Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 21

Intro

I've replaced the majority viewpoint deleted from the intro on 13 November by Djewett [1], and I've shortened it a bit. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good work! I like this shortened version much better. The previous version, with the paragraph explaining the scientific method, seemed out of place to me. The specific critisms belonged (and were also found) other places in the article. This version is short and sweet, giving just a short summary of the minority and majority view, and I don't think anyone on either side of the issue would claim it is POV. -Paralle or Together? 04:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an improvement, and neatly balanced at exactly two sentences for each side. FeloniousMonk 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good ant 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with ant. The introduction fairly and accurately represents the intelligent design viewpoint while maintaining NPOV. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. by "intro" I was referring to "Intelligent Design in summary", I forgot about the section preceding this. Wade A. Tisthammer 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RE archived material

This was in response to (and in support of) a comment by FM, now archived

Though nothing in WP policy excludes single-issue editors, it is considered desirable for contributors to gain experience editing articles over a wide range of areas. This experience, for instance, is useful in appreciating how to interpret NPOV as it applies to pseudoscience or minority views. This is particularly applicable if an editor has particularly strong views which he/she thinks are misrepresented. There are remedies, but gratuitously wasting other editor's time is not one of the remedies. From the contributions list, one cannot fail to notice that neither User:Tisthammerw nor User:SanchoPanza has this desirable experience.--CSTAR 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Experience is not a license to disregard Wikipedia policy whenever one deems it convenient. On the article was the claim "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex". I have never seen this argument before. My request was simple and (I believe) reasonable: in accordance with Wikipedia policy provide a citation of a leading ID opponent who claimed that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The purpose of this request was to ensure that this argument was not original research. FeloniousMonk failed to provide such a citation, as did you CSTAR. Pray tell, why do you think this request was a waste of time? Wade A. Tisthammer 00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Your objection is specious on the face of it. If the sentence in question read "Leading ID proponents state that a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" you would be correct in asking for a cite or rephrase. However, that is not the sentence in the article. I will bring back my murder analogy - if John Doe is heard yelling at his wife, telling her he hates her, then murders her, an accurate description of what happens is "John Doe murdered his wife in a fit of rage or anger." It is patently not necessary to have John Doe on record as saying "I murdered my wife in a fit of rage or anger." In fact, its unlikely. KillerChihuahua 12:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read what I said above. I did not say we had to quote an ID adherent making this argument, I asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent making the argument that “by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex.” (Though to be sure, giving some evidence from ID literature to show that this was indeed from intelligent design's own reasoning wouldn't hurt.) And yet, FeloniousMonk has refused to cite a source of a prominent ID opponent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning (the purpose of the citation would be to show that this argument is not original research). I don't think this request was unreasonable. Wade A. Tisthammer 15:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, I want to be sure I understand you. Applying your logic to my imaginary murderer, if witnesses saw him screaming insults, and saw his face distorted by rage, and he hacked his wife to death with a cleaver, etc... you would still want a cite from someone stating "he killed his wife in anger" or you don't think it should be in an article about the murder. And that's not unreasonable to you. Is that correct? KillerChihuahua 16:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not correct. Using your murder analogy, I would want confirmed existence of the witness who saw the events. If we had such a witness that source should be used ("cited" if you will). One cannot, for instance, simply pretend that such a witness exists. If the prosecutor at a trial claimed there was a witness but does not provide one on the stand, this would hardly be considered acceptable. Similarly, if this argument is not original research, I would prefer a citation of a prominent ID opponent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Given the dispute of this edit, I do not think my request of a citation is unreasonable in light of Wikipedia policy. Wade A. Tisthammer 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Come now people, calm. Wade is not being unreasonable, since we shouldn't just be stating things like this. Whether we consider it correct or incorrect, if we are presenting two sides we need to cite sources for every argument on every side. If we say something like 'it is clear, from such and such and such, that such is the case' that is original research. If we say, 'Blah argues that such and such and such shows such.' that is a cited argument. It can be frustrating, but it stops strawmen being raised later. And for the record (lest you think I'm trying to destroy your argument) I think Intelligent Design is stupid and ignorant. However, let's not let that get in the way of policy. 57.66.51.165 17:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Skittle

We're both calm, Skittle (at least I am, and I don't see anything in Wade's post to indicate he is not) - I asked Wade to clarify and he did.

KillerChihuahua 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Wade's definately been unreasonable here, as a quick review of /Archive 19 and /Archive 20 will show. He's refused to accept any supporting supporting citation ever given him here. That's by definition unreasonable. FeloniousMonk 17:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Except that none of those citations consisted of a leading ID opponent claiming the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Felonious, many of those "supporting citations" you gave did not even mention irreducible complexity. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

One can be both unreasonable and calm.

More relevent: The Storyteller and the Scientist "unevolved Designer who is presumably more complex than the things he designs"

Add this to the cites from Archives 19 and 20. KillerChihuahua 18:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Which I predict will also promptly be dismissed by Wade out of hand as irrelvant, not talking about the same thing, etc. See above, or archive's 19 and 20. FeloniousMonk 18:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let's take that quote into context.

The point of evolutionary science, he says, is to explain how complex things get made from a simple start. An unevolved Designer who is presumably more complex than the things he designs just doesn't fit into that picture.

Now if the phrase was "Critics argue that the designer itself must be complex" I would have no objection, for clearly there are citations to support this. But this is not quite so for what FeloniousMonk has argued. FeloniousMonk's argument that appeals to a very specific type of complexity, irreducible complexity, and FeloniousMonk claims that the designer must have irreducible complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. I suspect this particular argument to be original research. Despite my requests, Felonious has not provided me with a citation of a leading ID opponent who claims that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The web page does not count as such a citation for it does not even mention FeloniousMonk's argument. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If humans are irreducibly complex, and ID argues that they are, and ID is criticised by Dawkins that the designer is more complex than the designed, then the designer must be irreducibly complex. By ID's own reasoning not Dawkins', because Dawkins only points this out. He doesn't argue for irreducible complexity. KillerChihuahua 18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

But is he arguing against it using FeloniousMonk's argument? Dawkins doesn't claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own arguments. If he did, please provide the quote here. (Incidentally, I don't know that Behe argues that humans as a whole are irreducibly complex, though he does argue that certain features [as blood-clotting] in humans are; for instance I doubt Behe would deny the ability of a human to survive when the appendix is removed.) Wade A. Tisthammer 18:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Behe himself said humans are irreducibly complex, unless you think we need a citation for how people can not survive without blood. More complex than irreducibly is by definition irreducible. KillerChihuahua 19:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

QED [2] FeloniousMonk 19:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You are forgetting something. Something is irreducibly complex only if the system ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. Humans cannot survive without blood, true. But humans can survive without an appendix. This is one component that can be removed and yet the human still survives. Therefore, if we are to use Behe's term accurately, humans are not irreducibly complex. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How I missed this one, I don't know. The oft-quoted mousetrap has been shown shown to be non-IC. The same with blood clotting. Of course, Behe has not recanted his arguments re those two items, so I assume he still clings to his belief that they are IC. OK, fine. If Behe can pick and choose, so can we, and following his example we can declare that humans are IC (for whatever that's worth).

Of course, there's another point too ironic to miss: why did the "designer" give us an appendix if we can live without it? Oh, yes, that's right, he knew that we needed it then because of our diet, but as our diets changed it was no longer necessary. So then why doesn't he/she/it/they redesign us?

Jim62sch 23:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It is noteworthy that although Dawkins claims that the designer must be complex, he doesn't claim that the designer must be complex by intelligent design's own reasoning (at least, not in the quote that was provided). Wade A. Tisthammer 19:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Humans was my word. We'll use blood. Neither is used in the sentence in question in the article, that was just my example. Heck, use anything descibed by Behe as irreducibly complex, the point is Dawkin's argument was that the designer is more complex than the designed. So I'll do it again, with blood.

If blood clotting agents are irreducibly complex, and ID argues that they are, and ID is criticised by Dawkins that the designer is more complex than the designed, then the designer must be irreducibly complex. By ID's own reasoning not Dawkins', because Dawkins only points this out. He doesn't argue for irreducible complexity. KillerChihuahua 18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawkins does not say that the designer must be irreducibly complex, you did. Dawkins did not even mention irreducible complexity. And you have not shown that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning (more importantly, you did not cite a leading ID opponent who claimed this). What is the basis for that claim?

Note also that something doesn't need to be irreducibly complex to be more complex than an IC entity. Humans for instance are not irreducibly complex, and as a whole they are more complex than the blood-clotting cascade. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the whole blodd clotting vs appendix thing. If an irreducibly complex system were to exist, it would almost certain have to consist of IC and non-IC components. Guettarda 19:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if true, it is clearly the case that humans are not irreducibly complex if we are going with Behe’s definition of the term. Humans can survive without an appendix. Do you dispute this? Wade A. Tisthammer 19:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you are trolling - you can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be. Guettarda 19:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don’t see any reason to be rude here. If you think there’s something wrong with my reasoning (regarding humans not being irreducibly complex), you are free to explain why. Insinuated insults are unnecessary. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't being rude. You really need to start reading comments, rather than just repeating your previous argument as if the person replying to you had said nothing. You obviously still haven't read my reply. Guettarda 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Which reply? The one where you said, "you can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be"? Yes I have read that, and such a personal attack does seem to be a bit rude. If you think there’s something wrong with my reasoning (regarding humans not being irreducibly complex), you are free to explain why. When you insinuated that I have not really read people's comments, perhaps you are referring to this one:

You're mistaken about the whole blodd [sic] clotting vs appendix thing. If an irreducibly complex system were to exist, it would almost certain have to consist of IC and non-IC components.

I have read it and responded to it. Perhaps you did not understand my response (as might be gathered from your earlier remark), so let me try to explain this again. First, let's recap what irreducible complexity is. Something is irreducibly complex only if the system ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. A human is not irreducibly complex, because a component (e.g. the appendix) can be removed and yet the human can survive easily and live a normal life. Suppose an IC system might have components that are themselves not irreducibly complex. But even if true, this does not change the fact that humans are not irreducibly complex, because a component can be removed and yet the human organism can still function.

For my second reply, can a system composed of non-IC components be coherently called IC? I suppose it depends on how you define “component.” Let’s examine this a bit further. That is, imagine a system S composed of A, B, C, and D. The removal of any of these components causes the system to cease functioning. Suppose that component A is composed of A1 and A2, and removal of A1 does not cause component A to cease functioning. But if this were the case, can system S be said to be irreducibly complex? If we can remove A1 and yet the system will still function, perhaps it can no longer be considered irreducibly complex. But again, this depends on how you define “component.”

Are you saying that the appendix does not qualify as a “component” in the human body? If the appendix does qualify as a component, then my counterexample still stands: here we have an example of a component that can be removed and yet the human organism still functions. Wade A. Tisthammer 02:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, I didn't say "irreducibly complex", Behe did. KillerChihuahua 20:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

True, Behe does discuss irreducible complexity. How does that help your position? You still have not provided a citation of a leading ID opponent who claims that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Another cite: *Guardian "Similarly, the claim that something - say the bacterial flagellum - is too complex to have evolved by natural selection is alleged, by a lamentably common but false syllogism, to support the "rival" intelligent design theory by default. This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created." KillerChihuahua 19:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice quote, but once again notice that he never even mentioned irreducible complexity here, nor did he say that the designer had to be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning, nor did he even say that the designer had to be irreducibly complex, nor did even he say that the designer had any kind of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. Again, if you want to put "Critics argue that the designer itself must be complex" I would have no objection. But the argument FeloniousMonk put forth has yet to contain an authoritative citation to show that it is not original research. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, you've made your point, many, many times here, and consensus is that it doesn't need a cite, that your objections are specious and that you've been disruptive. You've been warned several times now. You need to accept consensus here and move on. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Concur with FM. This is taking up lots of time and space, and you have no consensus or even much support, Wade. Continuting this is disruptive.KillerChihuahua 19:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, please provide evidence of a consensus that it is acceptable not to provide citations in matters like these. BTW, if nobody wants to discuss my points, they are free not to bring them up again (recall that I did not start this section). Wade A. Tisthammer 20:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, no offense intended, but you seem to have a hyper-preoccupation with the concept of "irreducibility" (as well as a need for a citation of what is essentially a paraphrase). The concept is in and of itself ridiculous. At what point does one stop on this happy little hunt for the irreducible? The quark, the muon, the lepton, the sub-particles, as yet undiscovered, that make up these items? The whole search is like a quest for a holy grail that no one will ever find.

It's time to move on to a new aspect of the subject at hand.

Jim62sch 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A citation for what paraphrase? Paraphrase of what? I am not preoccupied with "irreducibility" as such, I simply wanted an authoritative citation to show that an argument ("by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex") was not original research. That's it. I'm not sure why your belief that I have a preoccupation of "irreducibility" comes from. In any case, I do not require a citation that gives that argument verbatim; a leading ID opponent who makes a paraphrased form the argument would do. Alas, not even that has been provided. There have been no citations of a leading ID opponent who has made the argument, thus it seems to be original research. All my requests for such citations have been denied. Perhaps original research does get into Wikipedia articles after all via mob rule (when it is against a theory they don’t like). Wade A. Tisthammer 22:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading through your posts, I simply cannot imagine how I, or anyone else, might think you were preoccupied with irreducibility. Anyway, peruse the following and you might see where the paraphrase (the item you keep putting in quotes) is drawn from: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/actualism.html

Additionally, please define "leading ID opponent". What bona fides will raise a person in your eyes to the lofty status of "leading" ID opponent?

Finally, I note that you ignored my point re the folly of the quest for irreducibility. Why was that?

Jim62sch 23:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You said, "Reading through your posts, I simply cannot imagine how I, or anyone else, might think you were preoccupied with irreducibility." Then why did you say

Wade, no offense intended, but you seem to have a hyper-preoccupation with the concept of "irreducibility"

Regarding your link, next time I would appreciate a cited quote. Giving me the entire web page and saying something along the lines of "It's in there somewhere" is a little annoying (though I know you were not trying to be that way). In the article the individual cites Miller (an example of a prominent ID opponent) who attempts an explanation for the blood-cascade. His explanation ignores critical details, but that's beside the point. Neither Miller nor anyone else there seem to make the argument that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. If I have missed this claim, I apologize and ask that you point it out to me (with a quote). Until such an authoritative citation is given, I am inclined to believe that the argument is original research.

Regarding a "leading" ID opponent, I don't know a set of rigorous criteria, but basically any chief author on Talk.origins would qualify methinks, as would Dawkins, Eugene Scott, and any other evolution scientist who has published extensively on the issue.

Why did I ignore the folly for the quest of irreducibility? Well for one, I am not making that folly, and I don't know of anyone else who is either. (And this hunt for the irreducible seems to be a misunderstanding of Behe's concept of irreducible complexity.) Wade A. Tisthammer 00:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding 'You said, "Reading through your posts, I simply cannot imagine how I, or anyone else, might think you were preoccupied with irreducibility." Then why did you say'

Wade, no offense intended, but you seem to have a hyper-preoccupation with the concept of "irreducibility"

"Reading through your posts..." was ironical.

As for the rest, I doubt that there is any way I can explain that from a logic standpoint irreducible complexity is an irreducible absurdity. Additionally, since you take exception to the claim that "the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning" let us then pose the question another way: can a "being" that is not irreducibly complex, i.e., a being that is (irreducibly) simple create something that is irreducibly complex? (And please, don't state that the designer is outside the bounds of normal physical law, because once such a statement is introduced into the argument, the claim that ID is science flies out the window.)

Jim62sch 09:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity is just a description of certain systems: systems such that if any of the various components were removed the system ceases functioning. There doesn't appear to be anything in that concept that is inherently absurd.

Regarding your question, a being that is not irreducibly complex can indeed create something that is irreducibly complex. An example would be a human creating a mousetrap. A human is not irreducibly complex (a component can be removed and yet the human organism still functions; e.g. removing the appendix) but the mousetrap is (remove any of the components, and the trap doesn't work).

Although I believe the argument “by intelligent design’s own reasoning…” is non sequitur, the more applicable reason I’m objecting to it is that it appears to be original research. Despite my challenge of this, my requests for a citation of a leading ID opponent making the argument have been denied. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade,

The absurdity arises from the use of the word "irreducible" to imply a designer. As we have seen from the mutations of various viruses and bacteria, those systems do not necessarily collapse when a given component is "reshuffled", it is merely a matter of chance as to whether the mutation is successful. In addition, you must keep in mind that during this reshuffling there is a period of instability wherein the virus or bacterium is, in essence, without an original component. For more info, I refer you to the following: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10181563/

Second, the mousetrap argument is old, has been proven a fallacy nine ways to Sunday, and is in serious need of a replacement argument.

Third, if I read your statement regarding the non-irreducible complexity of humans correctly, you are essentially limiting the work of "the designer" only to those things that are irreducibly complex. This leads to and interesting conclusion: since ID states that anything of irreducible complexity requires a designer, and since humans are not irreducibly complex, then the origin of humans can be ascribed to the random agglomeration of irreducibly complex components. Somehow, I doubt that this is what you meant, but it is the only logical conclusion to be drawn.

Fourth, your usage of "non sequitur" is incorrect. Perhaps you merely missed an indefinite article, but I think you need to clarify why you stated that it was a "non sequitur". Simply saying that it is so does not make it so. Also, “by intelligent design’s own reasoning…” is an allowable statement logically so long as ID had been analyzed and the reasoning of same can be either extrapolated or inferred with reasonable surety.

Finally, your insistence on a citation, and the attendant enuretic whining, is becoming tiresome. Following the law of logic I explained above (actually paraphrased -- need a cite?) there is no need for an exact quotation just to satisfy someone else's hesitancy at accepting inferred conclusions. If I say that a Roman general went to France, surveyed the lay of its lands and then conquered them, do I really need to cite Caesar's "veni, vidi, vici" to prove the point? Thus, in keeping with the Latin theme, "De cruce descende! Nam lignum desideramus."

Jim62sch 13:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity is about the system not functioning when a component is removed, not "reshuffled." I don't know that the mousetrap example (of something irreducibly complex) has been "proven a fallacy", particularly since you've given no explanation why (most attempts I’ve seen appear to misunderstand the concept). I am not limiting the work of a "designer" only to things irreducibly complex. I simply cited an example of a being that is not irreducibly complex creating something that is irreducibly complex (in response to your request).

Regarding non sequitur, let's look back what I said in archive20:

Suppose ID claims that an IC system requires design. It doesn't logically follow that the designer must therefore possess irreducible complexity. It is logically possible for the designer to have a different kind of complexity. In any case, FM's argument is a non sequitur.

An example of a human creating a mousetrap illustrates the point quite nicely. Clearly, even if IC requires design, it is a non sequitur to claim that the designer must also possess irreducible complexity.

Also, the request for a citation is perfectly legitimate regarding Wikipedia policy. To you, the argument might make perfect sense, to me it does not (if you wish, you can explain in detail what you perceive the argument to be, as it may be different from FM's; then perhaps we can see if the argument "is an allowable statement logically"). Regardless of how reasonable the argument may seem, it is against Wikipedia policy to insert original research. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade,

Are you pulling items from a number of different posts? It ceratinly seems that way, and thus your points are very difficult to follow.

As to the mousetrap see http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html Also, what concept are you saying is misunderstood? The mousetrap? IC? If it's IC, the fault may lie with the fact that its definition has changed several times to wiggle out of corners.

As to the "non sequitur", you are arguing that “by intelligent design’s own reasoning…” is a non sequitur, but I fail to see how. A non sequitur would be more like the following:

Person 1: I just went to the store and got a really great deal on bananas, would you care for one? Person 2: Oh man, we just ran out of beer.

Since I think it is the word "reasoning" you object to, let's try "by intelligent design’s own logic..."

Other have noted that when provided with a cite, you reject it. If you consistantly reject cites, there really is no point.

If by original reasearch you are refering to the essay, that has been moved to my user page.

Oh, I just realized that you have provided me with the perfect example of a non sequitur (see the italicized)...

"Also, the request for a citation is perfectly legitimate regarding Wikipedia policy. To you, the argument might make perfect sense, to me it does not (if you wish, you can explain in detail what you perceive the argument to be, as it may be different from FM's; then perhaps we can see if the argument "is an allowable statement logically"). Regardless of how reasonable the argument may seem, it is against Wikipedia policy to insert original research. "

Jim62sch 11:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The link you gave me is a prime example of misunderstanding the concept of irreducible complexity. What Behe seems to say (see page 42 of Darwin's Black Box) is that if you remove any component from the mousetrap--while leaving all other components as they are--and the mousetrap does not function, the mousetrap is therefore irreducibly complex. What the author of this web article does however is not merely remove a component--he substantailly modifies the remaining component(s) to make it work (and even then, I'm not sure he's successfull). Whatever useful analogies this may have for evolution in overcoming the alleged barrier of irreducible complexity, it is not the case that the author has disproved the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap. The author didn't just remove a component; he substantially modified the system to make it something very different from what it was.

You said you failed to see how what I said was an example of a non sequitur. I'll try again. Suppose ID claims that an IC system requires design. It doesn't logically follow that the designer must therefore possess irreducible complexity. Proof? A human designing a mousetrap. The human is not irreducibly complex (e.g. the appendix can be removed) and yet designs something irreducibly complex (the mousetrap). This is a clear counterexample demonstrating the non sequitur of the argument (at least as FeloniousMonk presented it).

