Talk:Intelligent design

	Article-specific editing notes.
Please read before starting: This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience and related fringe theories NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below or use the searchbox below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Article Neutrality

Does anyone else believe that this ariticle is very unneutral? The page does not make any reference to Id's strong points, like evolutions lack of transitional forms or Id's other strong points. (See Refuting Evolution or Icons of Evolution. These are good sources to get information from the Id point of veiw) For the record, I believe that all issues should be observed from both sides and should be veiwed with as little bias as possible.

Onestopsnackshop (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems just fine to me. The reason that it does not make reference to ID's strong points is that, frankly, there are none. As per your example of a lack of transitional forms - there are many transitional forms: literally warehouses full of them. We even have a nice article here at wikipedia with a sizeable list of them, complete with pictures. Refuting Evolution and Icons of Evolution might be good sources of the ID point of view, but they are, sadly, not good sources of facts. I don't know how to say this any other way, but they lied to you. Over and over and over again. A lack of transitional fossils is a lie. The idea that the missing link is still missing is a lie. Irreducible complexity is a lie. The list goes on and on.Farsight001 (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are gaps in the fossil record it only means that they have not been found yet. Only a minute proportion of living things become fossilised and of those only a tiny proportion are visible at rock surfaces at any time.--Charles (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as I understand the topic, all life forms are transitional forms. As for bias, the idea that both sides of an issue should be treated equally is in direct contrast to Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned similar concerns in the past. I don't think that both sides need to be given equal weight, but I think that the tone of the article could still use some work. Consider the lead, for example:

... The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science. ... U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science ...

Wouldn't it be enough to call it "not science" once and to subsume the other redundant remarks into the footnotes? Eugene (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't reconcile what you just said with your proposal to insert this into the lead description of the pseudoscholarly theory that Jesus was an entirely fictional character:

"...it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio."

Anthony (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked out that list [[1]] of "transitional" fossils. Right at the top is "Ida," almost certainly NOT a human ancestor. Guess I'll have to check out the rest of them. Actual evidence of a chain of evolutionary developments is mighty hard to come by. --Yopienso (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I resent your claim that those books lied to me, those are not the only books I have read on these topics. I have looked at the evidence, done my own research and come to the conclusion that evolution does not accurately explain the existence of life on earth. There are problems ported to be truth with and anomalies with it that cannot possibly be explained away and falsehoods (whether on purpose or by people too eager to believe in evolution) that are purported to be true even after the majority of the scientific community reject it.

Darwin himself mentioned it in the Orgin of Species. Darwin said that the lack of trabsitional forms would destroy his theory. There are many fossil anomolies that can not be explained(polystrata fossils, fossils in the wrong order and upside down strata.

People are smart, they just need to examine the facts on their own and not blindly accept something because someone with a large amount of letters after their names says it is true.

Onestopsnackshop (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Darwin said that, 150 years ago. We have 150 years worth of research and transitional fossils and better explanations since then. Polystrate fossils were explained quite conclusively about 140 years ago in a book called Acadian Geology by John William Dawson. Ironically, when creationist/ID organizations try to claim that there is no explanation for polystrate fossils, they often borrow an image from that very book. This guy: [[2]] Along with polystrate fossils, inverted strata and fossils in the wrong order (oddly, they are related issues) have also been explained for many many years. I don't want to sound rude, but you obviously did the wrong sort of research. Saying that those books lied to you is the nicest way I could try and get through to you that the game between evolution and creation is over - it ended a LONG time ago. Creationists want to stay on the field and toss the ball around? That's fine. But claiming that the game is still going is simply dishonest. Let me be more blunt this time around - those books are full of lies from the pit of hell itself.Farsight001 (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fossils out of order? Along the Jurassic Coast and around the Isle of Wight in southern England dinosaur fossils are constantly being eroded out of soft rocks and if not picked up by human collectors they will be redeposited in sediment at the bottom of the English Channel,along with baked bean cans and all the plastic debris of twentyfirst century living. Give it a few thousand years and there will be some fantastic "evidence" for future creationists to claim that dinosaurs coexisted with modern humans.--Charles (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you guys are just being rude. Keep the conflation between intelligent design and creationism out of this discussion, it's obvious he's talking about ID and not creationism and if you don't know the difference then perhaps you shouldn't be arguing here. It's well understood by most that this is a left leaning article, heck it has even be written about that it's a left leaning article. Serious work here needs to be done if ever this article is to reach a respectable stance of Intelligent Design. Ink Falls 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ID is a form of creationism that was created shortly after the Griswaldo case tossed creationism out of schools. And what do politics have to do with science? Nothing. There are many on the right that can accept the evidence for evolution, so don't make this political. Aunt Entropy, 20:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Auntie. As for the discussion, while it's of general interest the talk page is not a forum and we make necessary assumptions about issues such as the validity of evolution which are fully discussed on other articles. Unless there's a specific proposal for improvement of the article, we should put a hat on this section. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead/lede excessive

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I see it's still a problem so I want to bring it up here. I think the lead is very excessive. It's just supposed to give a quick overview of the subject, but it comes across as overly detailed and redundant. I think it should be cut down to the following, and the rest moved to the Overview section, or something similar.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16]

I imagine some might fear that removing the latter section reduces the impact, but I disagree. Doing this helps get straight to the point, making it less likely that people will simply skim the lead, rather than reading it fully. It avoids the repetition and simply ends by making a clear statement of fact. Further information regarding who specifically says this can and should be detailed in the body of the article. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You've basically cut out the last 2.5 paragraphs in your proposed revision above. I think that the lead section must summarize the article, and this article is long. The parts you cut out are summaries of much longer parts. If I were to revise the lead, I'd probably cut out the quote from the NAS and the part about history, since quotes look like detail (unnecessary for a lead paragraph) and I don't typically see history summarized in the lead except maybe one line about origins. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and I believe there are good reasons for cutting that much. The second paragraph currently mostly consists of the same sentence rephrased four different ways, with different sourcing, so I believe once is enough in the lead, and move detailing the remaining sources to the body. The third paragraph is going into further detail of what was already described in the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph. It's repetitive and an unnecessary level of detail for the lead. The one place where, on further consideration, I could potentially see a reason for keeping some of what I suggest should be cut, is a short one-sentence reference to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, since it was a significant decision. I'm not convinced it's necessary, though. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 06:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, I reconsidered a couple of points, but I still strongly believe the lead is very excessive, repeating itself and going into excessive detail. This is my revised proposed lead:

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which purposefully avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"; therefore, the Dover School District's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[24]

As before, all details removed from the lead would be moved to the body. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead section should be proportionate to the article. It is currently four rather short paragraphs for an article that is 183K long - making it proportionately quite short (and the article itself appears far too long, though the number of sources makes this a little muddy). I think the four paragraphs neatly summarize the major points, controversies and historical context. The quotes could possibly be summarized and reduced to a generic statement about it being scientifically worthless with only the NAS retained as an explicit, named entity due to its prominence. The third paragraph illustrates the antecedents of ID and the reason it was ever created - to do an end-run around creationism (which it is explicitly shown to be) being barred from schools - as well as who created it (it's essentially solely the baby of the Discovery Institute), and is thus necessary. Dover v Kitzmiller was the first, probably the last test of ID in court where it was conclusively shown to be creationism - a hugely important part of the debate over ID since it was essentially killed it. The lead is meant to summarize the body, and if anything needs to be expanded to include its core concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

The current lead seems very adequate to me - it summarizes the definition of, nonscientific status of, beginnings of, and ending of intelligent design. I can't see what else can be removed without leaving gaping holes in what ID actually is.

But primarily, I don't believe the intro is too long given the length of the article and the guidelines found in WP:LEAD. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with WLU - the lead is fine. Raul654 (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Proportional" does not make it a good lead. The length listed there gives a general idea, but it's important that the lead be concise, and it is very definitely not right now. The third paragraph repeats in greater detail what was already said in the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph. Also, your comments still do not address the redundancy of the second paragraph. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD; the lengths are not necessarily set in stone, but there is guidance and that guidance says it should be proportionate. Also, doesn't a longer lead for a longer article make sense? A three section stub about a book shouldn't have a lengthy lead, while the main topic article for a lengthy and detailed subject should be considerably longer. Ultimately, the question about the lead is, does it accurately summarize the main points of the article? I actually think some information is missing and it should be expanded. The information all reads as appropriate to me, though perhaps it could be reorganized. I see nothing that should be removed. The third paragraph is about the origins and history of the idea, while the latter half of the first paragraph is about who came up with the idea. The two are complimentary, not redundant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Below is a new proposed lead, with the refs removed 'cause they're lengthy and make the paragraphs nigh-impossible to edit. They would be tedious to replace, but doable. I've chunked the development and proponents together, added the underlying claims of ID, and made some wording adjustments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the third paragraph can be shortened a bit more. I've edited the text of it below, but just commented out the text I've removed (i.e. so it's still visible when editing). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced "think tank" since it helps to identify what the DI is, and think it is worth noting the DI's role in leading the advocacy of ID, but agree the number of books released doesn't really help that much. My suggested revisions are shorter than the original, but I do think those particular points are worth including. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which, for political and legal reasons, purposefully avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary concepts include irreducible complexity (the claim that sets of mutually-necessary interacting parts could not have evolved piecemeal), specified complexity (the claim that intelligent cause can be inferred from complex, meaningful patterns), the fine-tuned Universe (the claim that this universe, of all possible variations, was uniquely created for human life). Advocates of intelligent design also insist there is controversy among biologists regarding evolution (campaigning for this to be taught under the logo "Teach the Controversy"), and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition.

The unequivocal scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not science and evolution elegantly explains the diversity of life on Earth. All of the concepts used to support intelligent design have been criticized by the scientific community for lacking conceptual soundness and not requiring an intelligent designer to evolve. Advocates for intelligent design have failed to publish their claims in the scientific literature with proper peer review; proponents blame the scientific community for a priori rejected their explanation, while critics counter that no such research has been appropriately submitted to a scientific journal and the intelligent design claims rest supernatural ideas that can not be tested by science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science" and other agencies have described intelligent design as pseudoscience and junk science. Religious commentators have also expressed support for evolution and objected to intelligent design on both theological and philosophical grounds.

Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the politically conservative think tank the Discovery Institute – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. The first significant published use of the term was to replace the word "creationism" in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook published by a Christian non-profit organization that was intended for high-school biology classes. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more vocally advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. The "intelligent design movement", funded and led primarily by the Discovery Institute, grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s culminating in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students opposed a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Intelligent design has also been criticized outside of the United States as a form of creationism that should not be taught as science, but finding greater acceptance in Islamic countries.

---

I think it could use a little tweaking, but this lead feels much less repetitive than the current one. At this point, I think the second paragraph should start off with "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." (I'm all for getting right to the point) The current first sentence of that paragraph feels like a obscured way of saying "Scientists believe ID is not logical nor does it help explain anything." If we've got the sources, perhaps it can be rephrased. I'm not sure the last sentence of that paragraph adds much besides detail, either (detail is good, but best in the body rather than the lead).

The third paragraph of the last sentence still feels a little repetitive with the entire last paragraph. Perhaps just dropping "which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes" from the end would help, since the trial is immediately explained. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made some adjustments and am trying to better summarize all parts of the page. There are whole sections of the body not currently included in the lead. I think the current version captures most of the page now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Awkward phrase 2nd paragraph 1st line

The phrase in question reads:

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,

Shouldn't this say "some advocates"? Other alternatives include "many advocates", "a vocal minority use this issue to advocate", "a majority of advocates" and so forth. But to say "advocates" is to imply that this is a fundamental dogma of Intelligent Design and all advocates of Intelligent Design are concerned with some political agenda. This is not only an error, it is demonstrably false. 70.183.0.39 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, words like "some" or "many" are weasel words which are to be avoided, especially in a featured article.

And actually, I think it's demonstrably true that advocates of ID seek to redefine science. There's a difference between actual advocacy versus mere belief or acceptance.

Perhaps it could say "The primary proponents" mentioned earlier in the lead. All of them are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which does seek to fundamentally redefine science. However, while true, the sentence would not cover the remainder of the population of advocates, all of whom also want ID taught in science classes.

