Talk:Intelligent design

	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: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) NPOV: Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) NPOV: Making necessary assumptions (WP:MNA) NPOV: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL). 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 nauseam 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 FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Degree of pseudoscience

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe that ID falls into the category of questionable science, and, for the sake of clarity, should probably be labelled as such. Or at least somewhere between generally accepted and questionable. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you believe it matters what the sources say. You need to support your assertion by providing reliable sources. This aspect of the article has been discussed extensively and the consensus is that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience Robynthehode (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

To be questionable science it woudl first have to be science. It is not. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. You might want to take a look at the lovely closed discussions just above. Also, that you would include "generally accepted" in your range worries me. It's like saying that broken glass should be rated "somewhere between safe for toddlers and slightly irritating". In both cases, it suggests that you might want to do more reading on the subject before tackling it. {{u|Gamall ^Wednesday _Ida}}  09:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• "God is the ground of all being, source of all existence, and original author of established scientific laws (including evolution)" - scientifically untestable theological position with a variety of options for theodicy, but not what ID claims.
• "Evolution must be wrong because nature almost appears to feature elements of deliberate design (which we're going to pretend isn't just Young Earth Creationism) if you ignore things like the appendix, nipples on men, Platypus venom, how easily we've fucked up bulldogs, foreskin (the designer is either Yahweh or aliens), the number of women a single man can impregnate before a single child is born..." - not even a scientific hypothesis but a denial of tested scientific laws that raises theological concerns not only about God's goodness but God's intelligence and sanity. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually meant to say it was generally accepted as pseudoscience, which is clearer than saying just "pseudoscience". - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That's kinda like saying the sky is perceived as blue, instead of the sky is blue. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I had a feeling that someone was going to say the exact same thing, specifically using the sky. But what I'm getting at is that both Evolution and Intelligent Design are theories. The sky being blue is a fact because it can be tested and proved that to almost every seeing eye, the wavelengths of visible light are received and registered by the eye as being between 450 and 495 nanometers, which is the wavelength of blue. Evolution can't actually be tested and proved, because recorded human history does not go back through millions of years. And neither can Intelligent Design be proved, because no one prove the existence of a supreme being without showing the being to the world. Saying that ID is generally accepted as pseudoscience is clearer, and still upholds the scientific consensus. The closed arguments were about whether to call it pseudoscience or not. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that the theory of gravitation or the germ theory of disease are theories -- it is the most reliable explanation that scientists can find, with plenty of evidence. Intelligent design is a "theory" (properly a hypothesis) in the same sense that Water memory or the Sheep-Goat effect retrocausality (within the context of parapsychology) are -- it is nothing more than attempted ass-covering by proponents who have rejected modern science in favor of something that has always been kinda fringe, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

But again, gravity can be tested and proved. We can see that everything on earth is kept on the surface by something which is not in space. And germ theory can be tested and proved, because we can see that cells that are in the vicinity of germs are unhealthy. But evolution cannot be observed in this way. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. There is plenty of evidence of common descent, including experimental evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)−

Although CharlieBrown25 makes the point that neither evolution nor the existence of god can be proved in an ultimate sense the statement that intelligent design IS pseudoscience (rather than it is generally accepted as) is based on the weight and balance of what the sources say. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District summed up the argument well. ID cannot be untangled from creationism. You just have to look at Pandas and People and the way it was revised and the almost overwhelming majority of scientists and science organisations who state ID is pseudoscience to provide the evidence that stating ID as CharlieBrown25 wants is misrepresenting the sources giving undue weight to a fringe idea. Robynthehode (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of math, no empirical statement can be proven in an "ultimate sense", as that would require an infinite amount of evidence. The word "proof" should never be used when speaking of empirical statements. What we do is accumulate evidence, which shifts our (rational) beliefs between hypotheses by a finite amount. There is no distinction between hypotheses about events in the past, the present, or the future. The combination of fossils, plate tectonics, DNA, etc provide a strong record of what happened in the past, just as my finding pizza crumbs on the sofa and a takeaway receipt on the table provides strong evidence that somebody ate pizza on my sofa, though I wasn't there to witness it. Conversely, I'm not 100% sure that I'm sitting on a chair right now. I might be dreaming this. I'm still sure enough to put that in the fact bin, though.