As I said earlier, you can explain in detail what you perceive the argument to be ("by intelligent design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex"), as it may be different from FM's; then perhaps we can see if the argument "is an allowable statement logically."

You said, "Other have noted that when provided with a cite, you reject it. If you consistantly reject cites, there really is no point." If the cites provided to me are not relevant to the matter at hand, then there is a point in finding a relevant citation. I asked for a citation of a prominent ID opponent making the argument (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design’s own reasoning). Nobody provided such a citation. I repeat, citations provided so far do not consist of a leading ID opponent making this claim. Some are almost similar, e.g. a leading ID opponent claiming that the designer must be complex (a quote from Dawkins) but without the ID opponent mentioning irreducible complexity, claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex, or claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. One cannot simply provide citations willy-nilly and claim they've satisfied the Wikipedia policy regarding citations. Common sense dictates that the citations provided have to be relevant to the matter at hand.

You said that the following was an example of non sequitur: Regardless of how reasonable the argument [the anti-ID argument about the designer needing to be irreducibly complex] may seem, it is against Wikipedia policy to insert original research. Why is that non sequitur? I was not aware that arguments against a theory you don't like constitute an exception to the original research Wikipedia policy merely because the argument seems logical to you. Can you find that for me in the Wikipedia polcy? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade,

Three words: reading comprehension lessons.

This is humourous: "What Behe seems to say..." Is the High Priest of IC and ID so abstruse that one can never be sure of the meaning of ID and IC? I mean, I know he's slippery, and tends to change the definitions to fit the argument (how many major revisions has he had?) but his writing is not all that complex that an ardent believer in ID can but only surmise what Behe meant to say.

The mousetrap in the link looked standard to me. Did you actually read through the progression? Quick question: what did Behe seem to say the four key parts of the mousetrap were?

BTW: your objection regarding the humans no longer needing an appendix is a perfect example of evolution at work. Thank you.

Re this, "then perhaps we can see if the argument "is an allowable statement logically."" Somehow, the thought of submitting my work to you for a blessing of its allowability based on your perception of logic is too funny to take seriously. I'm sorry Wade, but you really haven't displayed a great facility in the field of logic.

Regarding citations: when did you become the arbiter of relevance? I've not noticed anyone ceding that position to you.

Finally, the non sequitur was in the entire quote, not just the part you chose to cite. This is where the reading comprehension lessons would come in handy.

Look, just be like Chad and admit that you support ID because you believe in God. Then we can stop this whole charade of logical debate.

Jim62sch 23:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I might ask you if you have reading comprehension issues. First, there are five key parts, not four, that Behe claims are necessary for the mousetrap to function (page 42 of Darwin's Black Box). Second, yes I did read the web article you referenced. Did you read my response? The author does not merely remove a component, he substantially modifies the remaining components. Behe implied that a system was irreducibly complex if any component was removed--while leaving all other components just as they are--and the system ceased to function. This web page did not disprove Behe's apparent conception of irreducible complexity because it substantially modified the remaining components.

I've shown how FM's reasoning behind the "by intelligent design's own reasoning..." claim is a non sequitur. You have not addressed this and have refused to provide your own reasoning despite my requests. Do you have something to show that the argument is not non sequitur or are you willing to concede this point?

Regarding the citations, nobody made me the official arbiter of relevance. But please think about this. I requested a citation of a prominent ID opponent who made the argument (that by intelligent design's own reasoning, the designer must be irreducibly complex). This request was denied. Think about this: suppose a quote says that the designer must be complex, but does not even mention irreducible complexity, nor that the designer must be irreducibly complex, nor that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. So how is this citation relevant in showing that the argument (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning) is not original research?

And finally, how was the quote non sequitur? It's not at all clear that a non sequitur exists here. Non sequiturs typically take the form of something like "If A then B" (or some other argument form) when it does not logically follow. I selected the bit of text you italicized because it seemed to be the only thing one could consider non sequitur. What argument form are you referring to? Can you explain yourself a bit more clearly here (i.e. what doesn't logically follow from what)? And what about the matter at hand? Can you provide relevant citations for the argument? Can you explain your reasoning behind "by intelligent design's own reasoning..." or is that you have none? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade,

Were this an impolite forum I would be remiss in my duties as a thinker (or skeptic, if you prefer) were I to not, in irreducibly complex detail, elaborate on what you might be free to do with your obsession with citations (that you find acceptable). However, as we strive to be a civil community here, I shall refrain from doing so.

Fine, Behe insists on five parts, I apparently forgot the cheese (and that's the only concession you will ever get out of me). Anyway, humour me and answer my question.

IC admits to possible evolution of non-IC components (at least, sometimes it does, it depends on Behe's mood). If then, the "designer" needn't be IC whence cometh he?

As for the rest, I'm too bored to bother. Going around the mulberry bush is only fun but so many times.

In some instances you didn't even visit the bush. For instance, I asked you what your reasoning was behind the "by intelligent design's own reasoning..." argument after I proved that FM's argument was non sequitur with the counterexample. You declined.

Regarding your question, the origins of the designer do not appear to be scientifically testable (at least at this point), since it is possible to rationally infer design without knowing the identity or origins of the designer. In such a case one is free to speculate. Perhaps the designer is us human time-travelers who have created ourselves (cf. the predestination paradox). Perhaps the designer is a radically different type of life that could have come about naturally (some forms of complexity can be produced naturally, others cannot). Then there is of course your least favorite (I suspect) possibility: theism.

I appreciate you from refraining from uncivil behavior. I should remind you that my request for citations is not merely my own personal opinion but happens to be Wikipedia policy (though it does happen to be a policy I agree with). --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim62sch 00:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade,

Would you please be so kind as to not insert your comments in the middle of mine?

Anyway, re this: "the origins of the designer do not appear to be scientifically testable (at least at this point)," -- Do you understand that they will never be? ID-ists are inserting a component to the paradigm that is outside the boundaries of science.

Then there is this: "since it is possible to rationally infer design without knowing the identity or origins of the designer." No, one cannot infer it rationally as once again, a non-provable entity is in the equation. What you are saying is that based on the information supplied by the Greeks I can rationally infer that Mount Olympus was the home of the gods. No, no one can rationally infer either. There's a reason why it's called mythology: it is outside the boundaries of science and logic (yes, the Greek philosophers inferred the existence, but logic and philosophy have come a long way in 2300 years).

In addition, this is a beaut: "Perhaps the designer is us human time-travelers who have created ourselves (cf. the predestination paradox)." Read Hawking, please.

Then, we have this reference to aliens: "Perhaps the designer is a radically different type of life that could have come about naturally (some forms of complexity can be produced naturally, others cannot)." Where to begin with this one is hard to determine. Life on our planet could not have occurred naturally, but on Cygnus 5 it could have? Aside from the fact that you are delving into the realm of sci-fi and fantasy, I doubt there's any way of responding rationally to this, other than to ask, "And what makes those aliens so special that they can rise out of the ooze? Aren't we good enough to have done the same?”

As for theism: if you keep your creation arguments to theism, that's fine, because if you do that, any pretense to a scientific theory goes out the window.

As for the non sequitur bit, I've given up because I just don’t think you grasp the subtleties of that term. Besides, I think Felonious and everyone else who's tried to make the point, even providing cites that you dismiss out of hand because they do not fit within the limited boundaries you have set for what you will accept as proof, have made the point quite well.

Jim62sch 18:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The origins and identity of the designer may not be scientifically testable, but how does this render a design inference illegitimate? Suppose for instance we find robots on Pluto. Does the fact that we do not or cannot know of the origins of the designer make a design inference illegitimate here? Does it make a design inference irrational? Obviously not.

Regarding the aliens example; ID doesn't say that all forms of complexity can't come about naturally. However, ID argues that our kind of life cannot come about via undirected chemical reactions (we aren't "good enough" to come out of the ooze any more than robots are). That still leaves open the possibility for other kinds of life radically different from our own that could have come about naturally. This possibility has not been disproven, even though abiogenesis of other forms of life strikes some people (as me) unlikely.

Regarding non sequitur it seems that it is you who cannot grasp the subtleties of the term given your failure to respond to my explanations and to give your own explanations.

I've mentioned elsewhere why I have dismissed the citations, but I can go over them again. The claim: that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The Wikipedia entry states “critics argue” this. Do they? Is this viewpoint a majority, significant minority, or extremely small minority? Looking at Wikipedia policy

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

My request was simple: a citation of any prominent ID adherent who makes this argument to show that the argument is not original research (I doubt one would find it in commonly accepted reference texts, but this would be acceptable too I suppose). And yet not one of the proposed citations met my request; not one of them consisted of a leading ID opponent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Indeed, many of the citations didn't even mention irreducible complexity! One cannot just throw citations willy-nilly and claim and claim that the problem of producing a suitable citation has been resolved. The citations have to be relevant to the matter at hand.

I would like to hear your explanation of why you think my request has unreasonably limited boundaries in light of Wikipedia policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Jim is right here. Also, the passage "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating..." is not "my" reasoning. Now you may think you've sufficiently shown it to be "a non sequitur," but not many here have agreed with you. Continuing to mischaracterize it and the state of consensus here have gone a long way to explain why your claims are not finding much traction. FeloniousMonk 00:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, you are the only person (so far) who has presented such reasoning, and you failed to cite a source of anyone who presented that same reasoning I quoted. So I have little reason to believe that I am mischaracterizing this issue here.

And how can you or anyone else disagree with me in light of the counterexample I have given? Let's recap. Suppose ID claims that an IC system requires design. It doesn't logically follow that the designer must therefore possess irreducible complexity. Proof? A human designing a mousetrap (or some other irreducibly complex device). The human is not irreducibly complex (e.g. the appendix can be removed) and yet designs something irreducibly complex (the mousetrap). This is a clear counterexample demonstrating the non sequitur of the argument (at least as FeloniousMonk presented it). Why do you disagree? Would you care to explain yourself here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

An invalid example. If ID doesn't maintain a human isn't in some way irreducibly complex; then it isn't even self consistant. A lifeform does not need to be entirely IC, in order for it consist of IC mechanisms. Your counter example has no basis and misses what is meant by a designer needing to be IC, which is entirely consistent with a human designing a mousetrap. Ergo, your example actually confirms the need for IC in a designer. My other paragraph, although it did not address the point which was at hand, directly addressed this point. A designer who is not IC in some way(s); means origins could have arisen naturally, which contradicts ID even if said designer created life on Earth. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between the organism being irreducibly complex and the organism having structures that are irreducibly complex. Remember what the argument was: "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." The reasoning FM provided is a clear non sequitur given my counterexample.

Now perhaps the entry means something different from how I've interpreted it; perhaps it means that the designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must possess irreducibly complex structures within it, rather than the designer itself being irreducibly complex. But if so, that should be reworded. Furthermore, would it not be prudent to point out that Behe--the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself--claims it's possible for the designer to not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain it (in page 249 in Darwin's Black Box)? After all, we wouldn't want anyone to be given a false impression of the actual ID position, right? Note also that I can provide a citation here, and so this is not original research. In contrast, can anyone here provide a citation of a prominent ID opponent arguing that the designer must possess irreducibly complex structures by intelligent design's own reasoning? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Re "... Behe--the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity himself--..."

Uh, the man has claimed to have invented IC.

"...claims it's possible for the designer to not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain it (in page 249 in Darwin's Black Box)..."

A quote from the master of ID proves???

Jim62sch 01:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The quote from Behe suggests that the claim of the designer requiring irreducibly complex structures by intelligent design's own reasoning may not be correct (among other things). Not that the claim exists necessarily, though I never did get a response regarding that alternate interpretation of the wording of the argument (yet). --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade????

You missed my point: Behe essentially invented this whole mess, any quote from him is self-serving.

Jim62sch 18:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Behe did introduce the concept of irreducible complexity, and perhaps Behe is the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity. But then, what better person to quote when trying to learn what the actual ID position is regarding irreducible complexity? Additionally, Behe did not start the mess of putting forth what seems to be original research in the Wikipedia article. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's still self-serving. Of course, you could quote Dembski but he's given new meaning to the term "waffling".

Note too, that while writers and scientists will quote Einstein regarding Relativity, they're even more likely to quote the myriad of physicists and other real scientists who support the Theories of Relativity.

In any case, it might be a little more easy to take Behe seriously if he didn't rework his explanations and didn't contradict himself. If you wish only to rely upon "Darwin's Black Box", which was published almost 10 long years ago, that's fine, but you're really missing the rest of the story.

Jim62sch 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Relevant reading

Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how attempts to balance the coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that Mooney has recently gained visibility as a strident critic of ID, and is currently promoting a book with major sections devoted to rehashing the standard objections. It would seem that concern for giving balanced time to minority scientific viewpoints coincides with strongly held personal objections to ID, at least in the case of Mooney and Felonius. SanchoPanza 03:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

So...what's your point here? Other than the ad hominem attack on Mooney and FM, that is. Guettarda 03:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think SanchoPanza's point may have been that the writer of this article himself seems a bit too biased to accurately remark on "balanced" coverage. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

University of Kansas strikes back:

See the following article --

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/22/intelligent.design.course.ap/index.html

Jim62sch 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Soundness of the design?

As I recall, there was something in ID about the "well-formedness" of biological structures, e.g., how the eye is so well designed to do exactly what it does. That point is refuted by pointing out all the awukward designs that result in suboptimal performance. The best examples is perhaps standing humans. Because we stand, we get low back pain, varicose veins, and hemorrhoids. Not such an intelligent design! Anyway, if that is a part of ID, then perhaps it ought to be in the article. Would anyone more knowledgeable than I care to give it a shot? -- Squidley, who forgot to sign in.

Is the eye the way it is so it can do what it does, or can it do what it does because of the way it is?

Jim62sch 22:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nerves in teeth are another good example - in prehistory this could literally be a fatal design flaw, and actually the vast majority of modern medicine is devoted to fixing flaws in the so-called design of the human body. The octopus eye is yet another example: it is a better "design" than ours and does not have a blind-spot. Why would an intelligent designer have multiple designs, some of which are flawed and some not? It makes no sense.

But, at the end of the day this page is debating a fairy story which no one seriously believes. ID is a movement intended to increase the personal power and influence of those who expouse it, whether becase they just like to feel important or because they like the sound of their own voices. There have always been people who claim stupid beliefs simply because they know it will attract attention. 213.78.235.176

of interest

For some nice writing, interested parties should take a look at Charles Krauthammer's column on ID. Some of which I'd disagree with, but I loved "Intelligent design ... is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" ... that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." ". - Nunh-huh 02:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Note also the article by George Will. It seems that there may be a growing divide between the intellectual right and the evangelical right. About time. Bill Jefferys 04:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I should like to point out that Krauthammer's statements regarding Newton and Einstein and God are somewhat misleading. Newton's belief system was traditionalist only to an extent: he also believed in alchemy and a variety of paranormal pursuits that were outside the mainstream traditional religion of his day. Einstein, as a young man, had jettisoned all of the traditional beliefs of a "God of Miracles" in favor of a "God of Order". This God of Order he never truly defined, and it could have ranged from a true deity in a modified sense to the laws of physics or of math.

For more information on this subject, you may wish to see various books written by Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene, as well as several Einstein biographies.

Jim62sch 20:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Kansas, the supernatural and astrology

User:KillerChihuahua removed the following from the Portraying Intelligent Design as science section, referring to the talk page but without any obvious reference on this page.

While modern science looks for natural explanations of phenonema, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, Intelligent Design proponents contend that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations. In Kansas, the board of education has voted to redefine science to include supernatural explanations of natural phenomena[3]. In court, Behe indicated that his definition would include astrology as a science, but under subsequent questioning said that this was a historical reference[4].

At the least these seem to be noteworthy points, and the second link to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript (on talkorigins) leads to a wealth of information on ID proponents responses to questioning. ...dave souza 17:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The introduction of the article has to be very tight and it is the currently the resolution of much discussion. I think what KC meant was that it is desirable to propose this addition in the talk page first, such as where to place it. As far as the content goes, I don't see anything incorrect with what you wrote. Although I always hesitate to make any generalizations about what ID is, since what its proponents claim it is seems to automagically mutate depending on circumstances.--CSTAR 18:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What my summary said was "Rv edits... Pls see talk page for major edits" and it was a revert of a fairly sizeable addition. I had intended to post immediately following, but was called away from the computer. However, CSTAR's assement of my meaning is accurate. Considering that every change here is usually followed by a 3 week debate about the entry, the phrasing, and whether the addition has somehow undone a precarious "balance" it may be desirable to gain concensus prior to a major addition to the article.

Now my two cents on the addition: might it not be better suited to add to ID Movment rather than ID? The events in Kansas, while noteable from a movement perspective, add nothing to our understanding of ID nor of the rebuttal of ID from a scientific perspective. One puppy's opinion. OTOH, it may be that something(s) may be clarified by Behe's statements, and/or other points of the paragraph. KillerChihuahua 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and indeed Behe's testimony seems to suggest ideas of ID which differ considerably from the party line, as well as his disowning the bits of Panda he didn't write. I'll stand back and let wiser heads think about where best to put these points, will be grateful if someone can add them as appropriate ....dave souza 00:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Let'd not let this drop - does anyone have an objection to this being placed in the ID Movement article? Either as is, or might some fine-tuning be appropriate?

I am not active on the ID Movement article, I think all I've done is revert vandalism there. I cannot guess whether there will be any issue with adding this paragraph there. I've already stated my opinion: this is worthy, this is well written, and this belongs in the ID Movement article. Anyone agree or disagree? KillerChihuahua 12:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Or is there any bit that should be in this article? KillerChihuahua 12:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The "fundamental assumption" of ID

The Wikipedia article has claimed, "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object." I suspect this is original research of the straw man kind. I have never seen this assumption in any ID literature, and the article provides no citations. I have however seen ID statements that seem to point in the opposite direction.

Dembski himself claims that not every complex entity is designed; the added criterion of specification must be used before a design inference can be rationally made; hence the term complex specified information. See this web page where he admits that chance can generate complex (albeit unspecified) information.

I have found a creationist source that comes at least close to contradicting claim. Gary Parker's section in What is Creation Science? describes creation science applied to biology--which is apparently just intelligent design theory (as he describes it). In it he notes that creation does not argue from design per se, but the kind of design we observe. He notes that some things (e.g. a snowflake) can be brought about naturally (page 46), but other things (as airplanes) cannot. Snowflakes have some complexity, so this seems to be a counterexample this alleged ID claim. Another one might be this web page which also cites snowflakes for an example. So it seems, according to ID, that some kinds of complexity can be made naturally but others cannot. If so, the claim that the fundamental assumption of ID is that “every complex object requires a designer” is false.

This “fundamental assumption” appears to be original research of the straw man kind. I request an authoritative citation of this alleged assumption be given. If none can be provided, it seems prudent to remove it from the Wikipedia entry. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A more accurate statement is "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object." Thanks for catching that. FeloniousMonk 01:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Although it is perhaps very easy to assume that this is "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design" this does not appear to be the case. In many articles, Dembski argues for design using e.g. complex specified information and the explanatory filter--all without even mentioning irreducible complexity. Whatever the fundamental assumption of intelligent design might be, it does not appear to necessarily involve irreducible complexity. Perhaps you meant it is Michael Behe's (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity) fundamental assumption when it comes to intelligent design theory. Again, that does not appear to be the case. Chapter 7 of Darwin's Black Box appeals to design when it comes to the origin of life without appealing to irreducible complexity.

Perhaps, however, it is at least Behe's belief that intelligent design is needed for every irreducibly complex object? After all, Behe often cites certain irreducibly complex biochemical systems as evidence for design. However, even this alleged belief does not appear to be quite true. This web article (albeit one that is extravagantly titled) quotes a trial transcript where Behe mentions an example of something irreducibly complex that need not be designed. So it seems that not every irreducibly complex object must be designed, even if ID claims that irreducible complexity often points to design. Wade A. Tisthammer 15:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Behe will be surprised to here that. Um, sorry, but no, I don't think you understand what you're talking about. Demsbki's SC being valid is wholly contingent on Behe's IC being valid, something Dembski acknowledges.

I'm going to put it to you plainly Wade about your repeated ignoring of WP:CON by once again objecting to this section of the article. I'll borrow one of your stock phrases: "Your objection appears to be original research of the straw man kind."

Viewing your edit history for this page [5], your earliest contributions were objections on this exact same issue, starting 7 Nov. You've been ignoring consensus ever since. You're obviously ideologically opposed to the "Who Designed the Designer?" section and obsessed with removing or gutting it despite it being well-supported. First you tried to claim the "who designed the designer" argument was entirely original research. Failing there you moved on to an individual sentences that comprise the crux of the section, failing again. Now this objection. This is clearly a pattern, and one that needs to stop.

You've been warned about being disruptive by raising bad faith objections here already once or twice, and yet you fail to take heed, instead choosing the path of the bad faith malcontent. You've been carrying on at this since 7 November [6]. There's a definite limit to how long responsible editors should have to respond to you, and you've reached it. It's time for to prove that you respect the project by 1) abiding by consensus here, 2) contributing to the project constructively. FeloniousMonk 16:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would Behe be surprised to learn what his own views are? FeloniousMonk, you claim that Dembski acknowledges that his idea of "specified complexity" is wholly contingent on Behe's "irreducible complexity" being valid. I would like to see a citation supporting that claim.