If the word "advocates" were changed to "activists" I doubt there would be a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@70.183 Can you provide a reliable source which demonstrates that a major advocate of ID has no interest in redefining science? AFAIK, the entire mission of the movement is to put creationism into the science classroom. This political component is the only difference between being a creationist and being an advocate of ID. If you could provide a source which reliably demonstrates otherwise, I'd be open to changing my position. Jess ^talk _cs 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"School of thought"

I for one applaud changing "assertion" to "school of thought that asserts." Rarely do I choose a wordier rendering over a briefer one, but this one seems more encyclopedic and more accurate. The synonym "Worldview"Weltanschauung) somehow doesn't seem to fit as well. (Just my opinion, and subject to change.) --Yopienso (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the lead is a carefully constructed compromise, so changing it to "school of thought" without discussion is inappropriate. In addition, making changes to the lead of an FA without supplying supporting references is clearly inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it well to open a discussion to see whether the edit should stand, be reverted, or be modified.

"Ideology" is another possibility if there's a consensus that "assertion" isn't exactly right. ("Assertion" may well be judged the best word at present. The American Heritage Dictionary uses that word. Surprisingly, the most recent Merriam-Webster and a 5-yr.-old National Geographic News report call it a "theory." One can only assume "theory" is used in a loose lay sense.) --Yopienso (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dogma by Consensus

I was disappointed to see the dogmatic and defensive tone of the FAQ section on this article. To reflect the current majority view of the professional scientific community that ID should not be considered scientific, an encyclopedia article should state that factual situation descriptively. The tone of the present article, however, intentionally takes up the cause of the majority point of view rather than simply describing it as such. Any educated reader could read the WP article and the Britannica article on ID and easily see the difference in tone. Would anyone like to discuss the bias of this article and the denial of its bias? Scoopczar (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's not biased, see WP:UNDUE. ID isn't a scientific idea, it's at best a sociological phenomenon, at worst an outright deception. Actually, it's probably both. And no, we wouldn't like to discuss it. ID is clearly, clearly nonsense, with the entire scientific community saying so, and an explicit part of the Discovery Institute's efforts to shoehorn religion into the scientific, educational and cultural sphere. We give appropriate, due weight to the majority opinion, and because it is a publicly editable encyclopedia, are much more nimble than Britannica, thus able to much more rapidly integrate new sources. While Britannica may have one article handled by, at most, a couple people, the wikipedia article has thousands paying close attention to the topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I seems to me that WP's policy of giving due weight to the majority view would be best served by statements that simply describe that view as being the majority view rather than promote the majority view as true and beyond question. Of course, if one labels an alternate view as "nonsense," perhaps that settles the question without discussion--especially if "clearly" appears twice before "nonsense" and all the best people think so. Scoopczar (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble separating the idea of "majority view" from "view that is supported by evidence". This article "promotes the majority view" because that view is supported by evidence as found in reliable sources, and Wikipedia articles have to report what reliable sources say. If that is an editing requirement you cannot abide by, you might find that your time is better spent on other websites that don't have such constraints. Raul654 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Scoopczar, it's biased, just like everything and everyone. But we can be grateful WP admits it bias; few of us do. Read Wikipedia:Systemic bias, from which I've selected this excerpt:

Wikipedians, as a class, tend to over-represent intellectuals from academia or members of subcultures. More university professors and computer programmers edit Wikipedia than do dental technicians, firefighters, flight attendants, plumbers, et cetera. This leads to a bias against full coverage of blue-collar subjects, employment, and practical skills, while obscure academic theories and minority subcultures are well covered.