The bogus distinction between "absolute proof" and the rest is a canard whose main effect is to flatten the distinction between hypotheses that have accumulated a lot of evidence-based belief and hypotheses that have lost a lot of it. That allows you to put evolution and ID in the same bin of "not infinitely proven". That's like saying there is no essential difference between you and Hussain Bolt because, after all, neither of you is infinitely fast.

Even besides that, if you agree that the scientific consensus is what it is, then there is no point in the discussion; what else but the scientific consensus can determine what is science or pseudoscience? Gamall Wednesday Ida (t.c) 13:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, every time I see this talk page heading appear in my watchlist, I keep thinking it's about an academic degree in pseudoscience. PsD = Doctor of Pseudoscience? Reminds me of usenet joke discussions in talk.origins about the fictitious University of Ediacara. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pseudoscientific

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
pseudoscientific is a violation of wikipedia's npov policy. it should be removed from the top of the article. why even have the npov policy if wikipedia articles are going to violate wikipedia's own policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3653:8440:b90e:cc8c:6b12:7ec1 (talk • contribs) Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Specifically the top of page highlights NPOV sections WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:MNA, and WP:GEVAL. Having it placed at the top of the article is a different conversation, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC) If the academic sources say it is pseudoscience, then Wikiepdia must also say so regardless of truth. See WP:Truth. 2600:8806:204:6300:418E:B23E:6712:CC37 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I was told to take my digression here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just copied the argument above because it's closed and I was asked not to reopen it. If there's a better way to let you know you're choosing sides while still following your rules, then I would.

pseudoscientific is a violation of wikipedia's npov policy. it should be removed from the top of the article. why even have the npov policy if wikipedia articles are going to violate wikipedia's own policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3653:8440:b90e:cc8c:6b12:7ec1 (talk • contribs)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Specifically the top of page highlights NPOV sections WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:MNA, and WP:GEVAL. Having it placed at the top of the article is a different conversation, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC) If the academic sources say it is pseudoscience, then Wikipedia must also say so regardless of truth. See WP:Truth. 2600:8806:204:6300:418E:B23E:6712:CC37 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

So, then why aren't Dembski and Behe considered Academic sources? You're picking and choosing. The Wikipedia article for Intelligent Design is a smear piece against Intelligent Design. I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia donating ID community would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobaltblueeyes (talk • contribs) 06:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The only question you ask is about Dembski and Behe, so I will respond to that. You are responding to a post that doesn't really capture WP policies and guidelines. See FAQ #3 in the yellowish box at the top of this page. If you continue stating your emotion and opinions here, your posts will be removed. Per the talk page guidelines, Wikipedia talk pages are strictly for discussing the article and sources per the policies and guidelines, and are not a place to express opinions or feelings. Also, see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Why was my further dialogue here reverted? I'm new to the site and trying to follow the rules and get real answers, but you're obviously intentionally making it difficult...I put up further questions and refutations of certain FAQ answers are not NPOV as per the standards of Wikipedia. I can't even find the reverted text to copy and paste so you can see. Please do your best to explain it to me, I am trying to follow the rules. A couple of the issues the page has: 1) You claim the proponents make these claims "while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory." Yet the page goes on to list some of the early theories further down...See Table of Contents: Concepts. Those are literally the base theories. There are more than that, but that's quite literally a list of theories. That being said, just because something is refuted, doesn't mean it's been disproven. Why does the site take the side of ignorance and chooses to assume both? Also, what happened to my questions about Douglas Axe? He is a peer reviewed author, and is an outspoken ID advocate. I posted it to this talk page discussion as per your request to get further answer, not for you to revert it. If you're genuinely interested in truth, you wouldn't revert it back to ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobaltblueeyes (talk • contribs) 08:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