Why have you chosen the route of personal attacks instead of addressing what Behe has said? It's true I have been accused of being "disruptive" -- by yourself, apparently by requesting citations for disputed claims (e.g. when I asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent making the claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own argument). Contrary to your insinuations, my earliest contributions are not on this issue regarding the "fundamental assumption" of intelligent design. Previously I had made contributions resolving a dispute regarding the size of the Death Star. This was before I registered with Wikipedia so perhaps you simply assumed this was my first contribution (the first time I registered was when I received messages at a public computer, at which point it seemed prudent to finally register since the message was addressed to a specific IP address that I did not commonly use). Additionally, on what grounds do have that this objection is in bad faith? And on what grounds do you claim my objection "appears to be original research of the straw man kind"? I am, after all, the one who has provided citations here. You have not.

If anyone has been disruptive here it is you by e.g. misrepresenting my position. For instance, you said

First you tried to claim the "who designed the designer" argument was entirely original research.

I did no such thing. I did however claim that "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object" (which was in the "who designed the designer" section) seemed to be original research of the straw man kind in light of the consistent refusal to cite sources regarding this alleged fundamental assumption, and the ID statements seeming to contradict this claim. For the most part you have ignored this objection. However, you have now at least modified the alleged assumption, which I suppose is progress. How about we now deal with the issue at hand instead of resorting to personal attacks? Can you at least address what Behe said regarding not all irreducibly complex entities requiring a designer? Wade A. Tisthammer 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Before I indulge any more of your calls for citations, the response to each of which you've promptly dismissed out of hand, I want to see something. Can you name the book which was Dembski's thesis for specified complexity? FeloniousMonk 18:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don’t recall you ever giving a citation regarding the “fundamental assumption” of ID. In any case, there were a number of books and articles where he presented his argument regarding specified complexity. Are you referring to The Design Inference? And what about what Behe said regarding not all irreducibly complex entities requiring a designer? Doesn’t this seem to disprove the existence of “the fundamental assumption” you referred to? Wade A. Tisthammer 18:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

So you're not certain. Why should we indulge your incessant objections if you don't even know a central, necessary and simple point like which book Dembski introduced specified complexity? I don't think you're well-suited to be dismissing supporting evidence here willy-nilly as you've been. FeloniousMonk 18:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You can indulge in my objections because I have provided a relevant citation. Suppose for instance I am wrong about The Design Inference. Does that change what Behe said about not all irreducibly complex entities requiring design? No it does not. So why don't you address the matter at hand? Wade A. Tisthammer 19:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, I see that you have not responded, even though you have clearly been watching this section (due to your reversions of my formats here). If you cannot come up with a good reason to disregard Behe's own words that flatly contradict this alleged "fundamental assumption" of intelligent design regarding irreducible complexity, I will proceed with the edit. (Of course, if neither you nor anyone else gives any reason at all, I will definitely proceed with the edit in deleting this alleged fundamental assumption.) Wade A. Tisthammer 20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wade, why are you addressing yourself to FM, not the editors of this page at large, and threatening to make an edit which is against consensus? This is very disruptive and rude. Please stop. KillerChihuahua 20:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I shouldn't have addressed Felonious alone (though I did implicitly include everyone else in my parenthetical note above) and for that I apologize. Nonetheless, he is really the only person who has addressed the issue here. And how can you tell me that this change is against consensus when (at least at the time) only one person has responded to the issue here? And after I provided the citation of Behe, Felonious has subsequently stopped addressing that issue, and so there is no clear evidence of a consensus not to remove the alleged fundamental assumption of ID.

Anyway, I'd like to here your (or anyone else's) input. It has been claimed that "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every irreducibly complex object". I have never seen this alleged fundamental assumption, and the Wikipedia article provides no references. I have requested an authoritative citation to show that this is not original research of the straw man kind. Furthermore, I have found a statement by Behe (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity) who has flatly contradicted this alleged assumption. This web article (albeit one that is extravagantly titled) quotes a trial transcript where Behe mentions an example of something irreducibly complex that need not be designed. So it seems that not every irreducibly complex object must be designed, even if ID claims that irreducible complexity often points to design. In light of this pretty strong evidence, I suggest this "fundamental assumption" be removed from the article. If you (or anyone else) cannot come up with any reason to disregard Behe's own words that flatly contradict this alleged "fundamental assumption" of intelligent design regarding irreducible complexity, I will proceed with the edit. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your withdrawing of addressing FM alone; this is very unsettling. It really is beginning to look like you are trying to start a fight with one edior rather than trying to improve the article.

Several cites have been given; you have rejected them all. Several editors have responded, stating they feel this is an accurate statement, supported by the cites. Your referral to Behe as the leader of ID is manifestly inaccurate. The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is headed by Dr. Stephen Meyer. The head of the Discover Institute is Bruce Chapman. Both William A. Dembski and Michael J. Behe have written extensively. While Behe is indeed the originator of the term "irreducible complexity" to somehow make of this that he is the sole source of the assumptions of ID is misleading at best. Further, Behe has contradicted Dembski, and doubtless there have been other differences of opinions, both major and minor, in the ranks of ID. To offer a cite of one proponent of ID and try to use that to completely change a statment about ID as a whole is utilizing "pick and choose", especially given that you have rejected out of hand the cites you have been offered supporting the statement as it is written. In short, you have no consensus here on your proposed change. You have utilized questionable methods to support your proposed change, you have rejected the other editor's cites and quotes and references in a high-handed and dismissive fashion, and you have on multiple occasions addressed your comments to FeloniousMonk, not the editors at large, which bears a strong resemblence to trying to make this a battle between you and FM. I for one am tired of your incessent disruptive behavior. You have no consensus. Yet when after 3 pages or so of archives, people tire of answering your points again and again, you post a threat that if you do not get specific response from people, you will post a change for which you do not have concensus and replace that which has been the careful work of a number of people. I reverted a large change by TonySidaway this morning; I referred him to the talk page and advised him to gain consensus prior to making changes. He wanted to change the intro - you can see for yourself that it would have been enormously more hostile to ID - but it is inappropriate to do so without consensus.

Let me make this clear, because you seem to be missing this point: Gaining consensus means just that. It doesn't mean beating people over the head with WP:this and WP:that to make them jump through hoops to satisfy you. It doesn't mean posting the same tired objection for the nth time, repeating like a cranky child that you are not satisfied. If no one replies to your suggestion with "hey, you have a point there, what can we do to make this better?" then it means that not only do you not have consensus, you don't even have a point which is considered particularly valid.

I should probably read this over before saving, but I keep losing connection on preview so if any of my wording is questionable or my sentences run-on, please bear with me - I will tweak this if I can (its been an hour since I could get through, my router is dying.) KillerChihuahua 21:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about "Several cites have been given"? None have been given yet regarding the "fundamental assumption" ID allegedly has (note: you may be thinking of another, different issue I raised; and even then none of those citations contained the argument I suspected was original research—but for now let’s ignore that and get to the matter at hand). If you have citations, please provide me with one. Behe is the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity (confer Darwin's Black Box). I didn't say he was the leader of everything regarding ID. Nonetheless he is a very prominent proponent of ID in general, and even more so when it comes to irreducible complexity. You said

To offer a cite of one proponent of ID and try to use that to completely change a statment about ID as a whole is utilizing "pick and choose" especially given that you have rejected out of hand the cites you have been offered supporting the statement as it is written

As opposed to not citing any proponents of ID at all? This proponent of ID, as I said, happens to be the leading proponent of ID when it comes to irreducible complexity (which is what the alleged ID assumption is about). With all due respect, what more do you want? Can you at least give me some citations before claiming I have "rejected out of hand the cites you have been offered supporting the statement as it is written"? Your criticism appears premature, to say the least.

I am not trying to start a "fight". On what grounds do you believe this? How does asking for a citation (in accordance with Wikipedia policy) constitute starting a fight? When I addressed FeloniousMonk it was because that was who I was responding to (e.g. in cases where he was the only editor contributing to the matter at hand), so it wasn't clear to me at the time that I was supposed to the "editors at large". (Come to think of it, I didn't see you complaining when FeloniousMonk only addressed me rather than the editors of large, and come to think of it you yourself are addressing me now instead of the editors at large; particularly when you claim the existence of citations.)

You have appealed to consensus where none apparently exists in this section. Additionally, regarding consensus, let me point out:

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)

So you can't just refuse to provide citations and ignore Wikipedia policy by mere consensus, especially if one doesn't exist. If you have citations regarding this alleged fundamental assumption of ID, please provide them. After all, merely claiming they exist won't do anyone any good. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

as far as addressing yourself to one person or to the editors at large: When stating you have the firm intention of making a major change to a page, editors at large is appropriate. When asking for clarity, or discussing a comment someone made, addressing the person who made the post in question is appropriate. Surely that is obvious.

I already provided cites: you rejected them out of hand, stating the precise terminology was different. KillerChihuahua 15:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You claim to have provided cites, but where are they? Again, you may be thinking of another, different issue I raised (and even then none of those citations contained the argument I suspected was original research; my objections went well beyond "the precise terminology was different"), but I don't think you have even attempted to provide any regarding the alleged fundamental assumption of ID. Now if you indeed have relevant citations regarding this issue, please provide them here. So far, there appears to be no evidence that this fundamental assumption actually exists, and good evidence against its existence (my citation of Behe). This section has gone on for nearly a week and still no citations despite my repeated requests. I'm beginning to think the assumption should be removed. Does anyone have any reason why it shouldn't be? Wade A. Tisthammer 02:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

One again Wade, as has been explained to you many times before, there's been broad consensus that a cite for this was not needed since the passage in question stands on it's own in that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer using ID's own reasoning. But since you've yet again insisted, I've provided cites. Are you going to discount or dismiss these cites as well? FeloniousMonk 03:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, we are not talking about the argument of "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" we are talking about a different (albeit related) claim: "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer." In this section, you have not even attempted to provide a relevant citation regarding this alleged assumption. Re-read this thread and you'll see that I'm right. You've said a lot of words; not one of them included the providing of a citation. So far, neither you nor anyone else seems to have any basis (except perhaps for hearsay and conjecture) to claim that this "fundamental assumption" actually exists in ID.

And again, please don't claim consensus where none exists. So far, the only person who has claimed that a cite is not needed for this alleged fundamental assumption is you. And claiming that a cite is not necessary clearly contradicts the Wikipedia policy regarding citation. Appealing to nonexistent consensus to get around citing your sources is, I think, being a little disruptive. Now if there is no evidence that this assumption actually exists in ID (given my citations and your refusal to cite yours, that appears to be the case), I suggest someone at least reword it. For instance, one might replace the "fundamental assumption" sentence with "every irreducibly complex object requires a designer using ID's own reasoning" or something to that effect. Of course, you might still be required to cite a source of a prominent ID opponent using that argument, since original reseach is not allowed. And of course, it might be good to mention that the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity flatly contradicts this alleged ID reasoning (since he himself has claimed that not every irreducibly complex object had to be designed). After all, we wouldn’t want to give people a false impression about the actual ID position, right? Wade A. Tisthammer 04:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: although you have refused to provide citations here, you did leave a few references in the Wikipedia entry. One of them was from an anti-ID source, such that even if it mentioned that this fundamental assumption existed in ID it would be hearsay. (If you don't think evolutionists can misunderstand their opponents, I invite you to read Del Ratzsch's Battle of Beginnings.) The second source is from Behe (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity), who does not say or imply the fundamental assumption in the quote, and more notably Behe flatly contradicts the alleged fundamental assumption in the citation I provided you earlier. In short, these are not valid citations. You can't just provide references willy-nilly and claim you've satisfied the Wikipedia policy regarding citations. Wade A. Tisthammer 04:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Wade, but I think it's you who are mistaken here [7]. Clearly I was talking about the passage "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer," to which I've recently added supporting citations. Next time trying checking the article before responding with factually incorrect and misdirected War and Peace length rebuttals. FeloniousMonk 04:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, did you read what I said above regarding those citations (the addendum)? Those citations really don't support the existence of this alleged "fundamental assumption" of ID at all (assuming hearsay is inadmissible). Again, you can't just provide references willy-nilly and claim you've satisfied the Wikipedia policy regarding citations. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, like we didn't see this coming again. You've never once accepted a supporting citation here. So why should I take your objections seriously? Sorry, but the cites support the passage, in spite of your vigorous denials of the obvious. FeloniousMonk 06:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The obvious? Felonious, you have two citations. One of them is hearsay, not quite admissible here. The other is Behe, which did not mention the fundamental assumption. Perhaps you have somehow come away with a different interpretation of Behe's words, but I don't see how that's possible, given that Behe is the same individual I cited who flatly contradicted this alleged fundamental assumption (by citing the existence of an irreducibly complex entity that need not be designed). Frankly, a better question would be why I should take your citations seriously. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Wade elsewhere on this page, perhaps if we say "by ID's own logic" rather thean "by ID's own reasoning" he'll stop his crusade. Nah, probably not, especially given that we're discussing an inherently illogical subject.

Jim62sch 18:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how merely paraphrasing it would make things better. An authoritative citation is what I'm looking for to show that it's not original research, remember? Besides, this section is talking about the alleged "fundamental assumption" of ID, not the argument "by intelligent design's own reasoning..." (That argument was discussed in different sections, here I am talking about a "fundamental assumption" of ID that does not appear to exist, yet the Wikipedia entry claims it does.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

From my perspective it's quite simple and does not require a WP:CITE; but is rather a necessary part of intelligent design. If a Designer is not irreducibly complex – then even assuming life on Earth was indeed designed by said Designer – it allows for the possibility the Designer developed naturally. I think allowing for that contradicts intelligent designs premise that design is required for the origins of life; as the origin of the Designer could be natural. Wow... clearly I need more sleep since that doesn't address the point above, but ah well... I'll keep it here for kicks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Granted, you didn't address the point above, but I'll allow your comment. I'll just move this part into a subsection under "other remarks" so we can have the above half focus on the matter at hand. Wade A. Tisthammer 21:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently Felonious is rather insistent about not having this off-topic segment put into a subsection. Although I find Felonious’s actions a bit disruptive here, I’ll relent. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You did nothing of the sort. A number of added lines of white still clearly suggests a distinction between what went before and what followed. Do you even realise this qualifies as a revert war? -- Ec5618 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I did exactly what I said. I relented the matter I described: making it a subsection. A few lines of white space seemed the least I can do given Royboy's own admission "Wow... clearly I need more sleep since that doesn't address the point above". Why do you and Felonious feel the need to merge this off-topic section with the real issue? Can any good come of reducing clarity here? Wade A. Tisthammer 22:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What is with this obsession to describe the designer. There's no point in that. ID simply says some things in nature are simply unexplainable by any of the criteria provided by evolution. No evolutionist can deny that. It goes no further. (unsigned comment left by User:ChadThomson 22:44, 20 November 2005)

Well, in the words of Ian Pitchford: Claiming that X explains everything and that X requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, it's a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating cliché. FeloniousMonk 07:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the whole argument is based on semantics. You have the majority of scientists defining "science" as exclusive of design. According to this definition, there can be no argument, ID is not science. Give whatever definition you like. Imagine people saying that dogs are any animals that are unfriendly to humans, do not bark, are tailless, have anything but four legs and so forth, and all of humanity must agree that dogs are the animals described by the majority. But that avoids the point. The dogs still exist, they're just called something different. "Cats" for instance. The debate cannot be won be ID supporters, because despite the fact that scientists cannot deny that they really cannot conclusively say where the universe and all its components and laws (including those of biology on earth) came from, "science" must retain its dogmatic definition. The definition blinds real people to the fact that it is impossible to explain many things with the visible evidence available. But most scientists have descended into blind deductions and assumptions and speculation all because they have tied their own hands behind their backs with their definition of science which can allow for nothing else. --ChadThomson 05:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad: arguments are based on semantics; They would be meaningless otherwise. I don't think the reason the vast majority of scientists say ID is not science is based on diverging opinions about the meaning of science. In fact, there are specific reasons in each one of the purported areas of investigation of ID for rejecting the title "science": Take for example, the theory of specified complexity. Dembski claims this is a theory of information and he claims to have derived theorems about his concepts; the vast majority of mathematicians reject his work as nonsense. In mathematics there is precious little argument about this: you have a theorem which or a definition within a formal theory and either it makes sense or it doesn't; or a proof which is valid or not; in mathematics (among trained mathematicians) there is very little divergence of opinion on this. Also, what do you mean when you say scientists have descended into "blind deductions"?

If you see the archives of this article I'm sure you'll find others who expressed sentiments similar to yours. These points have been argued endlessly and in the end, the article's contents are determined by consensus.--CSTAR 06:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientists "descending" into speculation is essential to the creative process (based on hard evidence) needed for scientific discovery; and actual contradicts your contention they have their hands tied because of the definition of a word. Just because science is rigorously defined; does not remove other non-material elements from the scientific process (such as philosophy/religion). As such scientists do not have "tied hands" and can consider all of existance possibilities in their pursuit of the truth. However, in order to demonstrate something as true, it needs to stand scrutiny of others... and in order for others to be able to actually scrutinize/verify something, it needs to exist. There is no way around that. Complaining about the definition of science is indeed semantics, and has no true bearing on the reality of the scientific process. If people are blinded to the limitations of science... its people, not science, which is at fault. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"ID simply says some things in nature are simply unexplainable by any of the criteria provided by evolution. No evolutionist can deny that." User:ChadThomson

Is that saying "no evolutionist can deny that ID says..." or is it saying that "evolutists cannot deny that some things in nature are simply unexplainable by evolution"? If the former, that's possibly true. If the later then, it's a case of asking the wrong question to try to get the answer you want. There may be things that evolution does not currently have an explanation for. But that is different to saying that these things that contradict evolution. Saying that "we don't know how to reduce something" is a long way short of saying "it is irreducible". Regards, Ben Aveling 08:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is that ID does not "simply says some things in nature are simply unexplainable by any of the criteria provided by evolution". ID goes on to say - hence, design. The first part is reasonable. The second is a logical flaw. While you should say "If not A then Ā", ID says "if not A then B". Pennock puts it nicely: ID proponents try to portray the options as E vs. D (E = evolution, D = design), when in reality it is E₁ or E₂ or E₃ or... E_n or D₁ or D₂ or D₃ or... D_n or X₁ or X₂ or... X_n. Guettarda 12:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Re Chad's statements "The debate cannot be won be ID supporters, because despite the fact that scientists cannot deny that they really cannot conclusively say where the universe and all its components and laws (including those of biology on earth) came from, "science" must retain its dogmatic definition. The definition blinds real people to the fact that it is impossible to explain many things with the visible evidence available. But most scientists have descended into blind deductions and assumptions and speculation all because they have tied their own hands behind their backs with their definition of science which can allow for nothing else. "

• The debate cannot be won? Which debate? There seem to be two: one, an invention of the ID strategy, and the second, whether pseudoscience and superstition has equal validity with science.
• "scientists cannot deny" They don't. They don't even try to. Your phrasing makes it sound like scientists were "caught" and had to "admit". This is a highly inaccurate view. Scientists cheerfully examine, pursue, and hypothesise about many things for which there is, as yet, no really good scientific explanation. That's what all those research scientists do - they're researching things we don't yet understand. If science had already explained everything they'd be out of a job.
• "impossible to explain" This is a flawed position. Because an explanation has not been posited or proven does not mean it is "impossible" to ever "explain" the many things which are still question marks.
• "blind deductions" This is unclear. What do you mean by "blind deductions"?
• "definition of science which can allow for nothing else" Inaccurate. Science is indeed defined. It is not that scientists cannot allow for anything else; it is that they object, and rightly so, to pseudoscience and nonsense being called science. This is completely different.

KillerChihuahua 13:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is also a very good reason to exclude the supernatural from science - if you allow supernatural explanations, you cannot exclude supernatural explanations. So, if you do not exclude the supernatural, science ceases to exist (which is why Behe et al. may be arguing for non-naturalistic explanations, but are not incorporating them in their science. I propose that X is an act of God, where X = "every observable phenomenon". I have thus proposed a Theory of Everything which, in Kansas, is scientifically valid. Silly old Einstein. Guettarda 17:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I humbly suggest that Wade A. Tisthammer has a bit of a point about the "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object." argument, and that it could well be replaced by the following:

In Reply to My Critics Behe argues that human "intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex.. [so similarly] it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture." On this basis he finds it implausible "that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity", but refuses to rule it out to preserve the claims of ID to be based on science rather than religion. However, he also testifies that "arguing from scientific data only takes you so far. It takes you to the point of the fact that we do not have an explanation for this event right now. But to go beyond that requires a reasoning beyond just scientific reasoning."[8]

Hope y'all find this a constructive suggestion, ...dave souza 01:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for attempting to provide something constructive here. I find it refreshing. Regarding your quote Behe says it "may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. [my emphasis]" Behe doesn't say that this is a certainty, he just mentions it as a possibility. Notably, he also mentions the possibility of the reverse: that the designer may not require irreducibly complex structures to sustain itself (page 249 of Darwin's Black Box). In any case, it seems that it is not a fundamental assumption of ID that all irreducibly complex objects require a designer, particularly in light of my citation of Behe where he mentions an irreducibly complex entity that does not require design. I suspect the best thing to do would be to remove the "fundamental assumption" altogether. ID may have a fundamental assumption, but a citation should be provided to verify that this assumption actually exists (and so far that has not been done). Wade A. Tisthammer 02:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Behe may have said that, but I saw something where Dembski said that Humans could be called an i.c. construct (I am rephrasing I don't recall his precise phrase) because some of their components are i.c. and those components are necessary to human life. I've been looking, and it seems there are at least 4 variations on the definition of i.c. just between Behe and Dempski. Should I find that again - would it help? KillerChihuahua 11:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. I doubt it will help since--at this point--it does not seem to confirm the alleged fundamental assumption ("IC construct" seems different than irreducible complexity) but it's difficult to tell for certain without seeing the original text. By all means, provide it and I'll be able to give my thoughts on the matter. Wade A. Tisthammer 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben Aveling said:

• Saying that "we don't know how to reduce something" is a long way short of saying "it is irreducible".