Wikipedia carries the liberal bias of academia, and it says so. Ideally, it would be as professionally encyclopedic as Britannica, but it's too democratic (or oligarchical, however you see it) for that. Conservapedia carries the right-wing Christian evangelical bias. (They may admit it or even proclaim it, but I'm not familiar enough with it to know.) Not being a liberal academician, I sometimes fret under this particular bias but try to work within its framework. I honestly believe I have no bias whatsoever, but, thankfully, know better...but not well enough to identify what my bias may be. Here's an open invitation to my fellow editors to illuminate me. --Yopienso (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, thanks for your constructive comment. I believe that you have exemplified in it the best of WP policy and spirit to encourage honest inquiry and interaction. I appreciate the pillars of WP, and only wish that they were better followed in this particular article. As you say, I am biased as well. There are none so biased as those who insist they are not. I am not suggesting that ID be given equal weight, only a descriptive NPOV treatment. I agree that we are to report what RSs say, but not that we are to judge and promote a view we believe is best supported by the evidence; that is OR. We are to report such evaluations made by others from RSs in a descriptive manner. Editorial tone is a subtle thing, but when the purpose is to disparage rather than to describe, it comes through. IMHO if the ID article title were changed to "Why Intelligent Design Should be Rejected as a Deceitful Pseudoscience," and published on an editorial page of a periodical, the article itself would need little or no revision as it stands. Scoopczar (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the criticisms of ID? There's no science there and it is deceitful (as well as incredibly lazy). It was specifically designed as a way of shoehorning god into the classroom, a religious theory with a patina of sciencey-sounding words and ideas. Every, literally every proposed bit of evidence of intelligent design has been thoroughly and vigorously disproven. There's nothing there. Quite literally, ID is nothing but deceitful pseudoscience, used by a dishonest religious entity which ties itself in knots and lies to its audience to portray itself as the underdog rather than the truth that it's nothing but a mouthpiece for Christians trying to break the laws of their country. This has been pointed out many times in many sources, so perhaps it deserves to be on the page. In this case, the truth can be verified. ID and the DI actively irritate me because they are both predicated on the populace needing to be tricked into believing in YHWH. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconding WLU. For WP to do its job here, this (ostensibly) scientific subject should be described as it is understood and perceived within the relevant context: the scientific community. The reliable sources in this domain are unequivocal in their rejection of ID. Its central ideas have either been undermined theoretically (in the case of Dembski's SC) or discredited empirically (in the case of Behe's IR). And that's before one considers its patently dishonest formulation by creationists as an attempt to bypass education law (the Wedge). It may well be the case that it is popular with a significant section of the general population, but an encyclopedia would doing its readers (who, lets not forget, have come here for factual information, not political opinion) a disservice if it presented a science subject without the scientific evidence that supports (or falsifies) it, or from the perspective of anything other than the broad scientific community. Judged this way, ID is baseless pseudoscience, an eminently source-able characterisation. Note that it is not us who are making this judgement, we are merely reporting it. --PLUMBAGO 10:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem within WP policies with presenting in a dispassionate and descriptive manner any or all of the factual information from RS to which you refer. Let the facts, properly sourced, speak for themselves. My criticism of the article is that the passionate and intentional opposition to the ID movement reflected in some of the comments above are reflected in the article itself. One of WPs standards is not to be a forum for advancing one's cause. On a positive note, I do appreciate the places in your comments, WLU and Plumbago, where you leave off name-calling and give reasons for your position. As for this talk section, I think it has been revealing but will not likely lead to specific improvements for the article. So perhaps it should be closed. Scoopczar (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree in that the discussion shold be closed, preferably using {{hat}} and {{hab}}. This talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, it's not meant to be used as a debating forum on Wikipedia's treatment of the topic "intelligent design". Gabbe (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a specific issue being brought up, in that the tone of the article is sometimes not neutral, and it comes through. The article should not argue the "correct" position, but simply describe the facts. Scoopczar referred to specific wording as the problem, specifically "nonsense." Instead of getting defensive, why not re-examine the wording and how it might be improved to be more dispassionate and neutral? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Sxepto, my reference to "nonsense" pertained to a comment on the Talk page rather than in the article itself. @Gabbe - I just reviewed the Talk page policies and saw only that the Talk page should be about improving the article, nothing about limiting the talk to specific edits. Nevertheless, IMO, this talk section has run its course in terms of any benefits to the article. Scoopczar (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for the correction. Still, I think it's long past time to address some of the neutrality issues in this article. I've been trying to discuss the issues with the lead, but getting little input. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sχeptomaniac, in this case there is clearly a correct position, and a blatantly wrong position. Much as the blood libel page shouldn't include a comment like "However, there is no proof Jews don't drink the blood of Christian babies" or the AIDS denialism page doesn't say "HIV may not be the cause of AIDS", this page shouldn't portray ID as anything but religon. ID has failed every single test proposed and every example offerred has turned out to be flatly wrong. It was explicitly created for religio-cultural reasons, and deliberately dressed up to look like a scientific theory in order to bypass decades of legal rulings. There is absolutely nothing of merit about it. Not even religiously. UNDUE, FRINGE and REDFLAG all apply and none support the theory as being worth anything but derision. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the original issue raised--and this has everything to do with improving the article--was that the tone should not be "dogmatic and defensive," to which I will now add "derisive." The facts can be laid out clearly in a matter-of-fact, neutral tone. I've not been able to quickly find a passage to cite as an example, as the whole article is permeated with "This is so wrong!" As far as I know (I'm not a scientist) it is wrong, but HowStuffWorks, founded by an atheist whose other websites aim to disprove Christianity, presents Intelligent Design straightforwardly. Notes: It's in the "Western Spirituality" category, the writer is not a scientist, ID creationism is once called a "theory." --Yopienso (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I went off half-cocked and need to think about this some more. --Yopienso (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just re-read the article through and I am sorry, but your claims of it being "dogmatic and defensive" are utter rubbish. The article deals with the specific claims made by ID and explains why they are wrong. This is not dogma, nor is it defensive. In an article about a subject aimed at ordinary people, such as any Wikipedia article, not to point out the error of claims ostensibly made in the scientific domain would do a significant disservice to the reader. As for deriding ID, it is not this article that does that, but rather ID itself. It is ID that make the ridiculous claims, to try and pretend that they are anything else takes a special sort of thinking. This article does not need to be corrected for NPOV violation because pointing out that a pseudo-scientific claim is in error is not POV, rather it is the very essence of NPOV. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) WLU, none of that has anything at all to do with whether or not the tone of the article is neutral. The same facts can be presented neutrally or non-neutrally. Deride ID all you want on your own, but that should not happen on the article; to do so violates WP:NPOV Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you point us to some specific lines in the article that you feel are most egregious? Blanket assertions that the article is not neutral are not particularly helpful since they don't guide our editing terribly well. Does, for instance, the lead get the balance right? Turning to your main point, how exactly do you think a movement predicated on explicitly breaking the spirit of the law by dressing up its particular religion (over and above all others, let's not forget) as science should be described here? Science subjects, and this article describes something that is positively straining to be classified as science, should be described within the context of science with appropriate balance (cf. WP:PSCI). As I noted above already, we would be doing readers a disservice if it is not abundantly clear that ID is judged pseudoscience by the scientific community (as well as an attempted end-run around the law). --PLUMBAGO 08:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm about half-way through a complete read of the article and I also don't see a problem with the tone so far. It's very well sourced, and meshes completely with all of the scientific reviews of the idea, as well as the DovervKitz trial reviews I've read. I ended up being impressed at how the neutral the lead was. The body contains many descriptions by proponents, and immediately afterwards the mainstream position and reaction. Nearly a point-by-point rebuttal, which I think is valid since the scientific community made a point of refuting every pseudoscientific claim made - just like they have for nearly every appearance of creationism in American history. I would like to echo plumbago's statement - where, specifically, is the article problematic? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Compare the tone of "Intelligent Design" in How Stuff Works with that of the WP article. In the HSW treatment, a detailed refutation by the scientific community is provided in a tone of description rather than persuasion. HSW is not an encyclopedia, but its respectful and objective tone while presenting strongly critical information would do an encyclopedia credit. Any one example of specific biased wording in the WP article will not convey the cumulative effect. As one example in the first sentence, however, there is a fierce opposition by some WP editors to any word that comes close to "theory" or even "theoretical" with regard to ID. I understand that ID does not meet the established criteria of a scientific theory, so to call it a "scientific theory" would be incorrect. However, the vendetta against the ID people by editors with an axe to grind is so pronounced that even the non-technical everyday use of the adjective "theoretical" as in "theoretical proposal" or the modified noun as in "proposed theory" is shot down in favour of a weasel word like "assertion," presumably chosen to substitute for "knuckle-headed nonsensical (but we mustn't say that) assertion." With regard to my original description of "dogmatic and defensive," Nick Thorne, I applied it not to the article itself but to the FAQ section of this talk page. Scoopczar (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but as you say we aren't how stuff works. What specifically is wrong, and should be corrected, on this page? What specific suggestions do you have? We aren't bound to be "respectful", we are supposed to represent the topic as expressed by the relevant experts - who have rejected it. It has been pointed out that ID isn't a theory - it's a religious run-around of the scientific establishment. The best you can say is advocates attempt to portray it as a theory, but it's not one and this is dealt with in the second paragraph. It's not a theory by the scientific criteria of a theory, and it's not even meant to be a theory by its proponents. We could arguably call it a religious proposition, or dishonest lie, but theory is clearly inapplicable. Proposed theory doesn't work either, because it's not a theory. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, y'know, I wouldn't particularly mind seeing the word "assertion" replaced with "proposition". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A neutral non-technical word such as "proposition" or "thesis" would be an improvement. WLU's suggestion that "dishonest lie" would be appropriate makes my broader point better than I can. Nevertheless, I do agree that further broad discussion of bias is unlikely to be fruitful here. Time to focus just on specific edits; that's my theory. Scoopczar (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Amatulić: "something offered for consideration or acceptance." Agreed, Scoopszar. WLU is largely correct, but the problem lies in being dogmatic about it, which can lead to long discussions, hurt feelings, and hairsplitting that impede progress on the article. Merriam-Webster is not a fringe ID proponent, but it calls ID a theory. So did the National Geographic 5 years ago. So does The Free Dictionary. We don't want to call it a theory because we want to be more scientifically precise, but we don't have to think ill of the less precise or even the dogmatic ID proponents--arguments stand or fall on fundamentals, not niggling terminologies. --Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with assertion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary, ID supporters don't just "propose" ID is correct, they assert it is, goes beyond the ID thesis itself into characterizing its supporters. The article isn't about ID supporters, but about ID. Not all "ID supporters" are aggressive or even vocal; many don't go around "asserting" the idea; they just quietly think it explains the Universe in a way that makes sense to them. Every time an evolutionist speaks of his science he necessarily "asserts" it, but we wouldn't write, "Evolution is the the assertion that..." (Even though we wouldn't, we could logically write, "Evolution is the theory that asserts..." What we actually say at the moment is, "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations." Strange it omits the word "process." Oh, well, that's another page.)

