates about the term "pseudoscience", and nor does my post in any way deny that the sources use the term pseudoscience to refer to one of the things known as "intelligent design". So no of course you were not clear. Maybe you had other communications which are not on this talk page? Nick Thorne's post was in fact a deliberate harassment of me personally, contained nothing on topic (despite what you say), and is part of a pattern of such behaviour, as I have pointed out to him on his talkpage. I still can not understand why you would defend such a post. Your comments about admins are also still unexplained, and I have to point out that bullshit stories about vaguely defined authorities maybe about to step in and do something are far too common on this talk page. Of course you should expect to be questioned for making such remarks loosely and not being able to back them up, because that looks like intimidation. Why would you do it in the first place? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope; both sources show ID to be pseudoscience. YoPienso (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Both sources are clear that ID is pseudoscience, and if they weren't, there are a plethora of others we could use instead. And yes, this has been beaten to death.   — Jess· Δ 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
There have been massive distortions and disruptions of what I say on this talkpage, so please be careful. I did not say that the two sources deny "intelligent design" (in the sense of a form of creationism) is a pseudoscience. Indeed I have never argued against "intelligent design" creationism is something never referred to as a pseudoscience? Above, I reported that these sources make it clear in context that they are referring to "creationism". (I think it is not controversial even on this talk page to admit that the term has some other meanings, especially it is arguably most often the common term for teleological arguments, so why would that not be important to double check?) And I reminded about an old concern which BTW I have never actually proposed that we act on, which is that it seems impossible to define a boundary between this article and the intelligent design movement article, or one of or all of the several articles about neocreationism. The reality of my talk page activity here is that it has been an interest of mine to see if editors here can define a clear boundary (see WP:MERGE, WP:POVFORK etc). So far, the clearest reply I ever received was saying that this article is about a "strategy", as mentioned above. So it seems entirely relevant to point out that we still have no source for that. (So that particular subject is not "beaten to death".) That's the facts. I recommend that people posting accusations about the past edits of people here make sure they can show diffs to prove it. Even better, just stick to replying on topic and don't write about editors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I'm intentionally not addressing the suggestion that ID is something different than creationism, because, again, that issue has been beaten to death. Sources would be necessary for that claim, and if you believe it's not actionable, then it's not worth discussing anyway.   — Jess· Δ 17:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are saying. What were you addressing then? In what way was your post a relevant reply to anything I posted? Perhaps can we agree that ID in this article is about creationism (indeed "Intelligent Design Creationism") even though ID can also have other meanings? (For example, in the articles mentioned here, it can refer to something many religious people, including these creationists, claim to see evidence of "in nature".) I would not see it as useless to at least get that clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop bloviating. The hatnote and lede clearly identify the "ID" with which this article deals as a form of creationism. YoPienso (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Folks, can we please keep the discussion relevant to the article? I think Andrew is expressing interesting and worthwhile points. Some might disagree with those points, but if you do, then please respond to those points. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? My response was straight to the point: Andrew begged that "we agree that ID in this article is about creationism," but that agreement is explicit in the hatnote and lede, as I indicated. YoPienso (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Bloviating" is not constructive, and not straight to the point. No. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I got straight to the point that bloviating is not constructive. You don't like it called beating a dead horse, either. Too bad. I also directly addressed Andrew's most recent question about whether ID is creationism. Your carping isn't constructive, so please desist. YoPienso (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso, I would think you know that one particular interest of mine is trying to delineate the different meanings of "intelligent design" used in reliable sources, and compare to the different meanings which Wikipedia explains, and also the articles Wikipedia puts them into. So in this example, the two sources above both use the term in at least two ways. One of them clearly shows a preferred "technical term" (Intelligent Design Creationism), when it wants to be clear (which WP, controversially over many years, does not do). We need to check if we are using quotes from sources when they are using the term in the same way we are in this article, not confusing ourselves or our readers, and also not creating exactness which is not in the sources. Also:

  • I believe that the long term debates on this talk page, at least the main ones, are caused by two things: one is this problem of multiple meanings, which is a common issue and should demand constant detailed discussion and constant thought, and the second problem is that the talkpage is unusually badly hampered by editors who for whatever reason feel that on this article it is acceptable to disrupt, and even argue openly that rationales should not be discussed on this talkpage.
