Talk:Stephen C. Meyer

Censorship

Both the Stephen Meyer page here and that of Intelligent Design require editing for Wikipedia to maintain its pursuit of truth. The application of Darwin’s scientific method of reasoning: inference to the best explanation applied by scientist, Stephen Meyer, in the theory of Intelligent Design has replaced natural selection as the best explanation for the origin of life. PursuingTruthNotPolitics (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

...the theory of Intelligent Design has replaced natural selection as the best explanation for the origin of life.

According to which reliable sources? Squeakachu (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023

This article states that Stephen C. Meyer is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design. This shows an unfair bias against Stephen C Meyer, an academic who has presented some perfectly legitimate views challenging Darwinian evolution. I am requesting that the word pseudoscience is removed. Douglas Hamilton-Williams (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted but false. It is consensus within science, among those who understand those things, that ID is pseudoscience.

Articles about pseudoscientific subjects are regularly called "biased" by people who have been fooled by those pseudosciences. Most of them use reasoning as bad as yours. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

What a joke has Wikipedia become in recent years because of the “science” zealots! Armaggideon (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Armaggideon: It is you who have a choice in this matter. Wikipedia has no other choice than to follow the consensus of mainstream science for what it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

By this logic multiple fields of study in the same scientific community your “consensus” is derived are actively engaged in “Pseudoscience”. SETI would be a prime example. The placement of the word “Pseudoscience” in the paragraph in question has been inserted for the sole purpose of discrediting the subject and is further evidenced by your smug dismissive responses to those who’ve called this error out. Simply removing the word altogether removes the bias and allows for adherence to Wikipedia’s increasingly sagging standards. 174.54.9.68 (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have good sources that call SETI pseudoscience, please add them to the SETI article.

We have very good sources that say that ID is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is based on such sources and not on the uninformed opinions of random internet denizens such as you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Case in point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Consensus" is pseudoscience. Labeling something as pseudoscientific because it is a contentious topic Wikipedia:Contentious topics is a category error. Just because something is contentious doesnt mean it is pseudoscientific.

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, something is labeled pseudoscientific if it "fails to adhere to Scientific method. The problem is that all origin of the universe and origin of life hypothesis including Darwinism are weak or lacking in "test with experiment." Yet, it's only ID that receives the label of pseudoscience. This is bias special pleading and intellectually inconsistent.

Hide behind words all you want. It is clear that the word "pseudoscience" is disparagingly placed in the opening section of Stephen Meyer's wikipedia page in effort to swiftly destroy his credibility. This is discrimination against theistic scientists. ID is no more a pseudoscience than theoretical physics, yet Lawrence Krauss enjoys a wikipedia pages describing this field without the denigration of being labeled "pseudoscientific." Dburn10251 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many Christian/theistic scientists who wholeheartedly agree that ID is pseudoscience. In fact, they are by far a larger majority than those who support ID.

Your argument that all theistic scientists support ID is like saying that all Christians are Protestant fundamentalists. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Although "theistic" could encompass many beliefs, it is not a stretch to say Christian scientists would share a belief in God as a creator. Consider the Apostle's Creed - a traditional, shared "bare minimum" of Christian denominations. The first statement in this creed refers to God as the creator role. 2601:547:C600:9FF0:A8F0:C6B7:28A6:51C9 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Christian scientists would share a belief in God as a creator—that's correct, but it is not to say that Christian scientists are willing to dress up their belief as science. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There are so many fallacies in those few sentences that one immediately knows it comes from a creationist.

"Consensus" is pseudoscience Citation needed, to put it mildly.

Labeling something as pseudoscientific because it is a contentious topic is not what we are doing here. See Straw man. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hob the first sentence of your comment is full of disdain for your opponents and doesn’t seem appropriate here. 2601:547:C600:9FF0:A8F0:C6B7:28A6:51C9 (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone's reasoning is abysmally bad is disdain, but it is disdain against bad reasoning. Creationists are the incarnation of bad reasoning, and they usually are WP:NOTHERE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

all origin of the universe and origin of life hypothesis including Darwinism are weak or lacking in "test with experiment." Citation needed, again. And not a citation to creationist literature. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Those representatives of “science” seem extremely defensive. Claytool (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What representatives of “science”? Looks like a non-requiter, and be aware of WP:NOTFORUM. . dave souza, talk 03:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

saw that as well. Strictly opinion. 2601:982:4200:533:D486:4CC:8277:C267 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a double standard as well, where proponents of the "Simulation hypothesis" such as Nick Bostrom or David Chalmers don't have the word "pseudoscience" in the first paragraph of their bio, even though Simulation Hypothesis is one that purports an intelligent designer of the fabric of our reality. 2A02:8108:41C0:5D2C:6451:F5CF:3C70:49E2 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That issue would need to be addressed at the respective pages, not here. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

Raoufdzstor (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.