So now ID supporters are supposed to say, "okay, you've won"? But actually, "we don't know how to reduce something" proves my point further. Darwinism "does not know" how to reduce certain things without involving intelligence. The dogmatic reaction is to continue searching for the solution of "complexity that can not be reduced to the best of darwinists' knowledge" in the framework of darwinism, which continues to show, time and time again, that it is inadequate. In my opinion, the "fundamental assumption" of "non-intelligent design" can be summed up in the words "we don't know". "We don't know" how multi-cellular life formed. "We don't know" how to reduce certain biological structures so they can be explained in terms of small, incredibly rare, non-lethal mutations. "We don't know" how the first cell came into existence, and when it did, why it lived and reproduced. But somehow, we do know the following: complex biological structures can be reduced to minute mutations (or to near-impossible mutations resulting in huge, ridiculously complex changes), multi-cellular life did form spontaneously from single-celled organisms, and the first cell was formed of its own accord from the materials available and it did reproduce. Anything else is quickly labelled as pseudoscience or superstition. So be it.

KillerChihuahua said:

• The debate cannot be won? Which debate? There seem to be two: one, an invention of the ID strategy, and the second, whether pseudoscience and superstition has equal validity with science.

So do you really believe that ID is thinly veiled Biblical young-earth creationism: that there's a covert "strategy" to suck people into believing God created the Earth in 6 24-hour days? Why would they invent the term "Intelligent Design" and claim that the whole argument is irreducible complexity, when really it's that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. Have you read "Darwin on Trial"? Read it. The author, Phillip E. Johnson is considered by many to be the father of ID. It says nothing about the Bible, nor does it attempt to prove the Biblical creation myth as true. There is no talk of the age of the Earth being any different than the fossil record shows. It simply says that the extremely complex changes occurred too quickly to be accounted for by rare mutations and that stasis in the fossil record has alway been the norm and not the exception. This article misrepresents ID, because it claims it finds its roots in creation-science. It finds it's roots in noticing that evolutionists can only say, for example, "we don't know how or why it happened. We have no idea how chromosome numbers changed all by themselves resulting in a viable, fertile, advantaged creature. The amazing thing is that it did happen. The very fact that camels have 5474 chromosomes and fruit flies have 8 shows that chromosome numbers changed by themselves." This kind of subjective representation of nature is what cheeses ID supporters off. Evolution has been crowned as "science" and yet it is incapable of explaining the very things that form the basis of biology and differentiation between species. People in ID seek to find an explanation (call it pseudoscientific or superstitious if it makes you feel better) that evolution cannot provide apart from smart-ass unscientific conclusions such as "the amazing thing is that things that can't be explained through evolution are explained by evolution!". My. Very profound indeed.

"Blind deductions"

As fellow human beings, I would ask you, do you really think it's appropriate or fair to pull people's words out of their context and then say the person wasn't making any sense? My actual words were "blind deductions and assumptions and speculation". The word "deduction" was inspired by an wiki-article on carnivorous plants which said that although there is no fossil record of the evolution of these plants "much can be deduced from the structure of current traps". The same can be said about the vast majority of species. Much has to be deduced, because evolution is the only explanation of biology that is accepted as science. Blind deductions, assumptions, and speculation are what leads to the dogmatism in the scientific community.

--ChadThomson 09:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad: I asked a simple question, to which 'debate' were you referring? Not only have you not answered that question and cleared up my confusion, there is a 324 word essay which begins by somehow 'deducing' from my question that I "really believe that ID is thinly veiled Biblical young-earth creationism: that there's a covert "strategy" to suck people into believing God created the Earth" and continues throuigh "smart-ass unscientific conclusions" to a highly sarcastic ending of "My. Very profound indeed." I am offended. I am hurt. I am appalled. How can you possibly justify that very hostile rant with no basis, which you directed at me??? This was an attack on my religion, about which you know nothing, my viewpoints, about which you cannot possibly know much, my intelligence... and "smart-ass"? Do you realize that you have thoroughly attacked me in every way when all I asked for is a simple clarification so I could understand your question? KillerChihuahua

KillerChihuahua: I'm sorry if I hurt you. I didn't say you were a "smart-ass" though, I said that this statement: "the amazing thing is that things that can't be explained through evolution are explained by evolution!" is a smart-ass statement, but it should be reworded, I suppose, replacing "evolution" with "darwinism".

This ties directly into your second version of the "debate" (whether pseudoscience and superstition has equal validity with science) in that it shows that the science of darwinism can be just as unreasonably dogmatic as pseudoscience and superstition.

As to the first version, the only so-called ID "strategy" I've heard darwinists talk about is one to somehow re-introduce creationism (from a literal reading of the Bible) into academia. The only other strategy (which can be deduced by reading the "ID Bible", Darwin on Trial, and which therefore seems more representative) is described in my "essay".

So to answer your question, the "debate" I was referring to is whether or not ID is science . I think it's pretty clear from my (second) post (I clearly said the debate cannot be won, because of the very definition of science.) The "essay" moreover, was more of an attempt to describe the misrepresentation of the (strategy-related) debate in the article than simply a reply to you. I used your question as a starting point to describe what I believe the debate is about (my opinion being based on Darwin on Trial.) Sorry again.

Also, I've changed the wording in my reply to Ben Aveling, replacing evolution with darwinism (ID does not inherently deny evolution, only evolution wholly by natural selection).

--ChadThomson 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Smart-ass" was a tiny fraction of what you wrote. I would appreciate a retraction of your presumptions, completely unfounded, attacking my religious beliefs, about which you know nothing; my personal feelings about ID, about which you know nothing, your implication that I have some kind of conspiracy complex, based on nothing; in short - what about the rest of that which was most assuredly directed at me?

Your (Chad's) statement about ID (ID does not inherently deny evolution, only evolution wholly by natural selection) - does ID therefore allow for evolution by unnatural selection? I think perhaps that statement needs rephrasing.

KillerChihuahua 14:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

See wedge strategy. Guettarda 07:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Why would they invent the term "Intelligent Design" and claim that the whole argument is irreducible complexity, when really it's that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago."

Why did the Nazis insist that the Jews were being relocated? Why did Reaganites insist on calling the MX missile the "Peacekeeper"? Why is the contruct of permitted speech called "political correctness" rather than "social engineering"? Why do various laws carry names that are the exact opposite of what they are actually intended to do? Why "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide"?

The basic point is that use of deception through the creation of new terminology is a time-tested method of either repackaging an old ideology or creating a new one that, if a spade were called a spade, would be seen as being unacceptable.

Jim62sch 13:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we have the "Wedge Strategy". First of all, the wedge strategy contains no indication that the strategy has any goal to promote young earth creationism, and it's perfectly visible that anything related to science is left out of any stages but the first.

As to Jim's comment, first of all, it's hard to take you seriously, because you seem to be using a bunch of really negative examples of deception in wording there...secondly, saying that ID has an agenda of getting young-earth creationism back into schools is like (using your example), saying that the idea of improving a country leads to ethnic cleansing, and that the idea of "improving your country" is just a conspiracy whose goal is really to practice eugenics full-scale, killing any genetic undesireables.

This "pretend" strategy of ID stems from three assumptions (albeit incorrect ones). 1) ID is inherently connected to the wedge strategy 2) The wedge strategy has a goal to force academia into accepting young-earth creationism 3) In the end a 6-day creation by the Judaeo-Christian God is the only thing to be inferred from ID.

If anything, darwinists should be thankful to ID proponents. ID has given darwinists new vigour to dig deeper to really find out the "origin of species" down to the last flagellum. --ChadThomson 14:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

KillerCh. I think I've clearly explained that the "essay" used your comment as a starting point to discuss the invented strategy and was directed at anyone who adheres to belief in that strategy. (see my last post). And ID does allow for unnatural selection, or more specifically "supernatural selection" (i know the word supernatural is taboo but it simply refers to selection occuring from outside observable nature). I would also suggest people discussing ID read C.S. Lewis. It's his apologetic system that Discovery Institute is supposedly based on. Regards, --ChadThomson 15:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Then your attack was not a personal attack on me specifically, but a blanket condemnation of anyone who might be reading it? This makes no sense. Your post begain "So do you really believe that ID is thinly veiled Biblical young-earth creationism" and was posted as a response to my question. Either you were attacking me, in which case please retract, or you were attacking everyone reading who might believe there is a strategy, which includes me, so again, retract. Whether someone believes there is a strategy is no basis for making personal attacks and "mind-reading" about what other beliefs that person may or may not hold regarding the Bible, creationism, atheism, etc. KillerChihuahua 15:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget, I'm the smart-ass around here. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

re "first of all, it's hard to take you seriously, because you seem to be using a bunch of really negative examples of deception in wording there" Can you find me positive examples of deception? By definition, deception implies disingenuousness, which is considered morally and ethically negative.

re "secondly, saying that ID has an agenda of getting young-earth creationism back into schools is like (using your example), saying that the idea of improving a country leads to ethnic cleansing, and that the idea of "improving your country" is just a conspiracy whose goal is really to practice eugenics full-scale, killing any genetic undesireables." First, read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. Secondly, how in Plato's name did you manage the incredible leap in illogic that led you to infer any connection regarding the improvement of one's country and genocide?

Speaking of it being hard to take someone seriously: how in the world could anyone who basically said if "A = B, and thus B = A, then C must = A also" be taken seriously?

Jim62sch 23:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim62sch: I managed the leap in illogic much in the same way as you managed yours. You seem to think that ID necessarily implies the return of 6-day creationism of a 6000 year-old earth into the classroom. That's a huge jump. I would suggest you 1) read the relevant literature ([Darwin on Trial]] talks at great lengths about things to the tune of "after a period of stasis in the fossil record that lasted half a million years, suddenly completely new organisms appeared on the scene") 2) avoid propaganda, which is, namely the idea that the entire "wedge" is contained in ID 3) avoid your fear that ID can have a profound effect on science. If you are a scientist, think how relatively rare these "supposedly" i.c. structures are, and that you would still be free to continue studying whether they are truly i.c. or not (also, remember, if ID really is false, the comprehensive study of quasi-i.c. structures would certainly reveal the sham quickly) 4) avoid your fear that the wedge strategy could conceivably be successful beyond the first stage. Even when the majority "believed" in the supernatural, it really had little limitting effect on society. It would be ridiculous to think of a scenario where scientists buy into ID, and that somehow, a few years down the line, they are jailing adulterers, executing homosexuals, etc. The wedge strategy is doomed to failure, because Americans enjoy their un-christian lifestyles. Even if we could convince them all ("pseudo-")scientifically that there is a supernatural, it will have no effect on the lifestyle of the vast majority. By thinking positively, and not making assumptions this article could become truly unbiased, simply stating the facts about ID itself (not as a part of a pointless strategy) stating some criticisms, and that's it. This would make more sense than inventing a strategy which does clearly not exist. And Jim, please counter my specific arguments. In the "who has better syntax" argument, I forfeit (because I feel it's pointless). Please, show step by step, clearly, concisely, without delving into linguistics, why you think that the real strategy of ID is to deceive the public into accepting young-earth creationism. --ChadThomson 05:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

First, as I stated earlier, "read what I wrote not what you think I wrote". I never said that I "seem to think that ID necessarily implies the return of 6-day creationism of a 6000 year-old earth into the classroom.". In fact, the statement that I quoted regarding the use of deceptive repackaging was yours, "Why would they invent the term "Intelligent Design" and claim that the whole argument is irreducible complexity, when really it's that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago." I merely provided a rhetorical answer to your statement. You really need to pay attention to the quotation marks -- generally they would be used (in this context at least) to refer to an earlier post. (BTW, did you ever find that positive example of deception I requested?)

Second, I have never mentioned the "wedge strategy", in fact, the comment re said strategy was introduced by Guettarda. You really need to pay attention to attributions.

As for the rest of your comments, I assure you that I am well aware that there are gaps in both evolutionary theory and supporting data, but gaps do not disprove the theory. Remember, the absence of proof for evolution is not the presence of proof against evolution. (Yes, yes, yes, I know you have decided (using linguistics, as you call it, or more appropriately semantics) to replace evolution with Darwinism, but that's really just another "cover your butt" ID strategy).

Also, your statement that "if ID really is false, the comprehensive study of quasi-i.c. structures would certainly reveal the sham quickly" is problematic at best. IC in no way inherently implies ID as IC (if one chooses to believe in that concept) can very easily be a result of natural selection, or, more appropriately, random mutation. Additionally, scientists have noticed (empirically) that most mutations fail, and only those that strengthen the overall structure are successful. This of course raises another interesting point in that the mutation of something already considered irreducibly complex casts some doubt on the claim of the irreducible complexity of the organism before it underwent mutation.

In any case, over the next few days or so I expect to complete my essay on why there is such a strong need for people to believe in a designer (or God, if you will). At that point you will be free to comment away -- assuming, of course, that you will manage to "read what I wrote not what you think I wrote". I realize, based on reading a number of your posts in which you jump to contusions by drawing inferences out of thin air (such as assuming that I "fear" ID when in reality I've actually dismissed it as pseudoscience based on a number of logical flaws, not the least of which is its necessity for a supernatural actor), that this will be difficult, but give it a try anyway.

Jim62sch 10:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool Jim62sch! I've been thinking for a while that there's a need for some discussion re: motivations behind ID, etc. I'm aware that the ecologist Garrett Hardin tackled this in at least one essay back in the 1980s ("Scientific Creationism - Marketing Deception as Truth" in Naked Emperors, 1982), and cited some work by Dorothy Nelkin that took a long look at the subject. You might want to check these out. --Plumbago 10:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Plumbago,

I hope the essay will engender just the type of discussion of which you wrote. I'm roughly half way through it, so I expect it to be done by Sunday.

Jim62sch 23:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll be interested to read it. I found the full reference for Hardin, and there's some more mention of Nelkin in there. Unfortunately, I left it at work. I'll add it next week. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim:

'Re: "Why would they invent the term "Intelligent Design" and claim that the whole argument is irreducible complexity, when really it's that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago."'

This is a direct quote. Your examples about how deception is used were "regarding" (that’s what "re" means) my quote. Are you ready to deny that when you said "deception through the creation of new terminology is a time-tested method of either repackaging an old ideology or creating a new one" you were not referring to this question: "Why would they invent the term "Intelligent Design" and claim that the whole argument is irreducible complexity, when really it's that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago?" If you were, it is very clear that the ideology whose repackaging you are referring to is 6-day 6000-year creationism. If you weren't referring to that, what was the point of writing "re:". If you still feel I misunderstood you, maybe at least you can understand why I did now. From this "misunderstanding" I inferred that you do indeed believe that ID is repackaged 6d6ky creationism. If I may be so bold, I think such repackaging should qualify as a "strategy". Then I discussed how this invented strategy has nothing to do with ID. That the only strategy connected to ID by it's main proponents (and therefore the only one worth discussing) is the wedge strategy, and that the wedge strategy has nothing to do with science past stage one.

I did not say you "fear" ID. IMHO, saying that ID is a repackaging of 6d6ky creationism (albeit without any reasonable basis for this) shows that you believe there is a risk that in the end it will lead to 6d6ky creationism (just like people who oppose "political correctness" because they "fear" that it is really "social engineering"). So in this sense, you may fear the invented outcome of accepting ID, but not ID itself. I elaborated the forms this fear could take. Although I did not say you fear anything, I suggested that it would be better if you didn't fear the 4 things I described. It's like saying "son, do not fear the dentist". The son says, "But dad, I’m not afraid of the dentist". So what? Whether or not the son fears the dentist or not is irrelevant to what the father said. --ChadThomson 15:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

Several points:

Do not even pretend to think you can "school" me in Latin, my good man: I am fluent in the language. Additionally, I am very well aware of what re means, although I must point out that it is actually from a contraction of in re (> L. res), meaning "in the matter of" (much like the re in pro re nata (PRN) means "for the matter [as it] arises" (literally, is born)).

The 6 day creation story is only taken literally by a relatively small (though growing), evangelical group of Christians, so try not to get hung up on that one. However, the belief that a god (the Designer) created the world permeates Christianity and a number of other religions (this portion of the discussion is already completed in my essay). Thus, my point does not specifically refer to the "6 days, 6000 years ago" myth, but to any myth requiring a supernatural designer.

As for the repackaging being a strategy -- what ever. Personally, I find strategy to be an overworked and over-used word that has little purpose other than to make something whimsical (see original meaning) seem scientific or logical.

Finally, fear doesn't even enter into the picture, except possibly that you fear to touch upon the many other points I raised.

Jim62sch 23:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to my earlier note, the references I was alluding to are :

• Nelkin, D. (1977) Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time, MIT Press, USA (ISBN 0262140276)
• Hardin, G. (1982) "Scientific Creationism" - Marketing Deception as Truth, in: Naked Emperors, Essays of a Taboo-Stalker, William Kaufmann Inc., CA, USA (ISBN 0865760322)

They're perhaps a little older than one would prefer, but ID now isn't so very different from Scientific Creationism then (though, ironically, there's been some evolution since the 1980s). --Plumbago 12:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Some definitions!

Having trawled through the above discussion to find where the latest comment was added inspired some basic definitions:

• firstly, I don't think a designer being needed for every irreducibly complex object including the "designer" is a “fundamental assumption” of ID, rather an inherent paradox or contradiction, which is why Behe acknowledges the argument then cops out by saying the answer is outside science i.e. supernatural
• Intelligent Design is the proposition that things in nature which cannot be understood or explained by science are proof of the existence of a supernatural designer which cannot be described but just happens to fit neatly with the religious beliefs of its proponents, with the widespread supposition that any such unexplained phenonomon completely discredits the relevant scientific theory
• Science is the approach that things in nature which cannot be understood or explained should be investigated and explanations sought which do not depend on miracles or religious beliefs

Hope that's a fair summary of much of the discussion...dave souza 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I would rather put it this way: "Intelligent Design is the proposition that things in nature for which it is alleged that no scientific explanation currently exists are proof of the existence of a supernatural designer..." Alleged because some of the things stated not to have a scientific explanation do (e.g., "the flagellum," "the immune system.") Currently because the nonexistence of an explanation at the present time is not evidence that one will not be found at some time in the future. Bill Jefferys 22:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent points. In fairness, it should probably be "the proposition that certain things in nature..." ,,,,dave souza 10:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The definitions appear to put forth a distorted version of intelligent design. At least in biology, intelligent design theory does not require the supernatural (see page 249 of Darwin's Black Box). We as humans could quite conceivably intelligently design life (if technological progress continues) without the aid of the supernatural. Additionally, where does Behe mention the argument you are referring to? And how is it "an inherent paradox or contradiction"?

Here's a good rough and ready definition of intelligent design:

The theory of intelligent design holds 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.

I get this definition straight from the horse's mouth: the Center for Science and Culture (a major ID website). In general, it's best to get the definition of the theory from the actual adherents rather than relying on hearsay.

Saying that ID claims that certain biological aspects do not have a scientific explanation is a bit POV and rather questionable. Invoking intelligent causes is done all the time in science (e.g. forensic science) it seems little more than special pleading to say it cannot in principle be "scientific" in biology. Wade A. Tisthammer 03:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the boat with a number of your points, Wade. Dembski states specifically that only a supernatural designer fits his bill:

"The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[9]

The definition of ID you quote here "The theory of intelligent design holds 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.[10]" is the one cited in the article as well. As is stated in the article, by stating that the universe appears to be designed, anything requiring the prior existence of the universe, such as a "natural" designer, can not logically be its "intelligent cause"; only supernatural entities can satisfy that definition of ID.

And about relying on the Discovery Institute as a source here: The DI has a clear interest in promoting ID, and doing so in a way that suits their ends. Considering that, and that the DI has a well-established history of distorting facts and comments of others, genuinely objective readers will be circumspect about taking anything they state at face value. That means that we are going to be circumspect here as well. The Discovery Institute is perfectly suitable for determining what the leading ID proponents say (since they all belong to the DI), but it is less useful for establishing matters of fact beyond what they say. 04:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dembski basis his biology claim on the fine-tuned physical constants of the universe, since (allegedly) fine-tuned physical constants are necessary for any kind of physical life in our universe (and the creator of the universe would arguably have to be supernatural). But there is clearly nothing inherently supernatural with the claim that life on Earth was intelligently designed, as Behe (page 249 of Darwin's Black Box) and other ID adherents point out. Aliens intelligently designing life on Earth would be perfectly consistent with ID. If you think Dembski is a definitive ID source, note that he also says, "Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated." In short, you can't attach "supernatural" do the definition of ID. The ID definition Dembski and others provide clearly allows for a naturalistic designer.

Whether or not your accusations of DI are sound I won’t comment on, only to say I’ve seen much misunderstanding and rhetoric on both sides on the creation-evolution debate (and I’ve seen anti-ID adherents distort other people’s comments, e.g. FeloniousMonk distorting—albeit perhaps unintentionally—my own comments). Wade A. Tisthammer 05:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The point remains that the canonical definition of ID, which you yourself invoke, makes explicit reference to the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, so Dembski's I presented quote applies. Dembski's other admitting that "Whether an intelligent cause is natural or supernatural is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated" is correct, but moot, since ID claims the universe is apparently designed, not just life.