Summary:

1. Let's focus on explaining the idea without speculating on the motives of the people who believe it.

2. Let's realize "ID supporters", like "evolution supporters," vary in intensity of conviction and activism.

3. Let's remember we aren't fighting for The Truth. --Yopienso (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The strength of conviction of various supporters is irrelevant. It is evidence that matters. There is absolutely no evidence for ID, zero, zilch. Assertion is not a weasel word but dogma is. Religions have dogma but science has evidence.--Charles (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Proposition" vs. "Assertion"

I replaced "assertion" with "proposition" in the first sentence and was reverted. I would like to discuss it and seek consensus if possible. An assertion is simply a statement that is declared without necessarily making a formal argument concerning it. It may also carry a weasel-like negative connotation in the context of a controversial subject. ID is not considered a "theory" in the technical sense, but surely it is a formal proposition in an intentional argument, regardless of whether the argument is true or false. What is the objection from a NPOV to the use of "proposition"? Scoopczar (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted, as I stated in edit summary: ID supporters do not merely "propose" ID as a suggestion, they much more forcefully assert it as fact. Yobol (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ID proponents do not simply assert their position "as fact." A fact requires no argumentation. ID proponents state their position and then seek to build an argument and to submit evidence. The consensus of the scientific community is that ID fails in this effort. Nevertheless, ID proponents fully recognize that their position is a proposition that requires a logical and empirical case to be built. I invite others to weigh in on the suitablility of "proposition," especially editors who have no strong feelings about the ID controversy itself. Scoopczar (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my post immediately above. Yobol is straying from the idea into personalities. Not all "ID supporters" forcefully assert it as fact, and even if they did, it would be outside the scope of the article. --Yopienso (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To suggest that ID is a mere proposal or a suggestion rather than an assertion seems unusual to me, but I defer to the consensus on this issue. This particular phrasing has been brought up countless times before (search "assertion" in the archives) and it has stood up as consensus. I await other input to see if consensus has changed. Yobol (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ID was forced into classrooms with no actual support from any peer-reviewed sources, asserting it was true without proof, substantiation or even serious work. It was always a scientific screen over a religious idea that's little more than Paley's assertions from the 19th century dressed up with biochemistry. Dover v. Kitzmiller clearly demonstrated this. It was never subjected to actual peer review, merely handed directly to the public in the form of non-peer reviewed books and lectures from a pulpit. Assertion is more accurate, it was never actually proposed in a meaningful way. Not to mention it literally is creationism - witness it's use in Pandas and People where it was literally substituted word-for-word for "creationism". It is not, and has never been a scientific idea, it's simply dishonest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion is true. I assert it belongs in Intelligent design movement, not here. --Yopienso (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Proposition" (not 'proposal' or 'suggestion') is a formal but non-scientific term used to describe a position statement in an argument. What NPOV objection is there to the use of "proposition" in the opening sentence? Scoopczar (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