In addition to Meyer’s two landmark books, the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Times (of London) Literary Supplement Book of the Year Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, his many other publications include contributions to, and the editing of, the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004) and the innovative textbook Explore Evolution (Hill House Publishers, 2007).

You are against of freedom of speech

You're right, this is not a WP:FORUM, so merely the fact that you hold an opinion does not mean we publish it in our articles. We are reliably sourced, not democratically sourced.

Wikipedia isn’t a free speech website. It isn’t democratically sourced, it is reliably sourced. That means that the mainstream academia (Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and Yale) gets the lion’s share. Your religion will be presented from the perspective of CHOPSY. There is no point in protesting against it, since Wikipedia is interested in the academic truth, the CHOPSY truth, not in the truth of your religion, nor the truth of political correctness. So, don’t waste tears if you see your religion bashed by CHOPSY, since this is the only choice Wikipedia has. You have the choice to disregard CHOPSY, Wikipedia doesn’t.

To tell you the truth, there is no real difference between Wikipedia, Britannica, and Larousse. They all have the same norms and values about what amounts to knowledge. So, if you see Wikipedia, think it is Britannica 2.0.

Oh, yes, in case you missed the memo: Wikipedia isn’t WikiLeaks. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design"

Imagine calling Stephen Meyer and all of his work for psuedoscience when you have not made the attempt to read just one of his books? Who on earth are you decide and write what is psuedoscience and not. This is the reason why wikipedia is disgustingly biased.

Funny thing is, even Darwin himself said "If the changes in the fossil record are not oberserved (in the future) my theory is wrong", well after about a couple of millions of fossils later, it's safe to say, even Darwin would not believe in evolution..

But luckily, we have to "obtain consensus" to clear this false description of someone as if consensus means anything regarding anything in life. Actually, the greater the consensus there more reason it is to be wrong as most people are stupid as hell.

I'm not even religious but his points are valid and should be treated as such. Xemnuz (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You do not make the WP:RULES and you do not seem to understand science: evolution would be very well proven even if there were no fossils at all.

As someone argued on Quora, you only need to understand the role of DNA in reproduction and the theory of evolution necessarily follows. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Funny thing is, Darwin obviously didn't say "If the changes in the fossil record are not oberserved (in the future) my theory is wrong", looks like a creationist claim but is it one made by Meyer? For information, what Darwin said . . dave souza, talk 03:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

It is an insult the this article labels 'intelligent design' as 'pseudoscience'.

This needs to be corrected.

I did not think Wikipedia supported biased information on their site. But unfortunately with statements like this it appears so... Nickduplantis (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The neutral point of view policy does not mean no point of view. The policy states: Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. See also this Arbitration Committee ruling. Tollens (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Then put the statement describing his work as widely accounted as being pseudoscience rather than making a based statement. Marking his beliefs as any particular objective view pulls unnecessary personal bias into a supposed information article on the individual. Don't contradict your own mission statement of neutrality. 174.218.21.198 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems you may not have read the policies and ArbCom decision linked above, which clearly states that theories generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community can and should be labeled as such, and do not require any additional qualifiers. Tollens (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a sarcastic statement, right lol? Wikipedia is very bias and it's common knowledge to most. And this is just another example the left leaning politics that influence this site. John Linker (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a leftist, and Wikipedia is seen in many countries as a bastion of the libertarian right.