Once again, please limit your comments to the topic and not fellow editors. FeloniousMonk 06:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The fine-tuning argument is not part of the definition of ID (you have not shown otherwise; and note my quoted definition of ID made no mention of the fine-tuning of the universe), anymore than homology is part of the definition of evolution. There is a difference between the definition of the theory and the arguments used to support it.

BTW Felonious, you yourself have often not followed the rule of refraining comments on other editors many times (e.g. myself) and in some circumstances (e.g. "your accusations") I don't think it's all that inappropriate. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The reliance on the supernatural to explain that which one cannot yet comprehend is very old. This of course, does not make it excusable. If ID's concept of irreducible complexity were correct in assuming the necessity of a designer (it isn't) then a good bit more discussion should be given to the human brain. Not only is it structurally complex (the only criteria the high priests of IC ever note) but it is complex in function, and in my opinion, function has always won out over form.

So then, if the human brain had a designer, and if I am correct in proposing that it is the human brain that sets us apart from other species, then why do the ID folks insist on stupefying it with supernatural mumbo-jumbo? Aren't they in essence rejecting the greatest gift their designer ever bestowed upon man?

Jim62sch 23:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Very clever, Jim. If the brain had a designer (am I crazy to assume you mean a "supernatural" designer?), why do ID folks insist on "stupefying" it with supernatural mumbo-jumbo? Why are they rejecting the greatest gift of their designer?

First of all, I don't think very many ID supporters have turned from their unenlightened ways after reading this comment. They aren't all saying "you know what? I think Jim's right." Second, the whole statement (on top of its obvious sarcasm) is a paradox, and I must say very insulting to the designer (assuming he exists).

It's like giving your son a car for his birthday. His friends say, "in saying that your dad gave you that car, saved up money for it, worked extra hours to buy it for you, you are rejecting his greatest gift: the car." Does anyone else see the ridiculousness in Jim's statement? Jim, delete it quick before someone else notices :-).

A more interesting paradox is this: Let's assume there is a designer, who designed, among other things, the human brain. And yet it is with this brain that people come up with ways of getting around design. Now that's really ironic.

Also, regarding your Latin lesson. "In the matter of" is almost (if not completely) identical in meaning to "regarding". The point of my last post still stands, regardless of your superior knowledge of Latin.

I too am very interested in your upcoming essay. --ChadThomson 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

First, I really don't care about enlightening those caught in the rapture of the supernatural mysteries of ID-ism, as any such attempt would be a waste of time. Unlike true science, ID-ism began with a conclusion and worked backwards, making the pieces fit (or at least seem to fit) the conclusion. This is not unlike UFOlogists who begin with the conclusion that aliens pilot UFO's and then use innuendo, misrepresentation of fact and pseudo-science to "prove" their point.

Second, I fail to see how your rebuttal of my statement regarding the human brain supports your assertion that it is a paradox (nor was my statement truly sarcastic, it was really rather more ironical as the assumption of a supernatural designer is outside the bounds of science). In fact, your example is the epitome of ridiculousness and is hardly a parallel to what I wrote: try again. Also, my statement would be an insult to the alleged "designer" how? Merely saying so does not make it so. (Note, I ask this question rhetorically).

Third, I notice that you have yet to respond to several of my points of a few days ago. Still thinking of a snappy (snippy?) comeback, are we?

The purpose of the "Latin lesson" was not to point out my "superior knowledge" of Latin, but rather to point out that that your definition of re was utterly unnecessary. Also, if by saying that your point still stands, does that mean that you're still hung up on the 6 day 6KYA bit and your misbelief that I was referring solely to that? There are far more creation myths than the 6 and 6.

One final note: the irony of which you speak regarding getting around design becomes a theological debate as it implies that man is meant to use the brain following certain preordained paths rather than freely and fully. It reminds me of the arguments regarding the Abrahamic God's omniscience vs. Free Will.

Jim62sch 11:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, say we're working backwards. I suppose you have more authority because you agree with mainstream science. But the fact is the same argument can be used against Darwinisim. Darwin saw some slightly varying finches and worked backwards from there, deciding that they had a common ancestor (I agree with that, but it's "working backwards"). Only after Darwin's theory was published did people look at extant organisms and begin the search for their ancestors, including missing links, (the vast majority of which cannot be found) (they may have existed, they may be found yet, but it's still working backwards). If one of your arguments against ID is that it works backwards, engender a new theory which watches how life forms from the elements, reproduces, becomes more complex, describe it. You will be working forwards. My definition of "re" was necessary to show that you certainly appeared to be stating that people in ID are really repackaging classical creationism. I'll answer one of your points (the one I remember offhand. You'll have to remind me of the rest). You want positive deception. I'm sure whatever I say, you'll say it "doesn't count" and I really think it's quite irrelevant. What's relevant is that you appeared (to the reader) to put ID in a clump with missiles, genocide, and social engineering. Well, here goes nothing: The birds and the bees. A classic example of deception for a good purpose. Why not call it sexual reproduction in humans? Because we wouldn't want the little ones to learn about it too young. But as I said, it's really irrelevant. As per free will, you are practicing it, and God will not force you into heaven. --ChadThomson 12:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad, what was your point? I cannot identify it in that long somewhat disjointed post. KillerChihuahua 12:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

Huh? What was your point? I'm not sure, either. Seemed very zealous, though.

Anyway, what you inferred (assumed) from my writing is your issue, not mine. Had I intended to lump ID in with missiles, genocide and social engineering I would have done so in a manner that there could have been no question that that was what I intended. Remember, as I've told you several times before, "read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote."

As for the rest of the points: scroll up -- that's what the scroll bar (or mouse wheel) is for.

Jim62sch 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad, I don't think you understand the point about "working backward". There is a difference between taking an assumption and "working backwards" to cherry pick observations to support the assumption, and taking an observation and "working backwards" deductively to figure out what is going on. Neither of them is correct with regards to Darwin - he took an observation, and then collected huge amounts of data (observational and experimental) to build an hypothesis. The second point of this, of course, is that while Darwin is admired as a remarkable person, what he said or did has little relevance to modern evolutionary biology. Darwin was dead wrong on the mechanisms of inheritance, but modern evolutionary biology is all about genes and DNA. Guettarda 13:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course bringing DNA and the mapping of genomes into the discussion creates a whole new set of issues that really do need to be explored. IC argues only that if an "integral" component is removed the object fails to function, but what if a gene mutates and changes an "integral" component? If a gene controlling our vision mutated enough to allow us to see IR radiation as light, thus red-shifting our colour spectrum, would ID-ists see it as the death of the eye as we know it? After all, the eye would no longer function in the standard way, so we may easily argue that it is "broken".

OK, ID-ists, please answer, but without the ad hominem attacks that so frequently accompany your responses.

Jim62sch 23:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda: in other words, what you're saying is that Darwin's hypothesis was only formed after he collected huge amounts of data? Were you in his head? Are you completely positive that naturalistic origins were excluded from his thought-processes until after he finished step one of the scientific method? It's unfair to say that otherwise.

Secondly, the amount of data Darwin collected was miniscule compared to more recent collections, and at the time, his hypothesis was unarguably unfounded. He saw similiarities between species, he saw variations within species, okay, but he didn't see whales with strange degenerate appendages (vestigial legs) etc? Everything that happened after Darwin was working backwards (I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying you shouldn't use working-backwards to discredit ID).

What would be so evil about using intuition to make a hypothesis, and then after observations find that your hypothesis is true (or false)? Darwin, a man who knew nothing of DNA, for some reason just felt like it "made sense" for all organisms to have a common ancestor; this of course is based on observations, but it still is more like intuition, because it's not based on observing evolution in progress or observing the huge amounts of data that have been collected since his time.

In the same way, you have people seeing the beauty in the world, the order, realising how amazing their senses are: their sight which allows them to see the lush green of the rainforest, their hearing which allows them to hear the calming and yet thundering waterfall, the fresh smell of broken grass and dirt, the taste of oranges, the way you feel lying in a patch of moss, and the thought enters their head that the incredible art in nature may certainly have been made by an Artist. People were thinking of this before the discovery of DNA and cells, and most of biology. And now that these things have been discovered and explained to a degree, people still see the art, the design. Why do people love the mountains? Can you answer that scientifically? Why do I find beauty in a mole on my girlfriend's hand? Because things were designed to be pleasing, even if the only pleasure is simply fascination. People see design in flagella, in the eye, in the immune system. So yes, ID does work backwards, so does Darwinism and moreover neo-Darwinism.

And Jim: Your essay is very biased, because of your lack of experience in religion, you fail to understand the real reason people have for believing in a creator, because you don't believe in one (or am I mistaken?). Your essay assumes there is no creator, and works from there. I don't believe in God because there is no other way to explain biology. I believe in God, because there is no other way to explain the actual existence of this amazing universe, with its laws, its matter taking particular forms, its fermions and bosons, there is no other explanation. I don't care whether or not my opinion is "unscientific". If these questions (of origins) cannot be answered scientifically, then there must be some other explanation of the art that is reality.

Drawing from this POV, ID-ists postulate that when studying biology, sooner or later you get to a point where you can't explain it anymore from a purely naturalistic viewpoint. And if that point will necessarily be reached, then it may have been reached already.

We may discover how to break down flagella, we've discovered how to break down proteins, we know the "origins" of the proteins, we know what makes amino acids, we know what makes carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, we know what makes atoms, we know what makes protons and neutrons, we know what makes quarks. Wait a second, do we know? What makes the fundamental particles? ID suggests (in a sort of quasi-thought experiment way), that instead of reducing complexity to a point where it is intrinsically irreducible, stop now, realise the artwork in nature (down to the last muon) that would be impossible without intelligence. Science without religion is a dead end. Give mankind another couple thousand years (heck, probably much less) and he'll have discovered everything's origin from a naturalistic standpoint, but he'll have nothing left to do, but perhaps pray. --ChadThomson 10:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

You seem to have a habit of making asinine and incorrect assumptions about people's religious backgrounds, and you have done it again. You have no more knowledge of my religious background, upbringing, reasoning, knowledge, etc., than a camel has of what a bird sees when it flies.

Also, you need to learn to read a bit better. You assume that given that I pointed out that, in essence, man created the gods as he believes he understands the concept through his own experiences and tendency toward anthropomorphism, that no gods can exist. Sorry, but that is not what I said. However, the existence or non-existence of any type of deity is outside the boundaries of science as it proposes something that can neither be proven nor disproven. In fact, both believers (theists) and atheists are in my eyes the same: illogical. Only agnostics, who simply say, "I dunno", are logical.

And hey, all that info gets you no darned closer to knowing my religious beliefs, background, upbringing, etc. Pax inscientae tibi sit.

Jim62sch 19:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad:

• With regards to the "working backwards" thing - you can't take casual language and work with it as if it were solid legal language. There is a difference between "starting with an assumption and selectively picking out information to support it" and "starting with a series of observations and finding an explanation which ties them all together. You're playing word games.
• Why do you say that Darwin's hypothesis was "unarguably unfounded"? He tooking existing theory (Malthus), combined it with a wealth of observational and experimental data, and came up with a pretty solid hypothesis which has, for the most part, stood the test of time. You could call his observations on sexual selection unfounded (but pretty accurate), but natural selection and evolution were remarkably accurate.
• With reagrds to your second point - to make the jump from beauty to design is neither scientific nor is it logically sound. Whether it's true or not is another matter. But much of the things you talk about as beautiful are either due to conditioning (people didn't like the rainforest a couiple generations ago, many still hate it) or are clearly predictable according to evolutionary theory (of course we should be attracted to things with high food value - like oranges. The individuals who are attracted to high value foods survive, those who aren't attracted to them don't.
• As for your comments about believing in God because there is no other way to explain the universe - does that mean that you would stop believing if you were provided with those explanations? To me the beauty of belief lies in its utter illogicality. The closest thing to proof for Christianity is the absurdity of Grace, which is almost too ridiculous an idea to make up. But faith is the belief in what cannot be proven - "evidence" turns God into the disagreeable prankster of the Hitchhiker's Guide books - "the kind of person who puts bricks under hats". Seeking God in the gaps turns God into something trivial. Guettarda 15:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this done better, but this is a fairly good page on a point of view which neatly outlines the "no conflict" position: The Lie. KillerChihuahua 16:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Or as I said elsewhere: There is nothing in Evolution that precludes the existence of a God, it merely removes the physical need for a God. I suppose it's too subtle of a difference for Theists and the Atheists to grasp.

Jim62sch 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda has some good points. I like his (her?) comments on Grace, but the real question is how can one's belief in God the creator not pervade his understanding of creation? How can one's disbelief in God the creator not pervade his understanding of creation? If one could disprove God to me, I wouldn't lose much. If an atheist or agnostic found out that there really is a God, the consequences would be far more serious. Moreover, am I making asinine assumptions, or is Guettarda saying that ID does not see signs in nature of intelligence and tie them together with an explanation? According to all the relevant literature, that's what ID is doing. ID is not working from the assumption that God exists. I say again, read Darwin on Trial. There is no mention of God.

Jim is saying I made an asinine assumption about his religious background. I won't get into the "this is a personal attack" rhetoric, but if Jim would read what I wrote and not what he thinks I wrote he would see that I said that "You don't believe in [a creator] (or am I mistaken)?". Not only is this not an assumption, it is not asinine. It would be far more productive if Jim said: Chad, you are mistaken, I do believe in a creator, or you are not mistaken, I don't, or possibly, Chad, I haven't decided if I believe in a creator or not. The fact that Jim failed to do this leads me to the "asinine" assumption that Jim is saying: Chad, you're an ignoramus and there's nothing you can do about it, sucker. If I am mistaken, enlighten me, don't just say: Chad, you don't know whether or not I think you are a sucker. --ChadThomson 04:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

Were I the first person about whom who had made such a statement I would have a.) answered differently, and b.) I would retract the comment regarding asininity. However, as I am not I did not and I will not.

By using the terms creator and creation in the following, you show your own bias: "but the real question is how can one's belief in God the creator not pervade his understanding of creation? How can one's disbelief in God the creator not pervade his understanding of creation?" Allow me to note that while ID is the dominion of theists, most of whom are evangelical Christians, biologists and others advocating evolution come from the full spectrum of religious beliefs. Why is that? Because ID requires a deity, and Evolution neither requires nor denies a deity. As the assumption of a deity is an assumption of a supernatural nature, it is outside the bounds of science, and thus needn't be discussed within the discipline that is Evolution.

re: "If one could disprove God to me, I wouldn't lose much. If an atheist or agnostic found out that there really is a God, the consequences would be far more serious", see the following (I hesitate to include this because this is not a discussion page on the merits or faults of religion, but...)

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

Jim62sch 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

ID in the news today involving a Catholic Cardinal

Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row

KAJ 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt from the article: "Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself," he said. "It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence."

Yikes. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought. It means that evolution creates 'intelligence'. That's a slight challenge to my understanding of intelligence, but it could be fun to play with. It implies that any viable lifeform contains embedded intelligence about what 'works' in any environment sufficienly close to the historical one. That's way cool. Ben Aveling 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "He questioned neo-Darwinism, the scientifically updated version of Darwin's thesis first published in 1859, and its argument that natural selection -- the so-called "survival of the fittest" -- created life out of matter randomly." What the ..? Can't these people atleast bother to read our article on evolution? -- Ec5618 09:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself," he said. "It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence."

Schoenborn isn't a scientist and can't be expected to be knowledgeable about things outside his field of expertise, but this claim is factually wrong. Both theoretical and experimental results clearly show that matter can organize itself into complex entities. The late Ilya Prigogine was a pioneer on the theoretical side of this, and my colleague Harry Swinney at the University of Texas has performed numerous experiments that verify Prigogine's predictions. Bill Jefferys 14:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My response had more pazazz. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

On a completely pedestrian note, did he never make rock candy or see it made? Sugar is matter. KillerChihuahua 14:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

ID proponents dismiss the organization of crystals as being due to "law" (in Dembski's parlaince). The kind of organization predicted by Prigogine and experimentally confirmed in numerous experiments by Swinney (and many others) is of a different sort, much more like the organization that we see in living things. It is organization far from the regime of equilibrium organization seen in crystals. As Prigogine pointed out to me once, far from being prevented by the second law of thermodynamics, evolution and life are consequences of that law. Bill Jefferys 15:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me back on subject, Bill. I probably should have either clarified that I was making a comment on the wording of the cardinal, as opposed to any position of ID proponents - or else refrained from posting my comment altogether. As the cardinal stated "matter" without modifiers, and "organize" without modifiers, rock candy would be covered. I don't think that's what he meant; I think he used a bad choice of phrasing. KillerChihuahua 16:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow that could really come in handy in the future, could you provide links to Swinney's/others research; perhaps an article by a science writer leading us through it would be ideal. And while I have your attention, what you are saying above is similar/same to me saying DNA is a low-energy state? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Harry Swinney's home page is here. It links to a large collection of papers by his group, including ones inspired by biology. I am not sure about popular expositions of Swinney's work. They must exist, but I haven't seen them. Prigogine wrote a popular book on his research, Order Out of Chaos.

To answer RoyBoy, it's not that it's in a low energy state, it is that it is in a state that is maintained by the creation of entropy as energy flows from high to low energy situations. This is the basis of the kind of order that characterizes living things. Basically, we exist because there is an energy source (the Sun) and sink (empty space), and a constant transfer of energy from the one to the other. Part of the process of energy transfer involves the spontaneous generation of ordered structures. Bill Jefferys 17:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Schönborn's remarks need to be analysed carefully. Talk of an "intelligent project that is the cosmos," is being interpreted as apparent backing for Intelligent Design, yet he and the pope still seem to be accepting the origin of species by natural selection while complaining about "materialist" extrapolation of this theory to contend that life began without divine intervention. His wish to see schools teach that the theory of evolution "has a lot going for it but has no answers for some questions" is nothing new if he means teaching that it doesn't cover the origin of life or of the "soul". The article reports him as saying "Can matter create intelligence? That is a question we can't answer scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it.", then reports that "Schoenborn stressed his objections to neo-Darwinism were essentially philosophical.", and that "he is deeply concerned that materialism -- the science-based view that matter is the only reality -- is crowding out religious and spiritual thinking in modern man's perception of the world." Unsurprisingly he is talking about religious philosophy and not science, while wanting science to be kept within the bounds of not promoting atheist "materialism". The question is whether his statement "Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself... It needs information to do that, and information is a manifestation of intelligence." is about the origin of life, or about continuing organisation. Will the Vatican formally support ID? Will Catholic schools start putting stickers on their books?... dave souza 22:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the Vatican's chief astronomer, Rev. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." (And there's Schönborn's own "The biblical teaching about creation is not a scientific theory" [11] - Nunh-huh 23:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Kansas University

KU has created a new class titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." I just like the fact that they call ID a mythology. FuelWagon 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooop, forgot to provide a URL. FuelWagon 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

This article is frankly a bit of a mess. I've rewritten the introduction to make it seem like less of a propaganda piece, by stating the facts about the idea and its recent revival in the United States. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's go through the intro (which has been reverted) and see what the problems are:

Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."^[12]

This is the first problem. Intelligent design arose from observation, and was really not a particularly controversial idea, but what emerged as a mainstream consensus. It was a reasonable inference drawn from the observation of complexity in nature. It's fundamental to an understanding of modern naturalism and evolution in particular, that we understand the ideas that it supplanted, chief among which was the notion of intelligent design.

Proponents claim that Intelligent Design stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.^[13]

Who cares what current-day proponents think? We can show that it isn't science because it appeals to supernaturalism.

The scientific community largely views Intelligent Design not as valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.^[14] The US National Academy of Sciences has stated that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.^[15]

Far too wordy, and unnecessary in a factual piece. Of course it's junk. But since we can show why it's junk, why bother to report that views of various US scientific authorities? For every scientific authority we could cite, some ID proponent could cite some religious authority.

No, let's tell it like it is. Discovery Institute's famouse "Wedge document" demonstrates that the ID revival, which US readers may not appreciate is an almost exclusively US phenomenon, is part of a strategy to get creationist concepts into schools. This should be stated up front, and concisely enough that it has a strong impact.

My proposed alternative, in full, reads as follows:

Intelligent Design is a philosophical principle that complexity in nature, particularly life, can only be accounted for by a designer. Almost unchallenged until two centuries ago, the concept was discarded by science in the late nineteenth century in favor of Evolution and Scientific naturalism.

In the United States, some political interests have attempted to revive the concept, in a move to circumvent the constitutional limitations of teaching of religion in public schools which doomed earlier attempts to require teachers to give equal time to science and to creationism.

This is brief, so there's a chance that the reader will get to the end without losing track of the thing. It emphasizes continuity between modern ID and the older supernaturalism of pre-evolutionary thinking--they're really the same concepts dressed up in modern clothing, both are appeals to ignorance. And it also correctly attributes the modern revival to political motivations.

What it doesn't do is engage in a wordy jeremiad about pseudoscience. We can do without that stuff in an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The only two relevant facts are what ID proponents say ID is, which is attributed in the article, and what the scientific community says it is, which is attributed in the article. All other points are irrelevent when viewed in light of the policies that apply directly to this topic, NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Your intro recognized neither viewpoint. FeloniousMonk 17:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, not everyone agrees with your opinion that the article is a mess. On 2 November 2005 Jimbo Wales was on the National Public Radio show Talk of the Nation, where, out of all Wikipedia articles, this article was mentioned and described thus: "the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design... it is a good entry, perhaps even an excellent entry..." [16]. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Tony is confusing arguments from design (see teleological argument) with ID the modern DI-sponsored idea. The connection to Paley is there, but I don't think it needs to be in the intro. The idea may be old, but I think the modern DI-sponsored principle is what belongs here. Guettarda 19:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, how do you figure intelligent design was ever a reasonable inference? It seems no more than a God of the gaps argument.