  • Coming back to your remark that the article is "obviously" about creationism, does that not "obviously" mean this article is about the same topic as Intelligent Design Movement, and indeed Neocreationism? If not, why not? Seems worth clarifying! When this subject came up in the past the answer I received was that this article is about a STRATEGY of this creationism. There is no source for that, and there was no resolution on that discussion. I was also looking at these two sources for help on that subject, but found none. So that particular horse is alive.

Eventually (consider WP:DEADLINE), such discussions may lead to a merge proposal for example, or a name-change idea (Intelligent Design Creationism?) or maybe some other solution. Such things can also indirectly lead to less circular discussions such as the ones now and in the past about the opening lines. That is how Wikipedia talk pages should work? I wish a smaller group could be assigned to work on it to be honest.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As I read the two sources you provided, the term "Intelligent Design" has only one meaning, but is used in two different contexts. The first context is theoretical and "Intelligent Design" is a theory of creation as described in this article. The second context is so called evidence in nature. In this context, Intelligent Design as theory informs the user about how the data from nature are to be interpreted. It sounds very circular and unscientific, but that's one of the formal reasons for why Intelligent Design is pseudoscience rather than science. So, as I see it, the authors are not using two different concepts but rather using the same concept in two different context (theory and data). Thus, for now, there is no need to merge or create any new articles. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I am One of Many, without checking again I think both articles use the word "creationism" for what you call a theory? I find your word usage a little unusual also in that you are saying that the creationism and the pattern people see in nature are the "same concept in two different context (theory and data)". Isn't that a complicated way of saying they are two different, but connected, concepts? (One derives from the other, right?) I am not sure if anyone has ever argued that this basic "data" should get its own article. I think it is a quite primary concept, basically the two words still being used with their normal dictionary meanings, not a technical term. So I tend to think it can/should be handled in relevant articles such as both this one and teleological argument. A concern has often been expressed however that there has historically been great resistance to mentioning even the existence of this common usage of the two words, even in those two mentioned articles. That limits our power to explain and WP:BUILD a web of linked information. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Andrew, what I "know"--that is, my perspective--is that one of your particular interests is making overly fine distinctions of terms and sustaining laborious arguments against things you don't like. For me, your comments stir confusion rather than bring clarity.
You may not realize that WP:DEADHORSE means rehashing stuff nobody wants to engage with.
Rest assured my opinions of your comments do not diminish my respect for you as a person. YoPienso (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I think, Yopienso. :) I do realize what deadhorse means, and I don't think it is appropriate to this case. I think the confusion you mention is coming from the disruptors who reinterpret every post I write, and I think the fine points I am trying to discuss are not minor issues but the cause of the endless arguments on this article over many years, including the long periods where I have not posted anything here. If we can only get more a more focused group discussing without the disruptors, then some of those endless arguments might be greatly ameliorated, and the talk pages of whatever articles we end up with might finally be able to fulfill their intended function. The appropriate animal metaphor here is a 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about, not a dead horse. That gorilla is the sourcing problem in the lead, and that sourcing problem is connected to the fact that the two word term "intelligent design" has several uses. We are sticking some together with duct tape, while erasing nearly all mention of others (most notably the teleological argument, which still has arguably the best claim to being the main meaning of "intelligent design" in reliable sources). The practical result is that WP is currently being innovative. Does it not strike you as unusual, compared to other WP articles, how often that editors here get aggressive about saying that something has been discussed here before and should never be discussed again? (And never with diffs or explanations about where these resolutions can be found.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster - re point of "pseudoscience" not matching to the cite given - bottom line is the term didn't come from cites, and is not what the majority of scientific community or media says. It's just that after many years without it some editors were in Talk about the lead and came up with this vague derogatory label in apparent WP:OR, and put up draft about 16:00 on 13 April 2014, then to article on 0900 on 15 April despite a couple detractors in the Talk and seem in denial since then. A couple false citations on top of that just seems to fit right into that. I think the article is irretrievably biased now so being obviously bad seems almost like two wrongs make an almost-right. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I do think (and I have always said so) that pseudoscience is a word that is occasionally used when referring to intelligent design creationism and these sources exemplify that. I do see cause for the following editing question which you may see as relevant to your concern:
  • Is the term common enough, and clear enough in its meaning, to be in the first sentence?