And yup, we are biased for mainstream science and for the medical orthodoxy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Pseudoscience should not be used as the primary description. Dr. Meyer is a well-respected author and academic with decades of experience. He is an advocate for Theism, which is a philosophical school of thought that necessarily includes Intelligent Design as a component. Nkjames (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Pesudoscience should be changed to hypothesis. Nkjames (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Saying it’s pseudoscience is so bias. This is why Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source on most school papers and they’re always asking for donations. It’s just a couple peoples opinions on a subject, rather than real analysis. 166.182.253.73 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit. Calling a spade a spade is not bias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you don’t get it lol 216.212.19.204 (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody except you doesn't get it. That is the general attitude of pseudoscience adherents. Again: See WP:PSCI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

Pseudoscience is an opinionated and biased word. Wikipedia does not decide what constitutes science, and it drags the credibility of the website down. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree, then you must provide proof against his claims. If you have no proof against it, you cannot claim it’s pseudoscience. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023 (2)

Pseudoscience should be replaced with hypothesis. 2607:FB91:101A:8C3B:C0E:F20A:79A4:4B75 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources write about our subjects. Reliable sources call "intelligent design" pseudoscience so Wikipedia does, too. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100006119#:~:text=The%20theory%20that%20life%2C%20or,Dictionary%20of%20Phrase%20and%20Fable%20%C2%BB 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

why is Wikipedia changing the dictionary? 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This statement, evolutionists have responded, may have theological validity, but it destroys intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides it with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions of how “intelligent” or “perfect” a design will be. Science tests its hypotheses by observing whether predictions derived from them are the case in the observable world. A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientific. The implication of this line of reasoning for U.S. public schools has been recognized not only by scientists but also by nonscientists, including politicians and policy makers. The liberal U.S. senator Edward Kennedy wrote in 2002 that “intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation’s public school science classes.”

— Francisco J. Ayala, Britannica, Intelligent design and its critics

Intelligent design is in fact theology, it cannot be science. In so far as it pretends to be science, it is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

174.62.129.125, this is not the right place to further discuss how Wikipedia describes ID. That would be Talk:Intelligent design. Make sure you read the FAQ there before starting any discussion. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

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.

---

Remove the word "pseudoscience". No thinking person would consider his level of expertise on the origins of life as "pseudoscience". 216.164.82.214 (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Please tell us more about his level of expertise on the origins of life. Simply studying history, and even the philosophy of science, does not make one an expert on the origins of life. That requires studying biochemistry to PhD level and beyond. E.g. Richard Feynman was extremely dismissive of the philosophers of science. This is not to say that I share his opinion, but it is an opinion which many scientists have. That is, people who have a good understanding of neither mathematics nor chemistry pontificate about how mathematicians and chemists should perform scientific research.

His (Meyer's) criticism of mainstream biology is: "science has assumptions, which is bad". Sorry to say it, but that is a very silly statement.

his level of expertise on the origins of life is situated at the level of the meta-narrative, there is no evidence he engaged in biochemical research about the origins of life, but again, he sees such research as part of some kind of plot against creationism. So, even if he were fully competent in biochemistry, for him there is no incentive to advance the positive understanding of the origins of life. Which means he's an ideologue, not a scientist. Meaning: his ideas have virtually nothing to do with actual scientific research, and all to do with making science fit a preconceived meta-narrative. That is, he does not care about empirical data, all he cares about is about making science subservient to Christian apologetics.

Morals: prove me wrong by showing actual biochemical peer-reviewed research done by him about the origins of life. Simply put, the Discovery Institute is incompetent at performing such peer-review. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Just the notion of calling anyone pseudoscientific implies you've got some well defined solution to the demarcation problem of science and and accurately define what "pseudoscience" is as if it isn't contentious in the philosophy of science -- which it is. How ironic it is to call someone who is a philosopher of science that label! 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:DDBA:B9B5:692C:F023 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

and can* accurately define. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:DDBA:B9B5:692C:F023 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You have to understand that the problem of demarcation isn't ours. It has been outsourced to WP:RS, like those published by the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. If you have a problem with that, this is not the place for your complaint. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.

— A statement by the Royal Society on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, April 2006

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Having more in common with creationism wouldn't make it pseudoscience though, and it isn't necessarily a view thats incompatible with evolution that Meyers proposes.

By the standards being imposed, we can infer that Karl Popper is a pseudoscientist, since he refused to listen to scientific scrutiny of what he was saying about quantum mechanics from actual scientists in the field and continued to publish armchair philosophical ideas that were completely rejected. Meyers, at worst, is just doing the same thing but with evolutionary biology.