All of your comments concerning "smear pieces" and similar inappropriate language were reverted because they were considered personal attacks.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

to be clear, I removed the comments not per NPA - no one was personally attacked - but because those comments violate our norms of behavior per WP:TPG and were unsourced opinion not directed to improving the article, and this violates the WP:SOAP policy. There are discretionary sanctions on this topic to enforce best behavior and hewing closely to policy and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to Cobaltblueeyes: Of course you're right that this article is skewed, but you are in Wikipedialand and must follow the established norms. Many respected scientists do consider ID a pseudoscience; see, for example, at the top of this page a link to a book by Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry that decisively makes that assertion. The consensus here (wrong-headed, imho) is to follow their lead, which is consistent with many other leading experts. The reason I think the consensus is wrong-headed is because those writers are not writing dispassionate science, but are activists in the field. Michael Shermer, to provide a contrast, wrote a logical discourse against ID entitled Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against ID, which does NOT call ID a pseudoscience. Shermer is also an activist, but capable of writing even-handedly. Nonetheless, WP consensus is consensus, so we're stuck with the moniker. That's fine, though, since it immediately alerts readers to the bias.

To be perfectly fair, Wikipedia faces the same dilemma discussed by Richard Wein as quoted in Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design:

Some readers may dislike the frankly contemptuous tone that I have adopted toward Dembski's work. Critics of Intelligent Design pseudoscience are faced with a dilemma. If they discuss it in polite, academic terms, the Intelligent Design propagandists use this as evidence that their arguments are receiving serious attention from scholars, suggesting this implies there must be some merit in their arguments. If critics simply ignore Intelligent Design arguments, the propagandists imply this is because critics cannot answer them. My solution to this dilemma is to thoroughly refute the arguments, while making it clear that I do so without according those arguments any respect at all.

Technically, ID is a pseudoscience, but because of its pejorative implications, I find it unencyclopedic for this article. I am in the minority on that and accept the consensus. I urge you to do the same. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem calling ID psuedoscience. I have a problem with using the adjective pseudoscientific, which gives this article a subjective non-neutral tilt. As far as I can tell, the majority of sources refer to ID as the noun, not the adjective, but for some reason there's a consensus here to ignore the preponderance of sources and make the lead sentence sound more like a polemic than a simple statement of objective fact. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In the past, I too have expressed reservations about describing the topic as "pseudoscientific" even before actually describing the theory or conjecture itself. It does give a bit of an impression of basically judging the topic before even saying what it is, and I have some really serious questions whether that is really the optimal way to go here. If nothing else, maybe changing the structure of the first sentence to include a summary discussion of the idea first in the sentence. Alternately, and I think probably preferably, just have the first sentence summarize the idea, and then have a second sentence describing it as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific and explaining exactly why it is described as such. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Enough of this creationist whining. Just suck it up and accept that this is a rational encyclopedia.Charles (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The rather frankly obnoxious and completely uncalled for insults of others ion the above comment indicates to me that the person making it should "suck it up" and develop some basic understanding of the conduct guidelines before he further engages in such obviously prejudicial commentary. I think it would be time for him to realize that this is a collaborative effort governed by policies and guidelines, and, much as he might dislike that, his own apparently unfounded, or at least unsupported, allegations about the motivations and reasoning of others may lead to a review of such conduct. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So, Charles, what is your objection to calling ID pseudoscience? Call a spade a spade, I say, and reword the sentence to use the noun "pseudoscience" rather than the adjective "pseudoscientific". The former is a neutral objective fact supported by reliable sources, but phrasing it to use an adjective makes it sound like a subjective opinion. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I could agree to that, assuming that you are in fact responding to me rather than Charles, with the proviso, maybe, like I said above, of maybe adding the word in whatever form after a real description of the idea/concept/theory/whatever in general. You indicate yourself the subjectivity of the adjective form, and I think that it might very easily come across to any number of editors who are not clearly in one camp or the other on this topic that starting the description of the topic in first sentence with a term which, basically, using a courtroom comparison, passes judgment on a matter before the evidence is even presented, could very easily come across as maybe too eager to criticize and thus "biased" in some way itself. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is that ID is not so much a scientific position in itself as a rejection of mainstream science (i.e. evolution). "God created existence" is a theological position that science cannot comment on one way or another. That's not what ID says, however, or it'd just be Theistic evolution. "God created the world so evolution must not be true" is a claim about scientific facts, and one that doesn't line up with real science.
  I'd draw comparisons between polytheism (untestable) and astrology (tested), or belief in a soul or afterlife (untestable) and Vitalism and Ghost hunting (tested), but those comparisons fail because astrology, vitalism, and ghost hunting have actual claims beyond "nuh-uh." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• For the most part, I agree with the above. However, as I think I mentioned before somewhere in the archives, not all the recent proponents of intelligent design take quite the position Ian indicates above. Some of it AFAIR is concerned with the lack of truly substantial evidence for human evolution, and on that basis suggests that the "scientific" theory of human evolution might not be as scientific as some of its proponents assert. This points out a bit of potential discrepancy between intelligent design as a concept and the intelligent design movement, which so far as I can tell pretty much does take the position Ian indicates. Having said that, I'm not particularly familiar with the theistic evolution page, and will defer on commenting on that. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Here we go again, denying hard scientific evidence. Claiming that there is "the lack of truly substantial evidence for human evolution" is total time-wasting nonsense and shows why this tread should be closed now per WP:TALK.Charles (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Bottom line: ID is presented by proponents as science, but it isn't science – as is well covered in the article, it's a theological argument for the existence and attributes of God, dressed up as science in a legalistic effort to evade constitutional law about teaching science in public school classrooms. Hence pseudoscience. To comply with neutral point of view on pseudoscience, that has to be made clear from the outset of the article. Any discrepancy between intelligent design as a concept and the ID movement's version is due to the name being based on a phrase commonly used in the teleological argument, which is religion and not science. . . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on phrasing of lede paragraph