When I see "proposition" I see the Merriam-Webster definition of "proposition": "something offered for consideration or acceptance : proposal". In other words, a suggestion or proposal. Yobol (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Yobol, "proposal" can be a synonym for "proposition" in certain contexts as can many other terms. Each term has its own connotations. The term I am talking about is "proposition," especially for its usage in the context of an argument. So what is your specific objection to the term "proposition"? Scoopczar (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That the most common usage of the term is as I noted above, and that provides an incorrect connotation for the lead of this article. Yobol (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the direct reply, Yobol. I know of no reason to assume "suggestion" to be the most common usage of the term "proposition." Even if it were, the context of a formal argument, which is specified in the paragraph (i.e., ID as a form of the teleological argument) makes the usage of "proposition" clear in the sense of a formal statement to be defended rather than a mere suggestion. Comments from others? Scoopczar (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I know of no reason to assume "suggestion" to be the most common usage of the term "proposition." Do you mean besides that it is the first definition in the dictionary, and therefore, the most common usage of the term (as with almost all definitions in the dictionary, it is listed in descending order of frequency of use)? It seems odd to me you would advocate the use of this term when it is now clear that is easily misinterpreted from what you intend it to mean. Yobol (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't see "suggestion" at all in the definition that you quoted. "Suggestion" seemed to be a word that you added yourself, unless I misread your comments. The definition that you quoted from Webster is consistent with a proposition in a formal argument: "something offered for consideration or acceptance." Whether or not it is accepted, of course, being subject to someone's evaluation of the argument and evidence. Scoopczar (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ID and the IDM are essentially indistinguishable. There are no proponents who are not religiously motivated, and the scientific community has been clear and universal that it's an untestable assertion designed to shoehorn god into the classroom. Can people who believe it's a credible theory name any proponents who are not members of the discovery institute? Or any scientific articles published in any peer reviewed journals that support ID? I would venture the answer is no. And Dover v Kitzmiller, the ultimate test of ID, found none either. I would accept "theory" if it were phrased as "an assertion presented by its religiously motivated proponents as a theory, but the scientific community has determined is actually a form of creationism." I've read several book on ID and Dv.K, it's quite clearly universally seen as worthless by anyone who isn't a creationist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ID and the IDM are essentially indistinguishable. Why, then, do we have two separate articles? --Yopienso (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, suggestion is a word I added, as an illustrative contrasting point to how I see the word "proposition" and as an obvious synonym for the word "proposal". You said that the connotation of the word was not meant to be "proposal", and yet you now agree with the dictionary definition that says it is? ID is not merely "offered for consideration or acceptance", it is pushed at all levels, from shady attempts to get peer-reviewed publications to local school boards to legislative efforts at the state and even national levels. Trying to divorce the concerted efforts to push support for ID (which is not only one of the most notable aspects about ID and is widely documented in our WP:RS) from this article seems to me an obvious violation of NPOV. As it appears we're going in circles now, I will await further input from other editors before replying. Yobol (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This section is a discussion of the word "proposition" for the opening sentence. Scoopczar (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Yobol was responding to my post of 18:48, 17 July 2010, which was about "assertion". --Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Two observations at this point: 1. Yobol and I appear to have different purposes. I am looking for a label for the statement (quotation) that follows it. Yobol is looking to for a label for the actions of ID proponents to "push support" for that statement through "shady attempts." No wonder we gravitate to different terms. 2. I did search and read the archives on the choice of "assertion." I can find no expression of consensus on its use. Quite the contrary. After vigorous objection and debate, the thread just dies. Apparently, "assertion" survived through exhaustion and default rather than consensus. Scoopczar (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Scoopczar is talking about ideas and Yobol about people and their actions. Yobol is conflating the idea with its proponents. Because they are distinguishable, we have separate articles. S/he is also apparently unaware that most people are followers, not leaders/proponents/activists, and do no kind of pushing. Not everyone is in an armed camp, even here at WP. --Yopienso (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the change from "assertion" to "proposition". The subject of this article is Intelligent Design (the concept or idea). We have other articles for subjects relating the the movement and its proponents. As such, the word we use to describe the concept need not be the same as the word most appropriate to describe the actions of ID activists.

The word "proposition" is also the most appropriate given the way the article labels ID activists: we call them proponents. A proponent, by definition, is "a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal." So even if we label the concept after the actions of its proponents, the best word is still "proposition". ~Amatulić (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "proponents" for those pushing ID is used because it is more polite than the word "IDiots". ID is not a proposition for the simple reason that there is nothing tentative about it, the "proponents" actively assert that it is true against all logical opposition. If it was a true proposition they would be actively seeking review and confirmation (or refutation), whereas in fact that is the vary last thing they want. They seek to actively change some fundamental definitions of what science is so that they can slip their theology into the science classrooms and think they can fool everyone into letting it happen. I think some here are being disengenuous in their arguments supposedly in favour of NPOV when in fact it seems to me that what is being proposed is subtle POV pushing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ID is not a proposition for the simple reason that there is nothing tentative about it -- A proposition does not become a proposition by being either meekly suggested as tentative or fiercely defended as Truth. A proposition is a position statement used in an argument. Is ID an argument? There seems to be consensus that it is (a form or variant of the teleological argument). Is the quoted statement in the opening sentence the central idea of that argument? There seems to be consensus that it is, otherwise we need to look for another statement to define ID. So what is the objection to labeling it as a proposition? That "proposition" fails to connote idiocy? WP is not intended as a forum for grinding an axe.

The word "proponents" for those pushing ID is used because it is more polite than the word "IDiots". -- If such name-calling is not POV-pushing, what is? Is it possible to get away from blasting away on the subject and proponents of ID and focus on NPOV in the article? Scoopczar (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break

For everyone who thinks there is merit to ID sufficient to give it the rather prestigious label of "theory", please review the List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design as well as the actual findings of Dover v. Kitzmiller:

What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community…ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory.

And this is from the defence - that would be the very people who purport to believe ID is science. For good measure, here is The Skeptic's Dictionary [3]:

Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief asserting that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes.* Advocates of ID maintain that their belief is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution. ID is essentially a hoax, however, since evolution is consistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe and with an unlimited number of other metaphysical myths.

And here is The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience:

Essentially, most neo-creationists (among whom there is quite a bit of variation) do not believe in a young Earth, accept micro-evolution (though recently so do some classical creationists), don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and don't even call themselves creationists - the preferred term for their version of things is "intelligent design"

The list article alone contains 25 scientific societies - and major ones at that. May I also bring attention to the National Center for Science Education's 60 societies opposing creationism - of which intelligent design is merely the latest version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No one in the preceding discussion has proposed the term "theory." This new section represents a straw man argument against a potential edit that doesn't exist. Scoopczar (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for theory and proposition are similarly flawed as both attempt to portray ID as something scientific, as an explanation. It's not, it's a religious belief. What I want to emphasize, to people who don't appreciate it, that intelligent design lacks merit. People don't seem to get that undue weight is to portray it as anything but a fraud. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why can a religious belief not be a proposition? We are right in stating that ID is not science, in that it deals with the supernatural, but I don't see how that automatically dismisses the idea that some proponents propose that it is true (or at least potentially true) rather than assert that it is. Is it impossible for someone to propose a religious concept? -R. fiend (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, ID does not proclaim itself a religious belief. Part of the scam relies on it being disguised as science to score an end-run against educational law. If it explicitly labelled itself as religious, the game would be up. Secondly, it may well have been fair to describe the original outlining of ID as a "proposition", since it was ostensibly being proposed. But now, even though its ideas have been roundly discounted or falsified, describing its repeated "pushing" as a "proposition" is inaccurate. Outlining it is now a straightforward assertion on the part of its adherents. Much like with any other piece of pseudoscience. Would we still say that homeopathists were "proposing" their outlandish ideas these days? --PLUMBAGO 17:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it that the Skeptic's dictionary and encyclopedia are considered a particularly neutral source for wording of the lede definition? Why not Merriam-Webster?:

Main Entry: intelligent design Function: noun Date: 1847

the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

This is not from the DI or some proponent, and it's not from an opponent. 71.169.187.208 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "purported scientific theory"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

@WLU -- In the context of modern science, "theory" has a specific technical meaning for which criteria must be met. "Proposition" has no such technical meaning in science. It is a word pertaining to discourse and argumentation. If your comment is taken at face value, using any term less disparaging than "fraud" is a violation of WP policy on undue weight. Does that kind of editorial guidance really represent the pillars of WP?