It sort of feels like because Meyer's bias comes from a Christian background, it has to be highlighted in his description. Even if its necessary to say that some think he is a pseudoscientist, it certainly isnt the majority opinion (and if it is, please show me actual evidence instead of inferring it [or if you do infer it, make the equivalent inference for Popper]). It's not like he's trying to give a pseudoscientific account, he's just trying to be a philosopher. So I think that should come first and foremost. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:67A2:4750:F04F:F1E7 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The tune has changed from his level of expertise on the origins of life to he's just trying to be a philosopher. There is nothing wrong with doing philosophy (as philosophy), but creationism presented as science is pseudoscience. ID isn't science, it is theology, or, to use the uncharitable word, mythology. ID is mythology, and mythology dressed up as science is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right. The tone has changed, my bad.

Regardless, that doesn't address my contention and is just an uncharitable use of the words mythology, theology and intelligent design. The first two have no bearing on whether or not something is pseudoscience, and the latter depends on the presentation.

The fact that his proposal for ID isn't inconsistent with evolution, the fact that the agreement of him being a pseudoscientist is an inference, not a statement of consensus of experts, and the fact that we wouldn't call others who engage in similar (even if this is only an accusation) denials of science pseudoscientists on this wiki are all important and should be addressed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

According to your own criteria, WLC meets the conditions of being called a pseudoscientist. Would you be willing to propose that change? 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:C297:20F4:D449:63DF (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't get it.

We just repeat what reliable sources say about him. It's the rules. Even if you could convince everybody here that what Meyer does is actually science (you will not, because it is not), that would not change one bit in the article. See WP:OR.

If you want to change the gist of the article, you need to change the way the scientific community thinks about Meyer, resulting in reliable sources saying he is not a pseudoscientist. Then we can change the article accordingly. There is no shortcut around that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You've not read what I've said.

Nowhere does the national academy of sciences say that Meyers is peddling pseudoscience. It's an inference made based on a snippet of a paragraph from what I can see. If we take that inference seriously, then we have to take it seriously elsewhere, which we obviously don't.

I have made zero attempts to say that what Meyers does is science, which further shows that you've misread what I've said.

We can change the article in such a way as to be neutral, without agreeing or establishing what Meyers says as science, and we can use much more well established and researched articles (for example the one on William Lane Craig who has written extensively on intelligent design, and whose writings on intelligent design have not lead to any reference of pseudoscience on his page) as motivation for doing so. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:C297:20F4:D449:63DF (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: I am not against the article even making reference to pseudoscience. I think that the accusation of him being a pseudoscientist is an important thing to include. I think the statement that "he is an advocate of pseudoscience" is obviously overreaching. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:C297:20F4:D449:63DF (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

In what you said (01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)), I could not find anything related to reliable sources. That is why it is irrelevant what you said, and that is why you think I have not read it.

I did not say you made any attempts to say that what Meyers does is science, I said Even if you could convince everybody here that what Meyer does is actually science. You are definitely trying to convince people that we should not say it is pseudoscience. The intricacies of your intentions are secondary as long as you are talking about things unrelated to RS. You were talking about your opinion of what ID is.

The article does not say he is an advocate of pseudoscience, it says, He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design.

Saying that Meyer advocates ID is WP:SKYISBLUE territory. RS unanimously clearly say ID is pseudoscience. See Intelligent design. Calling it pseudoscience is also WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Adding "the pseudoscience of" is just a short explanatory snippet for those who do not know what ID is. There is no problem here.

If you want to change the Craig article, do it on the Talk page of that article, not here. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If you need to explain what ID is, then it's not skyisblue territory. Even if you didn't, it's not obvious at all that it is in fact pseudoscience. That's a different argument from saying that reliable sources claim he is promoting pseudoscience, which was the original argument.

If you follow this line of reasoning:

1. The national academy of sciences (and some subset of other scientists) have said that creationism = intelligent design = pseudoscience (I doubt this is a formal demarcation that they've made to be used in inferences).