I believe that there are sufficient grounds to request an RfC on the phrasing of the lede paragraph, particularly regarding what I believe can be seen by many as being the word "pseudoscience" in some form as the first descriptor of the topic. First, as others have indicated above, the use of the adjectival form of that word can be seen as problematic. I also believe that the use of the word in any form is potentially problematic, as it is to a degree an instance of using an at-least somewhat prejudicial buzzword in the community which is largely seen as being the "scientific" community as the first and primary descriptor of the subject. As I indicated above, I have to think that such an early use of such a mild pejorative in the article can raise serious questions regarding the potential bias of the editors of the article, and that it does not serve our interests to have such questions asked of our articles. There has been repeated discussion of this matter broadly in the past, as I think is visible in the archives, and I think it might be in our best interests to have the idea resolved.

FWIW, personally, I personally have more reservations about creationism than evolution, although the evidence for either is at best fragmentary, and of a type which many if not most independent scientists would say is probably at least less than optimal support for either contention.

Anyway, thoughts? John Carter (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

John, I don't think you reservations about either creationism or evolution are relevant, here. I suggest striking them, and possibly reflecting on this. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I made such comments in the face of what seems to me to be concerns regarding any potential bias on my part, and, on that basis, think that such information can relevantly be included here to address those concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you are honest, and that is appreciated. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a bunch of back and forth with editors on the astrology article led to the placement of the word "pseudoscience" at the very end of the lead, where it has, in some ways, prominence in a final "pole position". This, I think, still allows for some summary on the subject itself, and this is, perhaps, consistent with what is being suggested by John Carter. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This proposal seems like a complete and utter waste of time. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Any reasons for that belief, or is it perhaps simply an attempt at misdirection? Regarding Isambard Kingdom's comparison, I personally would have no reservations myself about using the word "pseudoscience" (not another form) in perhaps a second comma'd section of the first sentence, or as a second sentence, or in the position he indicates. Anything that might at least allow a reader to see why the topic has received a label before apply the label itself. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:PSCI – "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods." – Yep, that's a clear and exact description of ID, and particularly note the adjective right at the start. Nothing wrong with the word "pseudoscientific".
  "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." – Definitions by its proponents misdirect, and poison the well by giving false credibility to this pseudoscience. The current wording is clear about this, any proposed substitute must show equal clarity from the outset.
  The proposed RfC is framed to highlight a supposed grievance rather than complying with talk page guidelines in providing well sourced proposals for improving the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• You might, however, note that Anachronist in the last section above was the one who seemed to raise objections to the use of the adjectival form of "pseudoscience." John Carter (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So? The current wording achieves NPOV, it's open to Anachronist to propose alternative phrasing which still meets the PSCI section of NPOV. . . dave souza, talk 00:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it meets NPOV according to your opinion. However, that is not, and never has been, the sole reason for content development, and I find your once again apparently commenting in a way which does not address the topic about which this thread was started perhaps problematic. I do hope individuals try to comment in this thread about the subject of this thread from now on. John Carter (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• The whole point of intelligent design is to offer an explanation for how life came to be as it is observed, and the major theme of ID is to counter evolution which is the explanation based on scientific evidence. That means ID completely fits the definition of pseudoscience. As I recall, the argument in the case of astrology was that the subject, particularly as currently practiced, was not an attempt to explain anything. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• While not disagreeing with the bulk of what Johnuniq says above, I think maybe we might have a problem here with possibly differentiation between the intelligent design movement (and I agree pretty much with what Johnuniq said above at least regarding that), the theory of intelligent design, and the previously-mentioned theistic evolution. As I indicated somewhere in the vast archives here earlier, (meaning I'm too lazy myself to look at this point) there is at least one ID proponent who has made statements which might less obviously fit in the theistic evolution camp. Like a lot of other broadly philosophical matters, there seems to me to be at least some degree of significant diversity in what seems to be called the "intelligent design movement," as distinct from the various theories which more or less relate to theistic evolution. I acknowledge I'm not entirely sure what if anything to do to resole this, other than maybe changing the name of this page to "intelligent design movement" (maybe), but it is I think a matter which would benefit from serious consideration of individuals who don't have a lot of previous history on this page, many of whom, perhaps including myself, might have some degree of preconception for better or worse of the motivations of some of the other editors involved here over a long period of time. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • By Phillip E. Johnson's own admission, ID is a bunch of intuitions which have not been developed to the level of a theory (or hypothesis). The amount of work which Darwinists have done till 2017 has not been attained by ID supporters, not even at an incipient stage of proving/testing their hypothesis. The main claim of ID is: there are some irreducibly complex biological structures (ID does not predict which structures, so they have to be picked and chosen from the gaps of biology), therefore there is an intelligent designer. So, besides the mere claim that there is a designer who works in mysterious/unknowable ways, ID does not predict anything, it does not add any positive knowledge to our knowledge of the natural world. So, it's pretty pathetic as a scientific hypothesis. If ID were backed up by evidence, ID supporters would have been by now more famous than Einstein. They have huge ambitions, but a very limited ability of transforming their ambitions into empirical science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Source: [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Multiple sources in the article show that ID is pseudoscience, not science, so that's not at issue here: vague forum musings without sources don't overturn that. The question is how best to comply with the PSCI section of NPOV. The present wording does that well. There seems to be some confusion above about theistic evolution. ID proponents have explicitly rejected theistic evolution, which has no conflict with science. Unlike ID, which essentially opposes the science of evolution, and is a legalistic attempt at a rebranding of creationism to get it into science classrooms as an "alternative" . . . dave souza, talk 00:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, nothing in the last comment above, so far as I can tell, even remotely addresses the substantial point of this thread, and I sincerely hope such basically at best non-productive, if not in fact counterproductive, comments regarding the matter being raised in this thread stop. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• There isn't a snowball's chance of removing "pseudoscience" from the lead, nor should there be. The relevant policy is WP:PSCI, as pointed out by Dave. Considering the high quality sources describing ID as pseudoscience, there's just no way around it. An RfC on this would be an entirely wasted effort.

However, it is understandable that there has been wrangling over whether "pseudoscientific" should appear at around the fifth word in the article rather than in, say, the second sentence. The current state has only been extant since April 2014, and it'd be hard to argue that all prior versions of the article had been violating PSCI unbeknownst to the astute editors involved. Per PSCI, "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" should be prominent, but that doesn't mean it must be the fifth word. The more conventional format is to describe an idea and then state that it is pseudoscience; see WP:FRINGE: "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas". Yes, you could say that ID is "objectively" pseudoscience, but it's still mixing description with reception, and it has a counterpoint-point-counterpoint feel to it, which FRINGE also advises against. So an RfC on "pseudoscience in the lead, but just not the fifth word" could have some merit, in my view.