Also, while it's true that in years past the notion that a deity spawned all things was pretty ingrained, and that even scientists carried this assumption into their fields of study, it was never scientific. And this was never the recently developed concept of Intelligent Design.

Everyone, is my understanding flawed?

As I see it, this article is about Intelligent Design (capitalised), not the notion of an intelligent designer. Most religions assume there was an intelligent designer (and suggest that their deity was this designer, and deserves our reverence because of it), but none have tried to prove such a designer exists. As an attempt to prove the existance of an intelligent designer through re-examination of scientific evidence, and arguably, through lies and deception, ID is a specifically recent development, which often tries to confuse the issue by suggesting the idea is as old as time.

For anything outside of this specific movement and concept, see teleology, which is described in our article as being the supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study of that purpose. Tony Sidaway, if anything, you seem to be writing an introduction for the teleology article. -- Ec5618 19:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, Tony's conflating the two. ID is distinctly unique from previous arguments from design. You and Guettarda are both right. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to have missed this (or maybe it wasn't worth reading, if so just ignore it) I'm moving it from "intro" to here:

Concerning massive rewrite by Tony Sidaway: This intro is a result of many editors' input and careful consideration. In addition, your assertion that ID was "Almost unchallenged until two centuries ago, " may be considered inaccurate. This would be more appropriately placed in Creationism, and even there it might be POV. ID is by its own definition a "new" concept - although creationism cast as science, it is a new approach not the version from two centuries ago, where no claim of science was made. KillerChihuahua 15:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved by KillerChihuahua 19:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Almost unchallenged until two centuries ago" is indeed inaccurate, since Hume's refutation of the argument from design was not its first challenge or refutation. FeloniousMonk 20:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design is an old, old inference. That it's been resurrected in a political context was give a whole paragraph (out of two) in my rewrite of the introduction. The modern movement doesn't get to redefine the concept. That it's still the same old idea dressed in new clothes is an important point. Darwin's empirical demolition of the concept was decisive.

Felonious Monk makes a good point about Hume. However, powerful though Hume's refutation is, it did not provide a mechanism to supplant intelligent design. For that, one had to wait for the ideas of Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and their contemporaries, and later Charles Darwin who as a largely self-trained naturalist and geologist combined clear thought with masses of detailed observation.

But apart from the unnecessarily polemical, almost shrill, tone of the current introduction, my main point is that the introduction is leaden and unreadable. It needs to be light and make the two main points (supernaturalism and politics) with a minimum of clutter. All the rest is just so much unwanted baggage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any compromise or modified ideas, besides that which you originally posted? IMHO the second sentence (In the United States, ...) is brief, readable and accurate. I would not object to trimming the current first sentence slightly (it is a bit unwieldy) and adding Tony's second sentence as a third sentence. In fact, if we ditch the second sentence of the current first para, the second sentence of the current second para, and add Tony's second sentence, we'd have a tidy three sentences, addressing The ID position, What science thinks of ID, and the religious-political aspects. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua 23:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction II

I've had another go at the introduction.

Intelligent Design (ID) is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."^[17] The term has in recent years become associated with the strategy followed by American creationists--the so-called "Wedge" strategy--to promote the concept of the creator within the public school system, after the Supreme Court ruled against statutes requiring teachers to give equal time to creationism and evolution in science teaching.

Firstly I got rid of all that rubbish about what proponents think about it and what scientists think about it. This is the introduction so we should convey as much factual information as possible, the opinions can wait until the main body. Secondly I added something about the wedge strategy. My version is far too wordy, it needs a severe trimming, but at least it hits the important facts--that this is a geographically localised (almost parochial) political movement, an ideological one, not a trend in thought, scientific or otherwise.

Thirdly I got rid of the awkward phrase "controversial assertion". I'm not sure that one can really term belief in a creator whose works are evident in nature as controversial--most people seem to readily apprehend the concept and it's certainly plausible (Einstein's der Älte, etc). I'm an atheist but I don't mistake my own thinking for the mainstream. I left it at "concept", which can certainly be improved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy states explicitely: "to write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia." The article thus must cover both viewpoints. Since an intro summarizes a topic, it also need to cover both viewpoints.

You're ignoring everything that was said here previously about your first flawed attempt at bowlderizing the intro. Again, read the relevant policy, NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and explain how your intro, which completely ignore the majority viewpoint, that of the scientific community, conforms to that policy. Not to mention you're ignoring consensus. FeloniousMonk 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No, we don't need to cover any viewpoints in an introduction. Indeed if we put viewpoints into an introduction we're probably wasting space that would be better spent elsewhere.

Please don't try to get me to read the policies again. It makes you look as if you're lecturing me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Chill FM, Tony is okay in my books (doesn't mean I agree with his version, right now I'm on the fence as I honestly haven't given it much thought at all), but you can see he reads quality stuff. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction III

Here's another go at steering through the baggage.

Intelligent design is a US-based revival of older pre-evolutionary philosophical concepts, mainly associated with the reorganisation of the creationist movement in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's rejection of statutes requiring equal time to be given to creationism and evolution in the public school system. It is part of what has been dubbed the "Wedge" strategy.

The wording is close, but not quite right. I'd like the sentences shorter, but the "equal time" stuff makes it difficult. It doesn't go into detail on the idea, because it occurs to me that we can make the words do the work. Intelligent design--this intro says it's an idea promoted by creationists and consists of recycled pre-evolutionary concepts, so there's no need to spell it out. I think this is a good direction to move in because it helps to answer Tom Haws' objections by explaining precisely why ID is so popular with US creationists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop inserting your intro into the article, especially since you admit it is not complete. A few points: you use a lot of complex terms in single sentences, such as "older pre-evolutionary philosophical concepts". some of these terms, and the correlations between them in this context, should be explained. Yes, that will add bulk to your intro. Also, I suggest you add a reference to the teleology article, for people who are confused by the intro or title of the article. -- Ec5618 00:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems to be getting murkier not clearer. Still, transitional editing is like that sometimes. KillerChihuahua 00:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite. Obviously the current appalling rubbish needs changing, I'm just trying to find something that's (a) readable and (b) still acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction IV

Here's another go.

Intelligent Design (ID) is an ideological tend in US education, part of the Wedge Strategy promoted by the Discovery Institute in the wake of the failure of earlier creationist-originated statutes requiring public educators to give equal time to evolution and creationism. Dropping the religious element, Intelligent Design revives the pre-evolutionary argument that the organisation of the universe, particularly the appearance of life, is strong evidence for the existence of a designer.

I like this one a lot because it's a little more readable than the earlier ones and gives some decent links. I don't like the "pre-evolutionary" thing, perhaps "pre-darwinian" is better.

I find the suggestion Please stop inserting your intro into the article, especially since you admit it is not complete somewhat amusing considering the venue. Inserting stuff is what we're supposed to do, it's a wiki!

I agree that some of the terms I'm using are still far too complex. Let's try to winnow this down. "pre-evolutionary concepts", well I've suggested "pre-darwinian". And now I do explain the concepts in the latest version: that the organisation of the universe, particularly the appearance of life, is strong evidence for the existence of a designer --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because the previous introduction was the work of many editors over a large period of time and we seemed to be finally reaching consensus that it was appropriate. I don't like this new perspective, because it doesn't at all fit with the rest of the article. It seems less NPOV, less factual, and finally it is too focused on the United States. --Brendanfox 02:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

When you know your edits will be reverted, you're not actually editing the article, uou're disrupting WP to make a point. Please use the Talk page to suggest a reworded intro, and replace the current one only when you have consensus (or atleast some support). -- Ec5618 06:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that intro makes me laugh. It substitutes the canonical definition of ID and the attributed viewpoints of both sides of the topic for a description of ID as a educational campaign and a very muddled definition of the teleological argument.

This is either the start of an attempt at a POV fork or Tony just really needs to read the primary writings on the topic from both sides, as well as what the NPOV says about handling controversial topics.

There's only three revelant points to be made in the intro: 1) The definition of ID ("Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe..."); 2) What its proponents say ID does ("Proponents claim that Intelligent Design stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific..."); 3) And the response of the scientific community ("The scientific community largely views Intelligent Design not as valid scientific theory but as..."). And there's a reason for this: Since ID proponents, who are a minority, insist ID is valid science and the scientific community, who is the majority, says ID is not science, but pseudoscience, the topic falls under the Pseudoscience, Undue Weight and Giving Equal Validity guidelines of the NPOV policy:

1. "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
2. "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory."
3. "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

FeloniousMonk 07:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, both Tony and FM: Tony, please stop calling this article "appalling rubbish" - if you want to see appalling rubbish, go see Ethnic_stereotypes_in_American_media - and IMHO calling the article that where the main contributor could read it would be rude at least. FM: Please stop saying things like "that intro makes me laugh" - if you see issues with it, state so, but there is no need to be insulting. Both of you might want to be a little more careful with how you word your criticisms. Be nice. That said, if someone has a valid criticism, please do not dismiss it because of rude descriptions like "appalling rubbish" and "laughable."

FM, you're right about the pseudoscience, but does all that have to be done in the intro? Also, ID as a religiously motivated wedge is not mentioned at all in the intro, so it may be that the intro could use a little trimming and/or rewording here and there.

KillerChihuahua 12:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right of course, I see how my aside would insult Tony, who now has my apologies.

As to whether the scientific community's viewpoint needs to be in the intro, the answer is it should be if we're going to have an accurate and complete representation of the community's response to ID. Describing how the scientific community views ID goes a long way to accounting for why ID is controversial, which is necessarily mentioned in the first sentence, (ID being controversial is perhaps the easiest declarative statement in the article to substantiate).

ID's religious underpinnings had been mentioned in previous intros. We'd moved the mentioning of its religious side out of the intro several weeks ago for two reasons: 1) concision, 2) many, many heated objections from ID proponents over months, that often resulting in fruitless edit wars. In other words, we caved. I don't disagree with Tony about the Wedge's role in ID or that it belongs in the intro. I only disagree that needs to be in the first sentences. ID's religious foundation should be mentioned in the intro, but I'd place it in a 3rd paragraph, after ID and the two major viewpoints are described. FeloniousMonk 16:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the idea of 3 sentences or paragraphs: 1)ID, 2)what it isn't, 3) Religious aspect. If we move the second sentence of both the 1st and 2nd paragraph to elsewhere in the article (where those points are covered in more detail) and have a 3rd sentence with Tony's wedge input, that might work. KillerChihuahua 17:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Three paragraphs of two sentences each is perfectly reasonable as an intro. We should keep the first two paragraphs as they are though and just add a third addressing the religion and wedge, since it is a secondary issue that extends beyond what ID claims to be.

The first two paragraphs are accurate, concise, complete and necessary as they stand: ID is presented in its own terms with an attribution, and it's noted that it's controversial. Then what ID proponents say ID is (and by extension why they hold to it) is stated, with an attribution. This point is central central and necessary. Lastly the response to the scientific community to ID's claim of being valid science is stated, with an attribution, and thus both sides are presented, as required. This is as reduced as a fair summary description can get; I don't see how you can remove any one of the pieces without losing either completeness or accuracy. Now I agree a third paragraph of a sentence or two covering the religious background of ID should follow the first two paragraphs, and I'd draw that content from either the "Religion and leading Intelligent Design proponents" section or the ID movement article, both of which have well-cited supporting descriptions and quotes. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the "trend in US education". ID asserts that it is science, not just an educational plan. DI, on the other hand, is a social and political movement. While its main forum of activity has been in trying to change the educational curriculum, ID has not made an impact in schools of education or in teacher training, AFAIK. ID has been most active as philosophy (e.g., most of Dembski's pubs, also ID opponents like Pennock), in attempts to alter the school curriculum, and in IDEA groups and other such organisations which seek to equip students with tools to "rebut" the "indoctination" attempts of biologists (in tertiary education). When you get to the issue of where to draw the boundaries. Taken literally, the idea that there is design in nature cold be called intelligent design. But if you use the term broadly, the article would also have to include other theories, like Raelian ID. We can either define ID narrowly as the DI-associated movement, or we can define it broadly, in which case the article needs to given proportionate coverage to the Raelians, and to all other groups. In which case we need a new daughter-article for DI-ID. Guettarda 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Weaseling

Another serious problem with this article is the dreadful amount of weaseling going on. We've got critics "pointing out" stuff while ID proponents have "putative" main purposes, we've got a bare statement that ID fails to satisfy some criteria, and many more instances where opinions are intruded into what should be a factual presentation. This is appalling rubbish. I'll try to address this by selecting acceptable rewordings that stick to the facts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's putative because ID proponents often say ID is solely concerned with detecting design, not the designer, ID is not creationism/religious/etc, then they say "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does Intelligent Design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ" etc. Thus describing ID's main purpose as putative is being generous, considering the more accurate alternative term - misleading. The other areas you hint at should be supported by cites except in cases of commonly recognized fact. It was through this manner that we created one of WP's most well-supported articles. FeloniousMonk 08:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Concur w/FM per reason, do you have a way to word it which is less "weasely" but still covers this? Its not very helpful to say "this is a weasel-word" if you don't suggest a replacement, or at least ask for people to brainstorm and toss out ideas. KillerChihuahua 12:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Felonious Monk's explanation of "putative" doesn't make any sense at all. It means "supposed". We have no reason to state that the purpose is supposed, putative, or reputed. "Its main purpose is to investigate whether or not the empirical evidence necessarily implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents" is a perfectly good sentence, inserting "putative" into the sentence is unnecessary and weasely. So the alternative that I offer is to remove the word completely. I find no inconsistency between that declared purpose and the statements of ID proponents who believe that they have found such evidence. In any case it's a poor excuse to add weasel words to the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We have lots of reason to say that is not their actual purpose, including their own words. It is their stated purpose elsewhere that the real purpose is to open the door to putting God back in the classroom - not a precise quote mind you! So saying "this is their main purpose" without a modifier is inaccurate. What would you suggest that covers both their stated "mission statement" and their statements elsewhere that there is another purpose? Keeping in mind that what they have done is not scientific investigation at all, but rather speculation and a lot of essays and books to support their speculation. KillerChihuahua 14:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The existence of possible ulterior motives for the ID movement in general is well-documented in other sections, and will be made clear to any careful reader of the article. But the "purpose" in question here applies specifically to Design Inferences themselves, the conclusion that a Design Inference aims to establish. "Putative" lends an uneccesary argumentative tone, and conveys no helpful information to the reader. It only puts a question mark in their mind, without providing justification for the question mark. If you're not going to follow up and demonstrate what the purpose of the logic of a Design Inference really is, (as opposed to its "putative" purpose) then you've left the reader unsatisfied and confused, and possibly distrustful of the article's POV. SanchoPanza 20:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If I agreed with you, which I don't, it would be easy enough to follow up and demonstrate that ID proponents view the design inference as merely a useful adjunct for advancing a social and religious agenda they are pursuing. Very easy in fact; there are direct quotes that say exactly that. If "putative" puts a question mark in the reader's mind, it's well justified. FeloniousMonk 21:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The existence of the cultural agenda should not be used as a carte blanche justification for giving a generalized suscpicious tone to the whole article. It is simple enough to demonstrate both the existence of the Discovery Institute's cultural and religious goals and the goals of Intelligent Design proper, to distinguish between the two and also show objectively how they are related. Some parts of this article do that well enough, but the carefree use of "putative" here does not. It's like saying "The putative purpose of William Dembski's dissertation was to show that certain types of detachable patterns could be used to demonstrate the existence of intelligence, but he really just wants to convert lots of people to Jesus." It is simply true that William Dembski wants to convert people to Jesus, and he also believes that certain types of patterns demonstrate intelligence. There is no contradiction between the two, and this does not make either of his goals "putative." SanchoPanza 21:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If there were any of what they say their aim is, happening, then "putative" might be a little strong. But there is no scientific investigation - so "putative" is exactly accurate. Let me try an analogy - I say, over and over, that all I want is to clean my room. But all I ever do is run around and party. So my "putative" goal is cleaning my room - but the evidence is clear that I am not doing anything towards cleaning my room. Now, Behe is currently saying he has plans for an actual scientific experiment for proofs of some kind, and if and when that ever happens we can revisit this. Until then, yes indeedy there should be a question mark. KillerChihuahua 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with removing the word "putative" as unnecessary qualifier. Make the point that they are disingenuous more explicitly elsewhere. --JPotter 05:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason, you have found the perfect word for ID and it's disciples: disingenuous. Ecce veritas!

Jim62sch 14:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Pointing out

This section:

John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry point out that Dembski's "explanatory filter" works in an eliminative fashion, by eliminating as explanations first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They show that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because it is prone to making false conclusions of design (because of the asymmetric way that it treats the different possible explanations.

Now I know John and Wesley quite well, as regulars on talk.origins and both very good chaps. Use of this example is reasonable (there's an unedited copy of the article here). However the language of our description is wrong. John and Wesley characterize the explanatory filter as eliminative, they argue that it's flawed. To say that they point out and show things that depend on chains of inference, interpretation and framing is not appropriate. It admits, for instance, of no possibility that John and Wesley mischaracterized Dembski, selectively quoted him, or misinterpreted him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a fair point criticism, and I have revised the language accordingly. Please take a look at it. Bill Jefferys 14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion

[Ben's attacks on the religious beliefs of the editors of the article were removed - Guettarda]

Reference: [18] --Quasipalm 18:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're adorable. Allright: I suggest you rewrite a single paragraph, outside of the intro, (on the Talk page, obviously). If you can show that the rewrite is more accurate, less confusing, and less POV you'll find plenty of support for your version. General complaints and changes that fundamentally change the perspective of this article will meet obvious resistance.

'Minor' edits such as that would help you build credibility, rants such as this do not. -- Ec5618 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. --Ben 00:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is something fairly quick. If you could tell me if there are any problems it would be helpful. This would be the whole section. It would also be good to include a sentence like "While proponents steadfastly maintain that the basic concept does not attempt to explain any findings with respect to any design they observe, and that existential criticisms are irrelevant, these kinds of criticisms are common." earlier in the whole criticisms section.

Who Designed the Designer

One common criticism of Intelligent Design (and a common criticism of the teleological argument) is based on the cosmological argument, that any designer would itself need a designer. Concepts such as Aristotle's uncaused causer (or an undesigned designer) are often offered by proponents as a retort against the critique. However, critics further claim that an infinite regression of designers is an a priori necessity inherent in Intelligent Design arguments, thus showing the entire concept to be faulty.

--Ben 00:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You may want to include the term 'infinite regression', or otherwise explain that Aristotle was thinking of a universe of infinite age.

And you'll need to rethink the last sentence. I wouldn't use the word 'faulty', and you'll need to explain why this is considered an a priori necessity. Do the critics assume this universe was created? That it had a beginning, making infinite regression impossible? Do they misunderstand/mischaracterise ID?

huh, This may already be the most productive discussion on this Talk page in the last two months. -- Ec5618 00:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle was not, however, thinking of an infinite chain of causality, which is the salient point here. The Unmoved Mover is in fact simple, unchanged and uncaused. It is pure thought thinking truth about itself. SanchoPanza 21:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

concur w/Ec.... KillerChihuahua 01:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I should probably reword the first part to include infinite regression better. I just used faulty because I couldn't think of a better word. When it comes to it being a necessity, that's already mentioned in the article itself (Critics have argued that by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex.), so I was just basing it on that. Someone has (or better have) an explanation of why it is considered a necessity. Footnotes 57 is the only basis, though it only provides a seemingly rhetorical justification based on the word "irreducible," and is from a short entry by user "Tucson" on a political blog. So, at least one guy has made the criticism, so that's somewhat ok, but his three paragraph blog entry isn't the best source as to why. As for "a priori" I just used it because it sounds right. It can be taken out since "inherent" conveys the meaning I wanted to express anyway.

I was thinking too, that the counter-argument is very poor. Obviously a television can be considered "intelligently designed." By the counter-argument, that means either humans are intelligently designed (the designer, a human, needs a designer) or that the television was not intelligently designed which is false. What a lot of people think is that humans were not designed, but can and do intelligently design things like televisions. So you take it up one level and you have the possibility of a naturally occurring God that designed humans. No contradictions. I mean, maybe, like some say, the concept of ID necessitates a designer needing a designer needing a designer needing a designer, etc. but I haven't seen anyone argue it coherently except to claim that that is true. Especially when this is exactly the same argument which supports Intelligent Design in the first place (i.e. human designs "irreducibly complex" mousetrap, therefore humans are also "irreducibly complex," therefore someone designed humans.) This makes me think this is just an attack on a strawman argument. Where do proponents say that a designer has to be as "irreducibly complex" as that which is designed? --Ben 01:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Or, of course, where is the authoritative critic which has explained in detail how and why this is inherent in the concept? --Ben 02:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet Ben has a point. It is quite easy to see this article's explanations of why ID is foolish. But it is difficult to find (I couldn't) this article's explanations of why ID is espoused. I expect more of Wikipedia. I expect to understand an issue from its several perspectives, but I feel I have just been dumped on after reading this article. I am afraid I can't sofixit here, because I don't know much about the issue. But I have been here long enough to know POV when I see it. You guys can do better. Here is a suggestion. Begin with the supposition that among the proponents of ID are extremely rational people whose point of view it might do you well to understand in order to more effectively address it. Covey's maxim: "If a person of your competence, commitment, and character has a point of view that I disagree with, then there must be something about your disagreement that I don't understand, and I need to understand it" vs. "You nincompoop! Why can't you understand?" Tom Haws 23:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If anything, you may have a point, Tom Haws, and Ben still doesn't. Many, many people have claimed that this article is obviously POV, but as they fail to explain the problem, or fix it themselves, they are no help at all. The point you seem to be agreeing with is extremely general: the article is flawed. Your comment is more substatial, if still very vague.-- Ec5618 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"I feel I have just been dumped on after reading this article." I'd say the cause of that is in your expectations and not in the article's content, which is extremely well-supported by significant citations of primary sources. You expected an article that presents one side, that of ID proponents. This article airs boths sides, ID and that of mainstream science, as is called for by the NPOV policy. In Jimbo's words the NPOV policy is "absolute and non-negotiable".