2. For the purposes of Wikipedia, NAS is a reliable source and is true (true here, meaning we're justified to make a deductive inference and write things in an article based on this)

3. Meyers is an advocate of intelligent design.

Conclusion. Therefore it is true (in the same sense) that Meyers is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design.

then you're engaged in a very unobvious and very pedantic chain of reasoning that can only link Meyers to a word said once in a snippet of a paragraph and not even to the actual meaning of pseudoscience. You have to be using a line of reasoning akin to this, since there doesn't seem to be a set of reliable sources. If there was, you'd just cite them instead and it wouldnt be a contentious point.

I think you and I both know that if I attempted to change WLC's page to say that he "is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design", that such a change wouldn't stand the test of time, since intelligent design is not even an attempt at science. It's more related to metaphysics if anything, which is just not a matter at all of scientific demarcation (my original point). You can cite a random (not wikipedia policy) essay about how I'm free to change any article I want, but I'm not actually free to change any article I want. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:C297:20F4:D449:63DF (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Meyer's WP:N is wholly due to his promotion of pseudoscience. He is not notable otherwise. He has a Wikipedia article only because he is a famous peddler of pseudoscience.

You say that he is a philosopher. But he has done nothing worthy of WP:N in philosophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt this is a formal demarcation Pseudoscience has no clear borders, but ID sits right in the middle, it is far away from any doubtful areas. I repeat: even if you convinced everyone here of whatever you want to convince people of (probably "ID is not pseudoscience"), RS win.

if I attempted to change WLC's page [..] such a change wouldn't stand the test of time That is neither here nor there: as I said, WP:OTHERCONTENT. This article is not about Craig, and the article about Craig is not a model for this one. Meyer is one of the remaining leading ID figures, while Craig is an all-round goddie with ID as a side issue. You cannot draw conclusions from your models of the consequences of your hypothetical actions somewhere else to how this article should be. Why is that so difficult to understand?

intelligent design is not even an attempt at science Now that is ridiculous. From the very beginning, ID was an attempt do disguise religion as science. Of course, it failed miserably because the disguise was obvious, but the attempt was there. Everybody who is familiar with it knows that. See also Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. And WP:NOTDUMB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is just cherry picking and ignoring what I'm saying.

"That is neither here nor there: as I said, WP:OTHERCONTENT. This article is not about Craig, and the article about Craig is not a model for this one."

If you look at the essay provided, other content is only irrelevant as a model for other pages on the basis they can be freely edited. They can't be freely edited, therefore bombarding me with an essay link that has nothing to do with wikipedia policy is irrelevant.

"Meyer is one of the remaining leading ID figures, while Craig is an all-round goddie with ID as a side issue."

Being all round is irrelevant. He has substantial arguments in favour of the argument from design and dedicated an entire chapter for the justification of design in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

"Now that is ridiculous. From the very beginning, ID was an attempt do disguise religion as science."

According to the wikipedia article on intelligent design:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God..."

Science, as far as the kinds of scientific epistemology that denies ID is concerned, isn't about making ontological claims about the existence of certain objects. Intelligent design is about establishing the existence of God on the basis of the complexity of the natural world. Therefore, its an argument of natural theology and metaphysics, not one of science. There is something that puts me at unease saying that Meyers is an advocate of natural theology and metaphysics, since it almost seems to be too positive. But that's what it is at the end of the day before being paeudoscience. The article further goes on to say:

"...presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"".

This may or may not be true, but it wouldn't make it pseudoscience or an attempt at science. The psychological character of Meyers has nothing to do with what he is actually in fact attempting to do. He could be wrong about what science is. An idea could be scientific without being science, etc. If Sean Carroll attempts to construct a philosophy which establishes the literal existence of quantum wave functions, that is a metaphysical claim and not actually one of scientific or empirical origin. It doesn't matter if he calls himself a cosmologist, physicist, or quantum theorist. What he'd be doing is metaphysics.

This isn't an attempt to "cite wikipedia" as justification for a change! What it is, is demonstrating that the inference being made isn't as obvious as claimed and therefore we need better sources and consensus before we can isolate an individual and say "he is in fact advocating pseudoscience. This leads to the original point on demarcation:

"Pseudoscience has no clear borders, but ID sits right in the middle, it is far away from any doubtful areas. I repeat: even if you convinced everyone here of whatever you want to convince people of (probably "ID is not pseudoscience"), RS win."