I have experience with this very situation at another article, Rupert Sheldrake. I had argued strongly for including "pseudoscience" in the lead, which is the present consensus. At one point, someone had moved "pseudoscience" to around the fifth word of the article, much like the article here. It just seemed out of place and emitted a chip-on-your-shoulder vibe. After I successfully argued for returning "pseudoscience" to its regular place -- still in the lead, just not the fifth word -- someone accused me of promoting fringe. I hope that doesn't happen here. Manul ~ talk 00:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You might notice that your contention that the goal here is to remove pseudoscience from the lede is, in fact, rather clearly contradicted by the opening comments here themselves, which only relate to moving the word from the position of primary descriptor in the first sentence. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, just no. Every previous proposal foundered on the rock of common sense, and this new one is sailing the same old course. Nothing new on offer, so nothing changes with the lead section. The word "pseudoscience" stays in the lead section, with some kind of very strong wording to cement the fact. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate, John, that you are up-front with your potential biases. Now let me be up-front with mine. The fact is that evolution is a scientific fact. ID is a pseudoscientific fiction and a shell-game built by people who are so uncomfortable with the scientific facts of evolution. The believers in intelligent design have deluded themselves into believing that they have invented an intellectually viable way to deny scientific fact. That's the basic summary of the "idea" that intelligent design is. The question is, then, whether your potential bias or my potential bias best lines up with the neutral reality of what intelligent design actually is. I think the preponderance of sources is that my view is basically how things are while your view (call it Hegelian synthesis if you're being charitable or concern trolling if you are being less than charitable) is one that gives what essentially amounts to undue weight to pseudoscience. That's the context of our beliefs. In that context, I think the desire to remove pseudoscience from the first few words can be dangerous. It is possible to still achieve a neutral lede that does not fall into a promulgation of your non-neutral POV, but I think that proposals such as those below show how easy it is to fall into the trap of missing the main point of what a good explanation of intelligent design is: pseudoscientific propaganda. jps (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed lead revision

I would support the lead reading as follows.... the rationale is that it is useful to describe something, then characterize it. This is still unambiguous:

Intelligent design (ID) is the view 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." The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity. Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory. ID is pseudoscience, and educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.

Notes

References

References

More simple to propose something than open a discussion about discussing it.... Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think framing is important, and thus I don't like it when the actual context is relegated to the very end of the lede, especially when we're talking about classic pseudoscience, which ID is. This proposal puts the following frames in the following order:

1. ID as defined by opinions of believers
2. affiliation of adherents
3. confabulation and disambiguation with creationism
4. proponent claims
5. pseudoscientific context
6. antecedent and ancillary beliefs.

I would argue that points 2, 3, and 6 are better related together and that the pseudoscientific context deserves explicating basically right after the opinion-based definition per WP:WEIGHT. Arguably, this could be done by moving points 2 and 3 down in the paragraph, though I don't know that it's worthwhile collecting both quotes in succession. jps (talk)

Thank you for that sensible proposal, Jytdog. I support it, while suggesting a few tweaks.

Rationale for changing the present text:

• Per John Carter: Pseudoscience shouldn't be in "the position of primary descriptor in the first sentence."
• Per Manul: Making it the fifth word just seems out of place.
• Per Jytdog: "[I]t is useful to describe something, then characterize it."
• Especially, per Isambard Kingdom: ...a bunch of back and forth with editors on the astrology article led to the placement of the word "pseudoscience" at the very end of the lead, where it has, in some ways, prominence in a final "pole position". This, I think, still allows for some summary on the subject itself...
• The proposed change would be consonant with the use of pseudoscience in the Astrology, Creation science, and Creationism articles, plus numerous others.
• The proposed change would help us avoid a big discussion every time a newcomer takes issue with the present text.