That Ben or anyone else thinks ID is philosophy and not a concept being presented by its proponents as an alternative to 1) evolutionary theory, 2) the scientific method, is irrelevant and original research. To make that argument stick Ben would have to explain away literally thousands of statements from the leading ID proponents claiming ID is science. And that Ben or anyone else here doesn't think that ID is pseudoscience is irrelevant, mainstream science resoundingly says it is. The NPOV policy says "write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia." This is what this article does. Discovery.org is where you'll find the definitive ID-only side of this topic, not Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 23:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Next on Talking Points with FeloniousMonk, Strawmen against Ben's points." --Ben 00:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Covey's maxim... an excellent maxim. If you can convince us ID proponents are (scientifically) competent, and are of good character (honest in their rationale and aims) then you may have something there. As to their commitment – of that I have little doubt – so you have a ways to go on that. As to not finding "this article's explanations of why ID is espoused", you need to click on Wedge strategy which is linked in the article, for a detailed explanation. As to why proponents believe in it, that is provided by the headers alone with "Irreducible complexity", "Specified complexity" and "Fine-tuned universe". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure William Paley (b. 1743, d. 1805), who argued the universe was intelligent designed, doesn't work for the Discovery Institute. On the other hand, as I've said before, if this article is all about the Discovery Institute, it should say "This is about the Discovery Institute's concept of Intelligent Design." If this is all just a conspiracy to teach creationism in schools and to "affirm the reality of God," that should really be in the first paragraph, wouldn't you think?--Ben 00:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, if you look at Origins of the concept you will find the article does go into other aspects of ID not related to the DI. However, since mainstream modern ID has originated from DI, it only makes sense to focus on... wait for it... DI! As to your points of putting creationism in the lead, you may have a point and that is in the cards with Tony's proposed revisions (the other stuff sounds more appropriate for the Wedge strategy), but I would argue ID can be broader than that (doesn't mean it is in common parlance, but hey if new-age groups want to stake a claim to their own versions of ID, we will change the article accordingly). We can, if consensus sees fit, give ID the benefit of the doubt by not labeling it creationism in the lead; while at the same time acknowledging it (as it is commonly known) is linked with creationism (hence the creationism template). Of course, in not taking that step in the lead, this does not detract from the prominent role DI and creationists proponents have had in modern ID. Furthermore, Ann Coulter and Richard Dawkins are controversial, but for different reasons; to compare them is crazy talk. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The article focusing on the movement is Intelligent design movement. This article is focusing on the ideas, right? Motivations like the "Wedge Strategy" are trivial here. It doesn't matter if someone wants to get more people to "affirm their belief in God" are whatever. You're focusing on the politics, how about focusing on the ideas instead of the proponents of the idea? The "Wedge Strategy" didn't exist before the ideas existed. DI didn't make up ideas like teleology and fine-tuned universe and anthropic principle, and things. It's kind of like saying first thing in the Pythagorean theorem intro: "The Pythagorean theorem was invented by Pythagoras as part of a wedge strategy of the Pythagorean Society to promote mathematical realism and to influence the politicians of the day. Pythagoras' aim was to spread the realist doctrine and..." --Ben 23:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for every section of this article, the headers alone indicate to me this article does focus on ideas. The section about the ID movement in the article is short, to the point and strategically placed after defining it, but before the debate to provide the appropriate context. As to DI not creating ideas like fine-tuned universe; that's true... does the article say and/or imply they did; or does it imply DI promotes such ideas? I fail to see the point of your math analogy as the theorem stood on its own as valid; but moreover pythagoras theorem was broadly adopted by mathematicians and it wasn't created as a means to promotion, rather at worst it was attached to it after the fact. (granted ID was around a while back, but modern ID has indeed been used by a specific group to promote ideas they felt were being shoved aside, pythagoras's theorum is doing just fine... unless someone wants to use it, right now, for political purposes... then we might have to add that to the article, if its notable) ID has fell way out of favor in intellectual circles some time ago. If so, then why the revival? One must look elsewhere for answers to that understandable question. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, if you are speaking to my comments here... well yes I am focusing on the politics because the maxim talks about the "opponent", meaning the people who are behind ID. I find the maxim argument to be inapproriate given the politics and competance of those people. I was not talking about the article in that context; since the maxim wasn't either; even though it was used in a attempt to write a more sympathetic article. If the maxim were true, he might have a case to soften the article... demonstrating the maxim holds in this instance is his burden. As to the general concept of focusing on the ideas exclusively; for ideas... especially controversial ones, we must cite who they are from... and if notable who they are. To have an article without that context is to invite ridicule by other reference sources. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Haws. The article is a bit POV. So far, it seems that all attempts to make it NPOV have failed. The majority view should be accurately represented, but so should the minority view. I tried inserting two sentences describing the minority position (while still giving anti-ID the last word) in the multi-paragraph “who designed the designer” section. The two-sentence description of the minority view was promptly censored and removed. It doesn't look like we are going to see an NPOV Wikipedia article on intelligent design anytime soon. The topic is controversial, and avid anti-ID editors seem to be the majority here. Wade A. Tisthammer 03:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Wade. Certainly there are editors who attempt to turn this article into a pro-ID or anti-ID manifesto, but for the most part I think that the article gives proportionate coverage to both points of view (both points of view meaning ID proponents and the scientific community, not "avid pro-ID editors" and "avid anti-ID editors"). Clearly there are areas in the article that still need work, but consensus requires compromises. I don't give much input on the talk page, as I am less familiar with the subject than most of the regular contributors, but from what I have read on the talk page and in the archives, it seems that most people are working to make this an accurate article. For example, I agree with Ben that some parts of this article are better suited to the intelligent design movement page, I agree with RoyBoy that ID is linked with Creationism but that it is POV to unequivocally define it as such in the intro, I agree with Tom when he evokes Covey's maxim, I agree with FM that the various NPOV policies (Pseudoscience, etc.) apply to this article and that the majority of his reverts and edits help enforce this policy, and I agree with you, Wade, that a source is needed when making a claim about the fundamental assumption of ID - which is not to say that I disagree with the current wording, or that I agree with you throwing out all of the citations given by FM and others, but I am willing to have faith that you believe you have good reason to do so. (Also, all these agreements shouldn't be read as the only things I agree with the various editors on, but rather just an example of how people on all sides of the debate are contributing valid points, at least in my mind). -Parallel or Together? 06:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this discussion has certainly moved on while I worked up my helpful suggestion quoting Behe at the tail of "The “fundamental assumption” of ID". I like the short version by Ben. One thing Behe's words do bring out is that ID is religion desperately pretending to be science to get into the schools, at the same time as trying to redefine science to be compatible with their religion and hostile to atheism...dave souza 02:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD of Unguided evolution

I have nominated Unguided evolution for deletion. Please add comments. Thanks Joshuaschroeder 05:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated Evolutionary materialism for deletion. Please add comments. Thanks --Joshuaschroeder 18:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A reason for deletion would be most appreciated. As the "accuser" (i.e., as the who has indicated that faults lie within these two articles) you must explain why they need to be deleted. In other words, "he who asserts must prove".

Jim62sch 23:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Claim-mongery

I think this article uses the word claim in the wrong context. It said that proponents of ID claim that they look for signs of intelligence...I changed that to ID proponents say they look for signs, although we could say that they "look for signs" without saying they claim or say they look for them (whether they find them is a different issue). The article also says:

"The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," claims Stephen C. Meyer..."

What is the meaning of the word "claim". Does the author of that sentence seriously think that it is possible that Stephen C. Meyer is lying or misremembering, that the term maybe did not "come up" at the conference after all, and Mr. Meyer may be delusional. Even if he is, applying the word "claim" to what appears to be a direct quote seems to be an attempt at reducing the credibility of the quote. The person writing seems to have a serious POV problem. --ChadThomson 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

They seek and then claim to find. — Dunc|☺ 12:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a more neutral way of saying it would be: According to Stephen C. Meyer, "The term intelligent design came up.... This attributes the quote to him, and erases whatever POV is attached the word claim. It simply states what he says without making a judgment about whether he is correctly remembering or not. -Parallel or Together? 02:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of that wording. KillerChihuahua 02:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to read "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," according to Stephen C. Meyer... -Parallel or Together? 02:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, not so sure about "came up" - what about "According to Stephen C. Meyer, the term intelligent design was used in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," ... Sorry I didn't think about that before. KillerChihuahua 02:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems right to me. Bill Jefferys 03:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a direct quote of Meyer? That was my understanding. If so, you probably shouldn't change any words in the quote itself, even if you take it out of quotations. If it isn't a direct quote, then change it if you like. -Parallel or Together ? 04:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it all boils down to the fact that it seems to be a direct quote and yet (at some point) used the word POV-loaded word claim. Would someone with more time have a look in the history please, and see who added this apparent quote, ask them for some sort of reference, and add "According to Stephen C. Meyer" to the beginning of the sentence as suggested by PorT. Do people agree this is a good solution? --ChadThomson 05:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The passage in question is a direct quote from Stephen C. Meyer. Check out this New York Times piece[19] by William Safire, published on August 21, 2005. The quote is in the third paragraph. I've already changed the wording to "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," according to Stephen C. Meyer.... I will add a citation for it as well (and I'll try and keep the references at the end correct, for FM). -Parallel or Together ? 07:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, I have no problem if it was his phrasing. Thanks for checking. KillerChihuahua 19:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Three issues

If we are to run an edit through committee, I'm afraid I don't see the point of all the "edit" options that litter every page.

But I'm a newbie here and don't find the process to be very intuitive, so I'm open to learning the system.

I think that there are several areas of the ID entry that should be edited.

For starters, the entry makes unnecessary logic concessions for the sake of civility. Civility is not about compromising truth. I take issue (with the use of ****s to bookend my comments), to start, with the following:

The Intelligent Design debate centers on three issues:

whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer

• A theory, in the scientific use of the word, is a systematic set of principles that have been tested and have withstood those tests without being contradicted by facts. Evolution, gravity, relativity, etc. are theories in a scientific context. Intelligent Design is not. Therefore, the argument is not about whether science is broad enough to allow for the theory of Intelligent Design, but whether we wish to compromise our language to such an extent that we will call any mythology a theory.*****

whether the evidence supports such theories

• By definition, a theory has supporting evidence. Perhaps this seems like nitpicking, but in science and in communication in general, precision is urgent. Sacrificing the word "theory" so that it's scientific context is synonomous with its slang use will guarantee a misunderstanding of the entire debate at hand.****

whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate in public education.

• If ID were actually a theory, it would certainly be appropriate. Since it is not, it is not.****

Intelligent Design supporters generally hold that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations of phenomena. ****What is "supernatural?**** Allowing such nonsensical terminologies into a scientific discussion is not constructive and serves only to compromise the search for truth. Supernatural can only mean that which lies beyond the natural. The "natural" in this context would be the set of all things that exist. Supernatural would therefore belong to the set of things that do not exist... Ask a theist what "God" means? What is it really? Describe it. Define it. What is it made of? Spirit? What is that? There are no coherrent answers for these questions. Supernatural really means "incoherrent" or "I don't know." It is not an actual real thing... by definition, and therefore has no place in a scientific discussion.**** They assert that excluding supernatural explanations artificially limits the realm of possibilities, particularly where naturalistic explanations fail ***as of yet*** to explain certain phenomena. Supernatural explanations provide a very simple and parsimonious explanation for the origins of life and the universe. *This is overly generous as they provide no explanations whatsoever, but rather create questions around each supposed answer.**** Proponents claim that the evidence strongly supports such explanations, as instances of so-called irreducible complexity and specified complexity appear to make it highly unreasonable that the full complexity and diversity of life came about solely through natural means.

Finally, supporters hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and Intelligent Design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding the Creationist beliefs. Teaching both, Intelligent Design supporters argue, allows for a scientific basis for religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote a religious belief.

• Religious neutrality is not the aim of the separation of church and state, but rather that there be no respect toward religion. This is not neutrality. Neither is it possible to acheive religious neutrality in a scientific context any more than it is possible for the scientific community to be neutral about the claim that invisible, flying, blood-sucking piglets created the universe.****

I would much prefer that we discuss the FACTS at hand rather than compromise facts, language, and science in the quest for a bootlicking sense of civility toward the mystics who have burdened mankind in his quest for truth since the dawn of history. A simple request, no?****

A question... since I'm a newbie and all... is the entire wikipedia run by a few committees who prevent open editing like this? Or is this peculiar to this entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinson L Watkins (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 November 2005.

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please sign your comments with 4 tildes ~~~~.

Open editing could be interpreted to include vulgarity, POV edits, vandalism, and original research. As such, no part of WP is "open" to all edits.

You have chosen one of the most frequently discussed and most thoroughly researched articles on WP to edit. Please take the time to read the notice at the top of this page, the archives, and the current discussion prior to making a suggestion. Where multiple editors are involved at one time, it is a WP guideline to obtain consensus prior to making significant changes (as in, anything much more than reverting vandalism or correcting spelling.) There is no "committee".

KillerChihuahua 20:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand the need to avoid the subject deteriorating into a chaotic series of changes by polarized factions and am, of course, happy to abide peacefully within your system as it seems not merely fair, but objective.

I urge a more strident use of vocabulary, however when discussing this issue. As I have pointed out, the word "theory" has a very precise meaning in its scientific context that is nearly the opposite of its meaning in everyday use. It would seem that this very important discernment is not evident in the discussion of the three high points of the debate and thus the argument is improperly framed with a bias toward ID and any claim they might make about the fairness of being included in science classes across the U.S. As I have pointed out, science is, by necessity, accepting of all theories, provided they really are theories. ID is NOT a theory any more than Norse Mythology is a theory. It's just a creation story made boring and robbed of symbolism and beauty by being dressed up in pseudo-scientific nonsense. Vinson L Watkins 20:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Had you taken my advice and read the archives, you would have found that at least 3 screens full of typing have been given to explaining that very fact to a number of people who want to change the wording of the first sentence from "Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial assertion..." to "Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory...". See here[20] where that was done just yesterday.

If you have a discrete suggestion to make suggesting a specific edit, please do so. Be sure to note prior to making suggestions that the point you mention is made in the article.

And stick around - it will be nice to have another editor who recognizes the distinction of scientific theory vs. "gee, I have an idea."

KillerChihuahua 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet, the body of the article still abuses the word and seems to grant ID the dignity of "scientific theory" though it certainly is not. Nor are those three core arguments really the core as they rest on flawed premises, which I, again, respectfull submit should be changed. While I have taken your advice and read through *some* of the archives, the point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the entry itself is currently flawed due to a misuse of language... and to such an extent that it slants toward ID by granting its silly premise (that it postures itself as science) in the first place.

So are we saying that there are archives filled with similar opinions that have failed to inspire a lasting change in the entry and therefor we should forget it and accept the error in silent submission? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinson L Watkins (talk • contribs) November 27, 2005.

As for "controlled by a committee" - it really depends on the maturity of the article and how controvertial it is. This article is both. By and large it is a delicate compromise between opposing POVs, though some of the pro-ID people still see it as biased against ID. As for the changes you made - my biggest issue with them is that they read like commentary, not like an encylopaedia entry. If you can rephrase the sentances in a way that preserves the underlying shades of meaning, and does so without sounding hostile to ID, I would be happy with the changes (though, of course, I can't speak for everyone involved here). Guettarda 22:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The archives are filled with both people who want to more or less replace the Intelligent design article with content taken directly from the Discovery Institute, and people who want to replace the article with a solid critique of ID without explaining what the ID people say it is. This article follows the NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" guidelines.

In my experience, there is no such thing as silent submission on this talk page. There is usually distinctly non-silent argument, sometimes degenerating into personal attacks.

Vinson, you state "the body of the article still abuses the word" - please say where the word has been misused? Thanks -

KillerChihuahua 23:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I can find only one place in the article where the word 'theory' is used inappropriately. This is in the section on the criticism of specified complexity, where it is stated that

The theory also ignores the actual relative chance in terms of the universe, for example there is an estimated 125 billion or more galaxies in the universe with roughly 100 billion stars in each. Stars then have a chance for the presence of terrestrial planets and given the scope of a planet and the various elements existent in the universe, multiplied by the previous statement concerning the amount of stars, it is easy to assume that, the chance of a set of circumstances leading to life is perceivable.

Here, 'theory' might well be replaced with 'hypothesis'. In all other cases where 'theory' is used, it is either used in reference to the theory of evolution, or in quotes (which of course cannot be changed), or in discussions about whether 'theory' is correctly applied to ID.

I do not see a problem Bill Jefferys 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have changed "theory" to "hypothesis" in paragraph 3 as indicated. Thanks Bill - I missed that one. In looking at Vinson's edits, I see his main area of concern seems to be the beginning of the Intelligent design debate section, specifically:

The Intelligent Design debate centers on three issues:

1. whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer
2. whether the evidence supports such theories
3. whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate in public education.

"Theory" is used here, sans quotes, to refer to ID. This would, I take it, be one of the cases of discussions about whether "theory" is correctly applied to ID. I'm not so sure a little editing would be misapplied here - it may indeed be misleading as it is currently worded. KillerChihuahua 02:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any theories of origins which incorporate an intelligent designer. I do not think that this is a central issue as presented in the argument. I also think that the wording unfairly implies that science (or it's current "gatekeepers") is in some way unfair for not being "broad" enough to recognize legitimate theories. If an origin theory could be stated that is testable and holds up to that testing and is not in contradiction to the facts, we should, of course, teach it in science class. I assert that no such theory exists.

In trying to preserve the nature of an encyclopedia, that is, a volume of knowledge, I think it behooves us all to be semantically uncompromising lest we sacrifice our language and our science and our volume of knowledge becomes a volume of opinion, faith, and compromised half-truths. I appreciate any critical thought toward this end. Vinson L Watkins 02:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

concur that the wording is misleading. However, as Guettarda mentioned, your suggested edit reads more as commentary - I think it would be better to reword the opening sentence and the 3 bulleted issues to be more accurate, rather than leaving them in inaccurate form with commentary about their accuracy. That said, I don't currently have a lot of bright ideas on how to make these 4 lines more accurate. We could change "theory" to an alternate word in each of the 4 instances. Ideas, people? KillerChihuahua 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, as always there is the tension between the use of theory in normal english and theory as used in science... Guettarda 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-ID bias

There is a glaring Darwinian bias in this article. I atempted to correct some of it, and added a POV tag, but it keeps getting reverted. This is a blatant violation of NPOV policy - 24.39.102.210

Who are you? Bill Jefferys 23:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not. The tag you added requires you to discuss the specific complaints you have on the discussion page. For controversial articles such as this one, it's best to bring them up first to see if the problems can't be easily fixed or if others agree that the article is not neutral. Please also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Pseudoscience for more information about how pseudoscientific theories are treated at Wikipedia. You may also find the information at the top of this discussion page useful. I hope this helps, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've not noticed a particular bias in either direction, either for ID or for Evolution. (I did however notice a distinct bias on the part of the unnamed author who played the "Darwinism" card). In any case, the article follows the general rules of debating, which is that there is an assertion and then a counter-argument. If the counter-arguments seem to lean toward Evolution, the reason might be that the writers of the counter-arguments have a grounding in the sciences, rather than in pseudoscience.

Jim62sch 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious indeed, but there's a cabal of established editors here who measure the tilt from their own biased perspective and come up with it level - and since they all share the same perspective they appear to have become quite certain about it.

They clearly don't understand ID properly (see below), generally assuming it to be a religious argument, and appear keen to add negative comments even if only weakly and indirectly related (see Pope and Pat Roberton's comments above). They fail to respond appropriately to valid pro-ID criticisms and yet act as if they have. See Wade's concerns above, who raised two points and had a bale full of verbose garbage and accusations thrown back at him:

Both Wades' points were requests to show that a statement was not original research. Not one citation offered in response replicated the meaning of the statements in question!! - the closest ones use the word 'complex' where 'irreducibly complex' (ISC) is being used here. Since the statements attribute ID's own reasoning, and the difference in concepts is key to ID, this is a critically important misrepresentation of a quote that anyone with a basic understanding of ID would realise. But apparently this is lost on them because instead of removing the word 'irreducible' which Wade would have accepted (but would severely impact the logicality of the anti-ID argument being outlined), they trounced poor Wade on it, apparently sincerely believing that they had proved many times over that the research was not original by their citations. Even after Wade pointed out that the key word 'irreducible' was missing, Felonius Monk justified that first by suggesting that it was 'obvious' from ID logic, and then later that the quotes meant irreducible complexity because the anti-ID authors didn't see the difference!