There are no reliable sources presented, and the debate wasn't even whether or not ID is or is not pseudoscience.

If you actually look on the wikipedia page for pseudoscience theres an entire section dedicated to respected philosophers on the demarcation problem some of which explicitly do not think that ID is pseudoscience. So it is not a "this is a very obvious inference every reader can make" type of scenario, since we can easily pull in sources that say otherwise.

It's about the statement of it as fact on this wikipedia article with Meyers being an active advocate of it or not. Advocating for something implies there is an intentionality to be anti scientific or something. You will most likely say his intentions do not matter, but then neither does the nature of ID being presented in schools, nor the nature of whether or not he wishes for his ideas to be presented as scientific or not. The only questions to be answered are:

1. Is the thesis of ID an attempt at science?

2. If yes, is it pseudoscience?

3. If it is pseudoscience, is he /advocating/ for pseudoscience?

Those questions are not clear (if they were actually as clear as you claim it wouldn't need to be in the article), and we can do a better job at presenting him neutrally. 2A00:23C8:50E:4F01:EA24:2CA2:3366:5150 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This means that you have nothing to say about how to improve the article. Talk pages are not for freely debating what is pseudoscience, but for improving articles, based upon WP:RULES and specific WP:RS. This discussion should be closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

Change “advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design” to “advocate of intelligent design”.

Reason: The word pseudoscience is defined as a collection of beliefs or practices MISTAKENLY regarded as being based on scientific method. Saying this is a pseudoscience assumes that it is mistaken therefore poisoning the well for dialogue. Not saying intelligent design is a fact, but to call it a pseudoscience is already assuming what the author of those words believes to be true, they are likely an atheist or anti theist. 2600:1700:B851:7F80:9A5:48B5:A58B:1F0D (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done It's not us saying it's a pseudoscience, it's independent reliable sources. Wikipedia provides the sources so readers can do what you did- look at them and formulate an opinion. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. If you have independent reliable sources that say intelligent design is not a pseudoscience, I would suggest that you offer them first at Talk:Intelligent design- and you will need to show that the preponderance of sources give that view. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

they are likely an atheist or anti theist—wrong! I think that the overwhelming majority of scientists who are Christian would grant the point that ID is pseudoscience. Yup, ID is a WP:FRINGE belief, even restricting the sample to Christians. Who believes in ID? A part of Christian fundamentalists and a part of evangelicals, i.e. those who don't think that the ID movement are turncoats from Young Earth Creationism. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also a few Catholics. ID is unfalsifiable enough and its science camouflage near enough to appeal to them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, they got some rich donors who want to stick it to "Darwinism" in any way they can (thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend), but the Christian masses are not exactly enthusiastic about ID. Just because they claim that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God, it does not mean ID won the approval of the bulk of creationist organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Biased sentence

The term the pseudoscience of intelligent design is biased and implies the theory of intelligent design is automatically wrong and ‘inscientific’ 193.32.30.32 (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, that is how it is, so that's how we say it. Reliable sources say so, the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District said so, all competent scientists and philosophers of science say so. Of course, those who have been fooled by the pseudoscience disagree, same as with every other pseudoscience. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The theory of intelligent design is not even wrong, it is a collection of vague (i.e. unoperationalized) concepts which seek to change the meta-narrative of mainstream science. It is still below the minimum level for being considered a scientific hypothesis. To put it frankly: nobody knows the hypothesis of ID, not even the Discovery Institute staff. ID seeks to convince politicians and theologians; it never really spoke the language of science, so it is not aimed at scientists. If one cannot distinguish between a philosophical statement and a scientific statement, they are not a good scientist. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The remark by tgeorgescu possesses the rare distinction among multi-sentence paragraphs of being completely wrong.

Consider: archaeologist Alice and archaeologist Bob are digging at a site and uncover a stone bearing two converging marks that look to Alice like the letter V.

Alice says, “This looks like writing.”

Bob frowns and says, “I think it’s just natural scoring.”