So, here's how I would tweak it:

Intelligent design (ID) is the view 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] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.[n 2] Proponents argue that ID is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[2][3] yet concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[4] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument constituting a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[8][9][10] As such, ID is pseudoscience.[5][6][7]

If my tweaks aren't accepted, I would support Jytdog's proposal over the current text. YoPienso (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This puts pseudoscience at the very end when it is arguably the primary category. Seems problematic. jps (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yopienso, please don't ever quote someone out of context. The words you lifted from me are referring to a completely different article. The crux of what I said lies in the section of WP:FRINGE I quoted. I didn't come to just to shoot off some random opinion. Manul ~ talk 11:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I don't understand your complaint: On this page, you were applying your experience at another article to this one. ???? I assure you I had no intention of misquoting you--note that I didn't directly quote you at all. My intention was to agree with you that pseudoscience seems out of place as the fifth word, or as John Carter put it, as the primary descriptor. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the present lede, which has stood the test of time. Keep it.Charles (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• The changes being suggested are much more extensive than what I had in mind, which is just to move "pseudoscience" to the beginning of the second sentence. Maybe we just need a bold edit to bring an end to this discussion. Here, I've done it.[3] Manul ~ talk 12:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not interested in an edit war, but at least respond to the points I made. Since "pseudoscientific" as the fifth word has only been there since April 2014, I don't believe it's true that, until April 2014, you and other editors connived to create an article that was a vessel for ID apologetics, which is the implication of your edit comment.[4] I believe the article satisfied WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE before April 2014 and after April 2014, don't you? Next, I'd like a response regarding whether we should make a clear separation between the description of an idea and its reception, as FRINGE advises. And finally, whether we should avoid the kind of counterpoint-point-counterpoint format that FRINGE discourages. Manul ~ talk 15:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly and repeatedly discussed with the clear consensus, every time, of the editors to leave things as they are. This is as politely as I can put it. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I never looked at this page before, but it tells in lede: Intelligent design (ID) is the view 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] Intelligent design is pseudoscience .... I am sorry, but this text (and some corrected versions above) do not make any sense as something internally contradictory of something obviously contradicting facts.

1. First of all, selection has been successfully used by humans for designing new breeds, new macromolecules or whatever. So, if there was a Designer, he could use selection and evolution for design.
2. Selection is actually of no importance in this context. The actual process is evolution, and this process is quite obviously directed.
3. This is a personal belief or religion. This is simply not science. This is not a pseudoscience.

Yes, I realize: this is a well sourced nonsense. So what? A lot of nonsense can be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the current lead. ID is a pseudoscience precisely because it presents itself as a science, while not actually using the methods of science. It is the ur-example of a pseudoscience. To suggest that it is not is, frankly, to suggest that there's no such thing as pseudoscience. With respect to My very best wishes above, while the argument that it is actually a religious belief might be applied to creationism in general, when it comes to this particular flavor of it, that falls afoul of the fundamental design of ID: to present creationism as a science. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree about pseudoscience. Indeed, the beliefs/religion becomes pseudoscience when someone wrongly claims them to be science, and some people apparently do just that. But telling that selection/evolution was not directed and could not be used for design (or something opposite to design) is wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss whether ID is pseudoscience. Indeed, the only disagreement is whether it is off-putting to say that is right away. Maybe it's better to lead the reader gently to that conclusion. This has been discussed innumerable times and the conclusion that has been reached every time is to leave the lede as it is. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that WP should misrepresent the subject of this article so as to avoid offending people? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've just reverted Dave Souza's revert of Manul's improvement to the article. His improvement adhered to the policy guideline Manul cited from WP:FRINGE: "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas." This page shows a number of editors support implementing that guideline here. YoPienso (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please don't edit war on this: I was about to comment – A bold proposal, but I've undone it as fails WP:FRINGE: it doesn't "first describe the idea clearly and objectively", instead starts with apologetics which artfully mislead readers about ID's nature and purpose, and could equally apply to the more general teleological argument. Worth discussing, but the current version gives the proponents' definition while making it clear that it's pseudoscience. Would it be gentler to say "Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" : it has been found to be pseudoscience. Proponents define it as holding 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." . . dave souza, talk 15:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is it edit-warring when I revert but not when you revert? YoPienso (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll be offline for most of the day now. YoPienso (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not edit warring on anyone's part if we all stop editing until this discussion dies down. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed per WP:BRD. Manul made a bold edit and it was challenged. Any change back to Manul's version needs consensus. clpo13_(talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• note, I am fine with Manul's edit as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record: so am I. Manul's wording is slightly better than the existing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should let this discussion run a while (say a week) and if consensus doesn't emerge we can run an RfC - we have three good versions (i would be willing to put Yopienso's alteration of mine, instead of mine). All three are decent and it is really just a style question. Style questions are hard to resolve so it will probably come down to an RfC, but let's give it time. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever will be decided on will be challenged when this discussion is forgotten. We have a good version which was hashed over again and again. Keep it and go on to productive work. TomS TDotO (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fifth word reboot