In all they spent a week refusing to remove the word irreducible and accusing Wade of wasting their time, while never producing the evidence he asked for.

I spent a lot of time trying to clarify things with what I had already learnt of ID which showed that they were incorrect, but was always ultimately ignored (eg, noting that an evolved designer being complex but not irreducibly complex is entirely consistent with ID reasoning). Interesting that.

<personal attack removed (again)WP:NPA FeloniousMonk 17:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)> The doors seem to be shut by closed or confused minds. They were even complaining a couple of weeks back that accusers of bias would not point out specific errors in the article!! ant 03:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

<personal attack removed WP:NPA FeloniousMonk 17:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)>

Felonius, I did not restore the bit you removed, and don't know who did.

I had no idea my describing your editorial actions towards pro-ID editors as persistently obstructive with examples would be construed by you as a personal attack, especially since another editor supported with my view; however, since your cutting my observations out illustrates my point so fairly I'm content to leave things as they are. ant 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A useful insight in "noting that an evolved designer being complex but not irreducibly complex is entirely consistent with ID reasoning" - it's incoherent and self-contradictory, begging the question as to why the "designed" organism should need "design" when the "designer" doesn't. However, it makes perfect sense when approached with an a-priori teleological assumption of God as an organising principle giving purpose to nature, thus producing the circular argument that given faith that God as a "designer" exists, this allegedly "irreducible" complexity proves the existence of a "designer"...dave souza 10:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's say Darwin, who believes human origin was by chance rather than design, finds a mechanical device he does not recognise lying on the ground. After examining it, he concludes that it was designed by an evolved person.

Such an assessment by the hypothetical Darwin that the object must have been designed by an undesigned designer, is it, to quote you, "incoherent, self-contradictory, and begging the question"? Does it "make perfect sense when approached with an a priori teleological assumption of [man] as an organising principle giving purpose to [elements of] nature, thus producing the circular argument that given faith that [man] as a "designer" exists, this allegedly "irreducible" complexity proves the existence of a "designer"?" Does such an analysis of the hypothetical Darwin's thinking as circular argument logically prove that a designer of the mechanical device cannot exist?

Fault this as religious thinking for me:

a. An object with irreducible and specific complexity (ISC) (such as genetic replication) is examined in order to determine its origins. Two possibilities exist: 1. It arose by chance, either through (1.1) random motion alone or (1.2) such motion restricted into structured action by physical laws; or 2. It did not arise by chance.

b. Number of events in the universe since the Big Bang is calculated to be less than the number of possible random permutatons required to develop said object. Conclusion: 1.1 random motion has been analysed and statisically found to be totally inadequate as an explanation for the origin of the object.

c. Possible physical-law restricted pathways aiding the development of the object are considered. The only examples found would but insignificantly impact the statistical balance in b. above. Conclusion: Unless unknown physical laws and processes exist for which there is zero evidence, 1.2 law-directed motion currently cannot feasibly account for the origin of the object.

d. The possibility of the object not arising by chance is considered most likely, ie. the existence of a designer is considered as more feasible than the statistically impossible chance origin.

e. It is hypothesised that 1. another object arises by chance and increases complexity step-wise until self-awareness is reached, such that if the object is examined by the same algorithm as the first it will be found that it may easily have arisen by chance; and 2. the second object designed the first object.

Hypothetically, this second-object designer does not and need not have ISC as the first object does. Thus, while the high ISC of an object implies the existence of a designer, the mere existence of a complex object (or designer) does not imply a high ISC of that object (or designer) ant 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Entertaining stuff. Of course, if this chap Darwin is the Mr. D we keep hearing about, he doesn't believe human origin was by chance, though he does have a theory that chance variation directed by natural selection accounts for origins of species including humans after that first spark of life. Presumably he assesses the device as consistent with design by an evolved designer, but "must have been designed" goes from high probability to religious certainty which that good agnostic would not have expressed. As for the second fable, I'm not in the business of faulting religion except when it pretends to be science or justifies itself with dodgy maths throwing huge numbers at unknowns. A suitable explanation, of course, is that the hypothetical mathematician (Demski?) had his calculations touched by a noodly appendage....dave souza 19:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Dave, natural selection is not an entity with a purpose but a description of the non-random process of survival of the fittest, who are fittest by chance mutations. Let's get this straight - Darwin believed either in chance or design. There is no middle ground.

Secondly, I didn't ask you to fault religion or science. I asked you to point out the religious aspect of that thinking. It's thinking that concludes in a designer, so according to you above it has a teleological argument. Or alternatively accept that there can be an undesigned designer and that ID is not necessarily religious (the theory, not the movement). ant 23:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Ant's characterization of FM and the rest of the 'cabal of established editors.' Addressing some of his critisisms (I re-posted them so as not to break up the flow of Ant's arguments) --

They clearly don't understand ID properly (see below), generally assuming it to be a religious argument, and appear keen to add negative comments even if only weakly and indirectly related (see Pope and Pat Roberton's comments above).

There is a difference between Intelligent Design the movement and Intelligent Design the theory (a word I use in a broad, non-scientific sense). When 'negative' comments appear on this talk page that are better suited for the movement page, such as those of the Pope and Pat Robertson, there is a discussion about them here and they are sent to the movement page. At the very least they do not find their way into the ID article. Many of the editors here, including FM, are very knowledgable about Intelligent Design, and just because they have an opinion on the matter doesn't stop them from writing neutrally.

Both [of] Wades' points were requests to show that a statement was not original research. Not one citation offered in response replicated the meaning of the statements in question!!

Actually there were many citations in response to Wade's points, but there was no consensus on whether or not they refuted his points. I think the debate is still going on above, and it really has nothing to do with anti-ID bias or pro-ID bias but what the 'fundamental' assumption of ID and what the nature of the designer vis-a-vis IC.

[FM] admits it but sabotages it at the same time (search above for "'Ok, ok, you've made your point", by which Felonius acknowledges the validity of the 'original research' claim but then subtly assumes the case that consensus trumps the original research policy!)

Actually, what FM said was "OK, you've made your point, many, many times here, and consensus is that it doesn't need a cite, that your objections are specious and that you've been disruptive." In other words, that Wade has made his "point", as in voiced his argument, many times, and that consensus disagreed with Wade. In no way did FM acknowledge the validity of the 'original research' claim that Wade was making.

The doors seem to be shut by closed or confused minds.

People on both sides need to keep open minds. This critisism doesn't just apply to the 'anti-IDers.'

--Parallel or Together ? 12:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Actually there were many citations in response to Wade's points, but there was no consensus on whether or not they refuted his points."

No consensus?

"Actually, what FM said was "OK, you've made your point, many, many times here, and consensus is that it doesn't need a cite"

Consensus?! ant 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No consensus? -- Yes, no consensus as to whether or not the citations given accurately addressed Wade's concerns.

Consensus?! -- Yes, consensus that this was a moot point because such a cite was not needed in this case. However, some people still seem willing to indulge Wade and look for one.

-Parallel or Together ? 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus that 'such a cite was not needed in this case' was based on... what? The lack of consensus 'as to whether or not the citations given accurately addressed Wade's concerns' of original research? ant 02:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, looking above and I see that Wade made two distinct points. His first was that he disagreed with this statement: "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex". Only KC, FM, and Jim62sch joined this discussion, and the consensus they reached was that this did not require a citation. Hence my statement. Wade's second point was that he didn't believe that "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that a designer is needed for every complex object." FM fixed this statement, Wade still disagreed, and they have a seemingly ongoing debate about whether or not this is an adequate statement and whether or not there are adequate ciations for it. KC, FM, Wade, and Chad haven't come to a consensus it looks like (to me). I hope that clears it up for you. -Parallel or Together ? 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify this.

Here's the passage I commented on (emphases mine):

Wade: "Nice quote, but once again notice that he never even mentioned irreducible complexity here, nor did he say that the designer had to be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning, nor did he even say that the designer had to be irreducibly complex, nor did even he say that the designer had any kind of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning. Again, if you want to put "Critics argue that the designer itself must be complex" I would have no objection. But the argument FeloniousMonk put forth has yet to contain an authoritative citation to show that it is not original research."

FM: " OK, you've made your point, many, many times here, and consensus is that it doesn't need a cite, that your objections are specious and that you've been disruptive. You've been warned several times now. You need to accept consensus here and move on."

Here's my original comment:

Both Wades' points were requests to show that a statement was not original research. Not one citation offered in response replicated the meaning of the statements in question!! - the closest ones use the word 'complex' where 'irreducibly complex' (ISC) is being used here.

And my clarification:

Wade's point here is that no citation has been provided in which a critic argues that by ID's own reasoning the designer must be irreducibly complex.

FM's response is an acknowledgment of Wade's point having been made, followed by a decision by [majority] consensus that Wade's point has been deemed to have no validity. Not because a suitable citation was found including the word irreducible; but simply because it was [majority] consensus. I.e. [majority] consensus trumps original research policy.

(Note that this consensus defence of the statement was only made after two other citation-less attempts, one that it was 'logically obvious' from ID's reasoning, and the other that irreducible could legitimately be presumed because critics saw no difference between 'irreducibly complex' and 'complex') ant 14:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No comment? ant 23:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Were you looking for a comment from me in particular? I can't really speak for KC, FM, Jim62sch, and Wade (the people involved in the above discussion). I wasn't involved in the debate (and neither were you), but just looking at it, and reading the article where there are three citations given, I can't really say why FM says that consensus is that it doesn't need a cite. I would have thought that consensus is that the citations given are enough to warrant the inclusion of that sentence. Similarly, I can't say why Wade thinks these citations aren't accurate - see Guettarda and Wade's points below for that. Really the nitty gritty of these arguments wasn't what my original disagreement with your comments were about. I was just disagreeing with your contention that the editors of this page aren't knowledgable about ID (they are), that they are eager to add negative comments to the article (they add them to the talk page first and the comment get sent to the movement article), that there were no citations given that accurately refute Wade's statement (there were citations offered, though I agree with you that it they don't specifically cast the designer as "irreducibly complex," whatever Dembski and Behe's defition of that word is this week), and that FM agreed that Wade was right when he said "You've made your point" (again, I'm not FM, but you can't honestly believe that is what he meant by "you've made your point). -Parallel or Together ? 03:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Look again what Ant said about the citations. It's not that the citations aren't accurate per se, it's that they don't consist of a leading ID opponent who actually makes the argument (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning). Indeed, some of the citations don't even mention irreducible complexity. One cite has prominent ID opponents saying the designer must be complex. And if the wording was "Critics argue that the designer must itself be complex" I would have no objection. But if the citation doesn't even mention irreducible complexity, doesn't say that the designer has to be irreducibly complex, doesn't say that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning or even say that the designer has to have any kind of complexity by intelligent design's own reasoning, the citation can't be used to show that the argument (the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning) is not original research. I think the contention that the editors aren't knowledgeable about ID might actually be justified in light of the many instances of misrepresentation of the ID position (e.g. the "fundamental assumption" of ID that does not appear to exist) that I've seen here. After all, the only alternative to ignorance is willful distortion of the minority view (motive e.g. of building a straw man), and I’m not ready to accuse them of that. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the cites are relevant and support the content. Also, your personal criteria that only statements from ID proponents are acceptable is just that, your personal criteria, and it is not supported by Wikipedia policy, guideline, or convention. Your repeated objections, going on the second week now, were becoming disruptive then. You may want to reconsider your strategy, as there's little support for what you claim and what you propose. FeloniousMonk 04:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Claiming they are relevant doesn't make it so. None of the citations consist of a leading ID opponent making the argument. And please don't be disruptive by distorting my position. I did not say that only statements from ID proponents are acceptable here, I requested a citation of any prominent ID opponent who gives the argument (to show that the argument is not original research). This request has been denied.

Perhaps you find my request to adhere to Wikipedia policy disruptive. But if you honestly think so, you have the option of not continuing the discussion. Notice that most--if not all--of my posts in this page have been in response to people who have brought up the subject somehow. If you don't want trouble, don't ask for it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the whole "original research" thing, citations were offered, but were either not acknowledged or dismissed by Wade. What are we supposed to do with people who ask questions, and when the questions are answered just repeat the question? Guettarda 15:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps give answers more relevant to the questions asked? For instance, if I ask for a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes the an argument I suspect to be original research (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning), and the citation provided does nothing of the sort (e.g. the citation not even mentioning irreducible complexity, nor that the designer has to be irreducibly complex, nor that the designer has to be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning) perhaps provide a citation that does meet my request? Wade A. Tisthammer 05:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that, by definition, there is no citation that is good enough for you. Perhaps, you should have explained why the citations weren't good enough for you, rather than just ignoring them. But you chose not to acknowledge the citations or the counterarguments. If you didn't have the decency to do so then, why do you feel you still have to right to complain about the "failure to produce citations"? Why are you so contemptuous of your fellow editors? Guettarda 06:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a citation that would be good enough for me: a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes the argument (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning). I have said this repeatedly, even in the section of text you were responding to. I don't know why you claimed "by definition, there is no citation that is good enough for you." Nor do I understand why you seem to think that I have ignored the citations and have not explained why the citations were not good enough. Here is an explanation why (for one citation): the citation does not even mention irreducible complexity, nor does it say that the designer must be irreducibly complex, nor does it say that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Indeed, I even provided this example in the quote you responded to. Yet you seem to ignore this and accuse me of lacking decency and being contemptuous. Speaking of contemptuousness, weren't you the one who said to me, "you can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be"? Wade A. Tisthammer 06:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job taking things out of context to twist their meaning. It was just another example of you showing contempt. You asked a question, I answered it, and you repeated almost the same question. Either you were playing dumb or you were trolling. I was just ruling out the third alternative. As for the first part of your statement - it isn't for me to explain your actions to you. You know very well what you did. It's there in the archives. Your questions were answered, over and over, and you are still acting as if they weren't. If you actually didn't read all the replies to your postings, well, they're still in the archives. Guettarda 15:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What did I take out of context? The "can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be"? Let's look at the context.

Note also that something doesn't need to be irreducibly complex to be more complex than an IC entity. Humans for instance are not irreducibly complex, and as a whole they are more complex than the blood-clotting cascade. Wade A. Tisthammer 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the whole blodd clotting vs appendix thing. If an irreducibly complex system were to exist, it would almost certain have to consist of IC and non-IC components. Guettarda 19:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if true, it is clearly the case that humans are not irreducibly complex if we are going with Behe’s definition of the term. Humans can survive without an appendix. Do you dispute this? Wade A. Tisthammer 19:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you are trolling - you can't actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be. Guettarda 19:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don’t see any reason to be rude here. If you think there’s something wrong with my reasoning (regarding humans not being irreducibly complex), you are free to explain why. Insinuated insults are unnecessary. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

So exactly how did I take things out of context? And what "question" are you referring to? Either here or the first part of part of my statement? Perhaps you are referring to my request of a citation of a leading ID proponent making the argument (that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning). If so, note that this request of mine was never granted. It was declared that the consensus was that no such citation was needed (though this seems to contradict Wikipedia policy). Perhaps you think my request was unreasonable, but why would it be? Note for instance the following Wikipedia policy:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

The standard I was using was the "significant minority" viewpoint: name a prominent ID opponent who makes the argument I suspect to be original research. This request was denied. Wade A. Tisthammer 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Support Wade. Find just one citation by a leading ID opponent who makes the argument that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Hint: it must include concepts or words very like 'irreducible' and 'reasoning' ant 23:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What those insisting on a bias actually notice is a discussion page that is essentially a perfect microcosm of the societal paradigm regarding ID vs Evolution. Or, to put it another way, there are simply far more people who know Evolution to be the correct scientific theory than there are people who believe ID to be valid.

Some of ID's largest stumbling blocks as far as ever being seen as a real science are as follows

1. That it is a theory created to fit a conclusion (that God (and yes, that is really what is meant by "Intelligent Designer") created the universe), rather than Evolution in which Darwin and others said, "look, two varieties of finches, each populating a different island. Hmmm....I wonder how that could have happened?”;

2. That ID's need for a supernatural entity is anathema in the scientific world; and

3. That the "math" used to "prove" Dembski's arguments is flawed and random -- it is obvious in looking at his formulae that he tweaked them to get the result he wanted. This is contrary to the standard use of math in science in which if one sees that the numbers do not add up, one needs to look not only at the validity of the numbers, but also at the validity of the theory.

4. Evolution does not deny the existence of a God or gods, it never really discusses the issue. What it does, however, is to make it clear that a deity is not required for the formation of life. A deity can exist or not and it really has no bearing on Evolution.

Finally (and I believe this was posted by ant), this statement is one that really does need a citation:

"b. Number of events in the universe since the Big Bang is calculated to be less than the number of possible random permutatons required to develop said object. Conclusion: 1.1 random motion has been analysed and statisically found to be totally inadequate as an explanation for the origin of the object."

Jim62sch 16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim, your bias is showing. This quote of mine from above is out of context and was point b. in reference to 'said object' having ISC in a hypothetical example which was obviously not a presentation of ID but an analogous line of thought that postulated an undesigned designer, in order to ask you to point out where it was religious (which you ducked as expected). I consider your abuse of it and snide request for a citation to be obstructive to reaching a consensus let alone the truth.

And as for the bias, the entire article presents ID from the majority point of view, never the minority, and I've realised why - the cabal of editors here don't understand ID. That anyone editing the article could even think, as you say you do, let alone write down without a citation, that the designer must be irreducibly complex, betrays a woeful ignorance of the concept. (And before you all shout, read point e. above and the following para ending in Thus, while the high ISC of an object implies the existence of a designer, the mere existence of a complex object (or designer) does not imply a high ISC of that object (or designer) If you're going to talk about ID's own reasoning, you'd better understand what it means by ISC. ant 23:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and not make sweeping personal attacks. Why the article presents ID from the majority viewpoint is found in the NPOV policy, not personal bias: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." --Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Pseudoscience FeloniousMonk 23:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, you've misunderstood me on both counts. Firstly, it was a constructive albeit hard editorial criticism, there was nothing personal in it. I'm saying that it is essential to understand exactly what ID means by the basic and crucial concept of irreducible complexity as opposed to complexity, and also to understand the related concept, that ID does not presume or insist that every complex object (or designer) must be irreducibly complex. If one does not understand this, I'm saying that one isn't qualified to present the minority view, and unintentional bias will result.

Secondly, NPOV policy does not enjoin us to present ID from the majority viewpoint. If the the article does that it is breaking NPOV policy. The requirement when comparing views is to present the majority view (the criticisms of ID) as the view held by the majority and the minority view (he pro-ID view of ID) as the view held by a minority.

This also does not mean that the majority of the article should be about the majority view. Whereas this article gives an ear to every critique, silly or not, and gives ID no place in these views. As a view-comparing article it should be re-titled the ID dispute, and both sides should have their say as majority and minority views.

In my opinion an article on ID itself should explain the concepts of ID as ID puts them, and add the major criticisms at a very general level, and link to an ID dispute article for more detail, if you do want to do a view comparison article. ant 04:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ant,

It was not I who ducked your question. In fact, "point b." was from a response you wrote regarding a question asked of you by someone else. Nevertheless, I'd still like to see a cite. It seems to me that the ID-ists can seek (and repeatedly reject) citations at will, and yet if I, in my biased, anti-ID way, ask for same I am treated as if I were a leper seeking a handout.

I also tire of this nonsense that folks who believe ID to be pseudo- or junk-science simply "do not understand ID", and yet ID-ists, in the wisdom granted them by divine intervention understand Evolution all too well. Please, spare us the non-sense. We understand ID; we've studied ID; we find it to be lacking.

Jim62sch 00:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Jim, I confused you with Dave! I think you've misunderstood still. What I said there was not ID, it was not quoting an ID proponent or argument, it was not a statement in the ID article on ID, it was a purely hypothetical statement of myown on this talk page to illustrate a point to Dave who denies the validity of the concept of an evolved (non-IC) designer. But if you still want a cite, this Talk page is it, my original quote. ant 04:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's recap something from WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience:

the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view

I think Ant's point here was that the article really doesn't do such a good job of representing the minority view (e.g. claiming the existence of a fundamental assumption of ID without providing a suitable citation to prove the assumption actually exists, even when a citation is requested). --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it'd be better if we just presented ID as it is without criticism. Yep, that's the answer.

Jim62sch 00:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your idea of what constitutes a suitable citation is not in line with the standard established at WP:CITE and WP:RS. In fact, we have yet to see what you consider an acceptable citation because you have yet to accept a single one provided since your arrival. Let's not misrepresent the citations in the article, and just defer to Wikipedia's own standards. FeloniousMonk 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain yourself here? Why isn't my idea of a suitable citation in line with Wikipedia policy? You seem quick to make accusations but slow in providing any evidential support behind them.

Also, let's look at the reasons why I have deemed other citations unacceptable. The claim: that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. The Wikipedia entry states “critics argue” this. Do they? Is this viewpoint a majority, significant minority, or extremely small minority? Looking at Wikipedia policy

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

My request was simple: a citation of any prominent ID adherent who makes this argument to show that the argument is not original research (I doubt one would find it in commonly accepted reference texts, but this would be acceptable too I suppose). As I have said repeatedly, this is what I would consider an acceptable citation. And yet not one of the proposed citations met my request; not one of them consisted of a leading ID opponent claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Indeed, many of the citations didn't even mention irreducible complexity! Felonious, you can't just throw citations willy-nilly and claim you've solved the problem of producing a suitable citation. They have to be relevant to the matter at hand. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)