It is rather an uncommon description, and I see no evidence for any widely held consensus on how such a category is defined in serious discussion. (Some of the editors here clearly think that by using the term they are accusing the creationists of dishonesty, but then that accusation would be clearer, and easier to source! Why not just do that? But then of course it is mentioned, just not in the first sentence.)
In a nutshell, your concern that the word was chosen for its emotive impact, rather than to inform, are in my opinion reasonable. You only have to look through the talkpage discussions, and some of the actions made by editors here in various places on Wikipedia, to get that impression.
...So anyway the term is sourceable, but not necessarily a good editing choice.
Something I found useful in the sources is the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" which possibly should be the name of this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster - Other title seems other or subset topic -- but for the topic of bad word has two bogus cites, I think conclusion is the just leave them. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
My opinion at this moment: I think these sources are of reasonable quality and do show the word pseudoscience being applied to one of the things referred to as "Intelligent Design", and specifically being applied to what one of them describes more exactly as "Intelligent Design Creationism". That does seem to be what this article is about. So I don't see the the use of this word as the article's biggest issue as long as it is clear how this article overlaps with other articles and is distinguished from other articles. I have recognized above that I do see valid concerns about whether we are using the term in the best way, which is more about editorial judgment, not sourcing as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster The usage seems the biggest source of dissent and a minor slur outside the normal association for ID to 'creationism'. Creationism in sense of source being creationists or in sense of being a form of creationism, so from just follow the cites that seems the more correct and consistent line and has a bulk of work not alterable by a minor paper much later, but again: Meh.
As for these cites -- I'm not even seeing PSCI clearly in that cite content, but maybe see something else.
  • The Irreducible incoherence is academic in approach and Irreducible Complexity mostly saying creationism in that: "Intelligent Design Creationism", "this species of creationism", refs to "Creationisms Trojan Horse", "Scientific Creationism", etcetera. I see only one line in the intro background that goes the other way "Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) had been one of the most successful pseudosciences of the past two decades, at least when measured in terms of cultural influence."
  • Pigliucci is a chapter of pop snark but also leans to creationism "(ID, a form of creationism)" p161, Pandas and People word creationism, "The conclusion is that intelligent design is simply a religious position, not substantially different from standard creationism" p185. though it also seems to conflate the two "what distinguishes science (evolution) from pseudoscience (creationism)"
  • I'm left thinking it's also a bit of definitional issues and somewhat advocate pettifoggery. I noted there is a terminology issue in the dichotomy of say Numbers - having to bin something, it gets labeled as either Evolutionist or Creationist, without meaning that it is all of either or allowing for something else. Or maybe it's the 'both' flavor of 'both a theory and a fact', which seems Pigliucci conflating creationism with pseudoscience "what distinguishes science (evolution) from pseudoscience (creationism)"
  • again, I think do not change the title -- adding modifier of IDC vs ID makes the appearance of a different topic in normal English usage. The first cite uses "Intelligent Design" in some cases and "Intelligent Design Creationism" in others, not clear why but one would not expect an IC article to necessarily explain that. The second cite uses "intelligent design" a dozen times and IDC abbreviatin 19 times "IDC theory", so also unclear why sometimes one way and some the other. I think it's just an anachronism appearing circa 2010 - long after the main events here -- so would lead to some need to explain the basis of the term. I tend to think it's actually something begun at NCSE as just a practice of always saying "creationism" with ID (just my guess -- I've not seen NCSE explicitly said as such) so when they speak it's IDC, but when they refer to external term or paper its ID. In any case, seems best to just not start a wave of title changes unless the basis is more clear than this.
Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure what your point is overall, but addressing bits and pieces:
  • No it has been shown several times in the past that the term "Intelligent Design" is older than the movement and can be found in past centuries, normally in the context of the argument from design, which is of course an argument that is older than the English language. So it is not an anachronism at all, though clearly the term has been popularized by the movement, and is associated with the movement. (But then again the argument from design is known to most people who know of it only in the context of the movement. However, Wikipedia does not take ignorance, as the standard but tries to inform.) Currently Wikipedia is helping the Intelligent Design Movement promote its myth of a miraculous virgin birth.