I would like to put a distance between this discussion and the previous thread, which began with unclear, unspecific assertions without any concrete suggestions and consequently generated a wide variety of responses.

This thread is not for discussing whether pseudoscience should be in the lead. It should; that is the consensus, and that is the starting point of this discussion. If you don't agree with that then take your comments elsewhere.

The bold edit I made caused some confusion, with some explicitly agreeing with it and others confusingly agreeing with the "current" version, which may or may not refer to my edit.

First, the version before my change:

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view 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." Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument...

And after my change:

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Intelligent design is pseudoscience, with educators, philosophers, and the scientific community having demonstrated that ID is not science but a religious argument...

Here are the reasons for the change:

1. WP:FRINGE advises separating the description of a fringe idea with its mainstream reception, to wit: first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. This is the conventional format for articles covering fringe ideas.
2. FRINGE also advises avoiding writing in a counterpoint-point-counterpoint style. This is what the before-change text does, bringing a counterpoint to the idea before it is even described, then describing it as advocates do, then adding counterpoints afterword.
3. In no way does WP:PSCI demand that "pseudoscientific" be the fifth word of the article. Being in the second sentence also qualifies as being prominent.
4. It has only been since April 2014 that "pseudoscientific" has been the fifth word. The article had been actively developed for many years before that time, and I don't believe for a moment that the lead had been violating WP:PSCI prior to April 2014, with this being somehow overlooked by all the perceptive editors involved in the article. Indeed prior to April 2014 "pseudoscience" had appeared much later, deep into the second paragraph.[5] My change makes "pseudoscience" far more prominent than that.
5. From what I have seen, these points are different from what has been previously discussed. Others have argued for moving the fifth word, but none (that I found) gave very specific policy/guideline-based reasons for doing so, such as the above. This doesn't fall into the category of "discussed before, let's close and move on".

Here are the counterarguments I've seen, with my rebuttals:

1. Without "pseudoscientific" as the fifth word, we have ID apologetics. This isn't true, at face value. It would also imply that until April 2014 the article had been engaging in ID apologetics, unbeknownst to all editors involved.
2. Without "pseudoscientific" as the fifth word, we aren't describing ID clearly and objectively. I think this is a misunderstanding of what FRINGE is saying here: first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. The more accepted idea is that it's pseudoscience, therefore it should come afterward.
3. The adjective vs noun considerations are inane. Yes, they are! I don't care at all about adjective vs noun. Who cares? It just happened that using "pseudoscience" was easier grammatically. The suggestion in the previous thread was followed only by accident.

I regret mentioning the following, but from my experience on these articles I think I should. It sometimes happens that an edit which appears even the slightest bit WP:PROFRINGE will generate blowback. I think this is mainly due to the tiresome advocacy of some editors who, even after years, fail to understand the importance of WP:FRINGE and how it is implemented. After a while, heuristic reasoning kicks in. Please understand that I am about as far from being pro-fringe as possible. Indeed I have received, and continue to receive, significant off-wiki harassment from paid advocates and promulgators of pseudoscience. Please resist the temptation to dismiss what I've said as being just more nonsense from lunatic charlatans. Manul ~ talk 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)