@Plumbago -- Your comment seems to be all about the actions of ID proponents rather than labeling a position statement with NPOV. The statement itself is a proposition; we are not labeling tactics and strategies in this sentence. Scoopczar (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Saying the statement is not a proposition (a word I think is hardly POV in any direction) because of actions of some of its proponents seems to make little sense to me, and also smacks of original research. This article is about Intelligent Design in its broadest sense, is it not? Regardless of anything the Discovery Institute might do or say, there are lots of people who simply believe that life was consciously designed, for whatever reason. They don't necessarily insist they are right, and aren't necessarily part of any movement. ID in and of itself is basically just an idea, is it not? -R. fiend (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Thank you, R. fiend; that's exactly what I was trying to express in my posts of 15:44, 17 July 2010; 22:15, 17 July 2010; and 00:13, 18 July 2010. The proposition is one thing, the movement another; hence, the two articles. --Yopienso (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a page about a pseudosicentific fringe theory, making Skepdic and the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience appropriate sources. This is not a serious scientific proposition, it's creationism. Would anyone here describe creationism as a theory? The MW definition does not capture the contemporary sense of ID as expressed in this page. You can't separate ID, as described in this page, from the actions of the proponents, because the actions of those proponents were geared towards concealing their intention, promoting this as if it were a scientific theory, and then forcing it into the classrooms. The proponents never meant it to be an explanatory theory. They never meant it to be used in and for research. It's nothing but an updated version of creationism. ID does not meet, and was never intended to meet, that specific technical meaning of "theory". Please read the sources - the Dover trial transcript, Monkey Girl, Talk.origins, Why Evolution Matters, the Wedge document, Creationism's Trojan Horse, Tower of Babel, virtually anything about ID that's not written by the Discovery Institute or a religious proponent who has no understanding of science. It's clearly labelled, described, and understood as not science. The most honest way of describing intelligent design is as "not science" but a religious proposition.

AQFK, "purported" gets a bit closer, but it still attempts to explain it as if it were an effort to enter into the scientific arena, but it's not. "A concept used by the discovery institutite to replace creationism" is closer.

R. fiend, Intelligent Design isn't the same thing as thinking life was designed by intelligence - ID is an explicitly political strategy. You can read about this on the wedge strategy page.

The current version actually reads quite well and accurately to me - it is an assertion (in that it lacks evidence to support it, in fact it is actively contradicted by evidence), it is a contemporary teleological argument, and it was developed to circumvent First Amendment restrictions on teaching creationism. The sources that examine it in detail, the most expert sources particularly, are clear in treating it this way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off topic here quite a bit. When asked the question "what about the statement defining ID makes the word 'proposition' inaccurate"?, the response seems to be that IDers are horrible liars intent on destroying the entire field of science and the only reason the article doesn't call them fucking retards is because that might be slightly POV. Great, but how does that answer the question? This isn't the place to fight the culture wars; let's leave that to other outlets. Now, I don't think there's much of a push to call ID a theory here. While it is a "theory" in the loosest sense of the word (as in "I have a theory that flying saucers are actually time machines") using that word could imply that it is a scientific theory on the level of the theory of evolution or the atomic theory, which it is not. So let's put aside that argument for now; "theory" is not on the table. As for the argument that Intelligent Design is not the same thing as thinking life was designed by intelligence, well, this article defines it as "the [fill in the blank] 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.'" How is that different than saying life was designed by intelligence? And if it is not the same thing, then what is the term for people who believe that life was the result of design, and where can I find the article on that? Can someone please succinctly explain why the word "proposition" is not accurate? Or the word "idea" or "concept" or "belief"? I think we're making a big deal about a pretty minor point, but let's try to be as NPOV and accurate as possible. -R. fiend (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break two

A lot has been written since I brought up proposition as a replacement for assertion. At this point I'd like to summarize my take on the discussion. The lead-up was a section I started headed Dogma by Consensus in which I expressed disappointment with what I perceived as a biased tone throughout the article and a dogmatic and defensive FAQ section on the talk page. That general discussion ran its course and produced no consensus, but it did showcase the strong animosity of some page guardians toward ID.

Starting a new section on one specific example of bias seemed to be the next step. So I put proposition vs. assertion on the table. The quoted definition of ID in the article's first sentence could be correctly labeled many things. It is an assertion, a proposition, a statement, a belief, a position, and many other categories. It was and is my contention (hey, there's another term) that, in the context of controversy regarding this article, proposition better serves NPOV than does assertion. I believe that the proponents of assertion have made it clear in their comments above that their attachment to this term has something to do with a disparaging function they believe it may serve. WP's purposes and policies do not include disparagement. There are other places for such battles.

I think it is time to move the issue of this one word toward resolution. If there are no objections other than ID sucks and "proposition" is not sucky enough, I think I'll reinsert the edit. If it gets reverted again, it's probably time for some dispute resolution steps. Any constructive suggestions before I do that? Scoopczar (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You have done a fine job of summarizing the landscape. Please be bold. --Yopienso (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you make some very good points. Furthermore, those who assert that "proposition" is inaccurate would seem to state that anyone who proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause would not be advocating "Intelligent Design™" unless they steadfastly asserted that this was the definite truth. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. The concept holds regardless of the degree to which it is presented. -R. fiend (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rots o' ruk being bold about this revision. This article is owned by rabid anti-IDers who insist that ID is equated with the Discovery Institute and want to associate all of the bad things about the DI organization with any concept that there may be more than material in reality. Anyone who tried to tone down the POV was drummed out (they actually resorted to some very dirty tricks to get one objector banned from Wikipedia in 2007). Eventually Raul will come and revert it, if no one else does, but there is only one NPOV allowed in Wikipedia and your NPOV is not it. Neither is Merriam-Webster's NPOV. 71.169.187.208 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I consider myself a "rabid anti-IDer", yet I must insist on neutrality and accuracy. And I agree that "proposition" serves the lead sentence of this article better than "assertion". As I stated before, the two main reasons are (1) this article is describing a concept, not the actions of proponents, and (2) "proposition" is more consistent with the definition of what proponents do, and we already use the word "proponents" non-controversially. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