  • I am not sure what you intend concerning the word creationism. The way I see it, there are two meanings. The more correct and international meaning is a belief in an intelligent creator which is somehow responsible for nature. (Broadly used, the term allows for big variations in how the creator does this.) The second meaning is a recent American trend whereby the word implies disagreement with the theory of evolution. The Intelligent Design Movement seems to easily come under both definitions?
  • Back on the pseudoscience theme, I did notice that Pigliucci seems to write as if the term pseudoscience creationism is pseudoscience by definition. That opens questions about definitions. Also Pigliucci sometimes seems to say that the term pseudoscience comes from the court cases about science teaching, which it does not as far as I recall. Overall, it is an unusual usage, not typical in the available sources and not really very clear. As I have said a few times, if editors wanted to imply with this word that the movement was accused of dishonesty, then we can just say that. It is sourceable. (But in fact instead Wikipedia is following the movement in at least one of the things it is said to be dishonest about: hiding its roots.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Lancaster
  • My 'anachronism' concern was that IDC postdates ID, so 'anachronism' is that that label and this article content do not occur at same time especially since it's a reversed sequence. All the material and events of this article appear with ID label. Meanings and concepts changed over time, from ID as promulgated by Pandas and the Discovery Institute in the 1990s, so "IDC" seems more a 'after Kitzmiller' article or subarticle on what the newer term/concept is and how it came out. (Though I suspect it may be a triviality, just a NCSE practice to assure always say C along with ID.)
  • Agree there are earlier usages of "intelligent design" from the 19th century, meaning as Darwin used it and in relatively common use 1885-1905, seen in TALK long ago about disambiguation when the article topic said it was ID 'as promulgated by DI' implied other flavors. My try to resolve the fuss that Darwinian usage is not said here was by simply making a separate article -- that was ruled a Fork and killed, and instead the article went with 'as promulgated by DI' made unstated inherent and not having 19th century usages mentioned.
  • Double agree on "creationism" - there's the international definition meaning about religious precepts, and the distinct U.S. usage of labelling within a partisan discussion. I'll highlight that partisan labelling is more extemist in nature -- when evolutionist and creationist are used as a dichotomy of sides, then any lack in participation or presenting of neutral wording and facts could be simply a bin name as the other, and it may also wind up as in attacks unrelated to views. For example: Confirm that Darwin wrote "intelligent Design" - that's 'creationist'. Confirm that Barbara Forrest has a PhD - that's 'evolutionist'. Insist on some rule of order for all - that's 'creationist' from evolutionist view *and* 'evolutionist' from the creationist view. Even words 'evolutionist' 'creationist' can get attacked as both sides play wording games and pettifoggery.  ;-)
  • Pseudoscience - I highlighted Pigliucci items explicitly state what ID is say a form of creationism, and ultimately did not see a clear support except for saying that. The 'what distinguishes science from pseudoscience' line having two parenthesized terms I took as examples being asserted -- implying that evolution is science rather than saying evolution is all of science or that evolution is the definition of science. That it's seems a conflation I took as possible issue. I think the term is a vague slur without clear application, and he as PhD in Philosophy he knows more and could write more clearly than this -- but this is from just a bit of pop snark advocacy rather than academic explanation, so I expect pettifoggery. Again, a couple bogus cites, better to take out the word Pseudoscience and them along with it.
Markbassett (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
you guys are pure forum territory. WP:NOTFORUM. please discuss article content. thanks. 16:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog the above is clearly not just general discussion but directly about this Wikipedia article and the sources it uses. That is what talk pages are for.
@Markbassett,
  • One improvement I do believe we have gotten on this article is that it is no longer specifically only about the DI.
  • Concerning the way in which it appears the word pseudoscience may have been selected for emotive value rather than reflecting what is most commonly seen as definitional in good sources, I tend to agree, and I do not see it as good editing, but it does not concern me as much as some other things.
  • The terms "creationism" and "intelligent design" do have multiple meanings, and to some extent I think this is accepted by most editors who have engaged with this topic. My concern is whether we are letting our readers know it, or are editors here deliberately giving a filtered view, delinking this article (and some of its key terms) from concepts we should be clearly explaining as linked. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)