IP editor, If you are familiar with the events around 2007 or so, then you know where I stand, and your comments are not helpful. There's already way too much soapboxing on this page. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

IP editor, how does your comment help WP? Such bluster does nothing to promote cooperation, and you have made no constructive suggestion. I'm blissfully ignorant of the 2007 episode, but your remark seems aimed at stirring up contention. Please consider striking it. --Yopienso (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys continue to reaffirm the case made by that editor that was evicted under false premises from Wikipedia. If you don't like what you read, then silence those who write it. The contention exists, whether you recognise it or not. It is about how contention is handled (fairly or not, honestly or not) which is salient. 71.169.187.208 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on assertion vs proposition. They both mean about the same thing. Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Assertion more correctly captures the intent that it lacks evidence, that it is an explicitly political struggle and that it is used to conceal its true intent. Proposition implies a fair-minded and good faith attempt at explanation when it is not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be possible for strong proponents and strong opponents to describe their views and the conflict in fairly NPOV terms. That may sound idealistic, but it is the stated goal of WP, and I do believe it is possible. Whether it actually happens or not is dependent on the relative good faith of the editors engaged at any point in time. We are asked to AGF. One way for an editor with strong feelings to look at NPOV is this: If I'm right (as I #@%& know that I am), the unspun facts will tend to bear that out. And if they don't (not really possible, but just sayin'), then I might learn something and be more right than I was before. In the meantime, maintaining NPOV might also help avoid ulcers and help to keep other WP articles more reliable when I need information. "Proposition" hasn't been reverted so far. Unless it is, I'm moving on. Thanks for everyone's comments. Scoopczar (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

proposition sounds fine to me its softer....I do have a Question are youngsters in public schools in the USA being taught this or is it just Religious schools, the article is not to clear on this point as of today,,yes there are rulings but are people still tying teach this today....anyways great article ! Moxy (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

are youngsters in public schools in the USA being taught this in public schools - no, they are not. Attempts to inject creationism or ID into public school science curricula have been unanimously shot down by courts. There are certainly some fundies out there masquerading as science teachers who use their classrooms as pulpits (particularly in the deep south and bible belt), but they are not allowed to do so officially. Raul654 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting this topic...way out in left field...Is there any current court proceedings that we could cite to show its still a debate ..as a read more about this outside wiki i see there is still controversy over it.. or has the supreme court ruling not been contested. Just asking because the article leaves you wondering if this court outcome is set in stone our still being argued. 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been multiple rulings in Federal court that creationism cannot be taught as science (including the Edwards Supreme Court case). The Dover trial found that ID is another form of creationism and as such, cannot be taught. The Dover court's ruling is technically not binding on circuit court in other Federal circuits, so I suppose it's possible there could be another case like Dover. And it's theoretically possible that the court in that case could rule differently (which in turn would trigger an appeal and possibly a Supreme Court case). But realistically, no school board is going to put itself in the position of the Dover School Board, so I think that's the end of the line for ID. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I obviously continue to disagree, and though ID is obviously nonsense (and anyone who thinks otherwise has not done any research beyond Christian apologetics), it is obvious that consensus is against me and I must perforce accept.

Echoing Raul, Dover killed ID dead. It's over and now doubtless the DI is attempting to discover the next beard with which to conceal creationism to shoehorn into the innocent and confused minds of schoolchildren. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious acquiescence. I don't think the article has compromised the facts. For the record, Kitzmiller v. Dover has no more killed ID than Brown v. State Board of Education killed segregation in 1954. The schools I went to in Florida were 100% segregated until 1967, when a token number of black (the correct word then) students were sent to white schools. See what happened this spring in Texas: The State Board of Education on Friday passed science curriculum standards that members described as a compromise between those who are critical of teaching evolutionary theories without scrutiny and those who feared attacks on evolution would lead to the teaching of creationism in Texas schools. After the 13-2 vote, it was social conservatives on the board who were doing most of the celebrating while scientists expressed concerns. That's why we'll have to keep re-editing these articles for years to come. --Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering ID was designed for the sole purpose of cheating religion through the first establishment clause and it failed dramatically at that, I kinda doubt it. The news article shows they trotted out the "teach the weaknesses" bullshit, but "intelligent design(er)" was only used once to refer to the DI's beliefs. ID will probably not appear in classrooms, but they'll still obfuscate about believing in God using the term. We'll see, but considering that was in 2009, it may or may not have gotten worse. More recently, the creationist on the board got the boot [4], but then they decided that letting an actual scholar able to demonstrate how stupid creationism is give a talk was not neutral[5]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Correlation with education levels

Thank you all for clearing that up..As an Atheist i find this very very intriguing...I have found lots of info showing a direct relationship between education levels and lack of progress in nullification. But i guess this would be to POV and deeming to the article ingenreral to add. Moxy (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A source can be reliable or not, but not really POV, though it can be undue weight to include too much text on it. For this article you would need a source explicitly linking ID with "lack of progress in nullification" (not really sure what that is) but overall your sentence is unclear to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i was unclear..what i have found is that areas of the USA/World for that matter with populations that have very low income and thus lower post secondary degrees are the areas that have pushed the belief..So basically education levels are the main factors behind the differences between the 2 sides ..well after the belief in god. Just think we should show that the more educated an area/community is the less ID is a factor. Moxy (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to present the sources first (or edit but with the sources as references). If you want to discuss, I would suggest starting a new section with the sources included for everyone to review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i will add a new section when i find more studies like this one--> War Against Reason: The “Intelligent Design” Scam, but are this valid and with undo weight. "A 1999 Gallup poll showed that a startling number of people (38 percent) believed wholly in creationism, 43 percent believed in a more intelligent design-like theory, and only 18 percent of those surveyed believed in evolutionary theory as the sole explanation for the origin of humans. The same poll showed that increasing levels of education correlated with a belief in evolution (65 percent with postgraduate degrees versus 20 percent with a high school degree). Moxy (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks more like an opinion piece than a study. You'd be better off finding the 2005 study by Ushma Neil itself rather than the linked source. It's a rather equivocal quote for what you're proposing, but perhaps the original study is more thorough and contextualized. It doesn't seem to be in the current article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)