Then they uncover more of the stone and see the word

PILATVS

Bob says “I’ll be damned. It is writing”

Now, if tgeorgescu were right, the initial disagreement between Alice and Bob would be meaningless, devoid of scientific content, since they were disagreeing about whether the marks on the stone were the product of unguided natural forces or of intelligent design. But clearly their disagreement was meaningful, as supported by the fact that further evidence convinces Bob that he had been wrong.

tgeorgescu, like all dogmatic atheists, clings to his atheism with a deathlike grip, unwilling to reason about the key questions. Obugov (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So, you invent a story where somebody wins an argument that is superficially similar, but actually totally different from the ID versus biology situation, and you think that will convince anybody to replace the correct text, based on reliable sources, by your opinion? Read WP:FORUM, WP:OR and WP:RS and then think again. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Hi, Obugov, I wrote something about being an atheist at my user page. Hint: you might not like it. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

To tgeorgescu:

I am sorry if I have misidentified you as an atheist. I admit that I was only guessing, but the way in which you dismissed intelligent design as meaningless was so familiar to me that I leapt to a conclusion about the beliefs underlying your assertion.

I like your choice of Jewish prophets. Your remarks remind me of something I once said (or at least thought): “the genuine Jewish messiah was Sigmund Freud.”

I too admire Admiral Arkhipov.

I fail to understand what you find unclear about the hypothesis of intelligent design. As I attempted to show in my little dialogue between archaeologists, in many cases we have no difficulty knowing what someone means when they say that something is an artefact, or designed, rather than being a purely natural formation. I might offer an analysis of the reluctance to accept some but not all design hypotheses, but I fear that I might again falsely attribute attitudes to you. Would you care to explain why you deny the existence of a clearly stated hypothesis of intelligent design?

Best wishes,

Obugov 71.245.188.249 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A cogent scientific hypothesis is "if A then B", wherein A and B are empirical data. Something like this has never existed for intelligent design, and some years ago they admitted it's true:

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

— Phillip E. Johnson

Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design.

— Paul A. Nelson

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Now please tell us what is the formulation of Darwinism in terms of "If A then B." 71.245.188.249 (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This is drifting into WP:FORUM territory, but here goes: "If phenotypes of creatures are heritable, those creatures will over time adapt to their environment." Just one example of many.

But if you think there is a "hypothesis of intelligent design", it is up to you to supply it, not to others to prove its absence. See Proving a negative. Every time people are asked to provide it, the response is either crickets or evasions. You are an evader; I recommend crickets instead.

Please read WP:FORUM: This page is for improving the article Stephen C. Meyer and nothing else. Please go somewhere else to get an education about biology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I abandon my quixotic attempt to get you folks to reason rather than citing authority; but I must point out the radical injustice in calling me an evader for failing to answer a question that was not put to me: I infer that you had in mind the question: what is the clear formulation of the hypothesis of intelligent design? My point has been that in science (the example I chose was archaeology) we without protest adopt a hypothesis of intelligent design -- but that scientists run away from that kind of hypothesis whenever it seems to be leading in a theistic direction, hence my use of the term "dogmatic." 71.245.188.249 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You are still in the wrong place. Go to a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, we simply report science for what it is. We do not seek to solve scientific problems, nor to make advances in science. It is not the task of Wikipedia to change/correct/improve science. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Examples of predictions of the theory of evolution: finding new oil fields, where to dig for Tiktaalik, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Gatekeeping

I have to join the chorus of voices here calling out the gatekeeping of biased materialists who are desperately attempting to frighten readers with an accusation of "pseudoscience". The word demonstrates nothing more than the insecurity of the theory's opponents. It's an inaccurate claim which ought to be removed. Bryan (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Random people on the internet cannot vote down scientific consensus.

I have discussed ID proponents. Their reasoning is, without exception, vacuous, stupid, and presumptuous. Everybody who knows anything about evolution and has met those fakers agrees, and the reliable sources do too.

If you want to change the article, you need to publish your thoughts in reliable sources and convince the scientific community. Bullshitting about "materialism" or other "ism"s will not help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Imprecise/biased lead

“He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design…”

The phrase “the pseudoscience of intelligent design” is an instance of poor writing through imprecision and bias. One does not need to believe in intelligent design to understand how informing the reader that the subject of the page, Meyer, “advocate[s] … pseudoscience” would accomplish no purpose other than tending to discredit him. Obviously, Meyer would deny that he “advocate[s] … pseudoscience”. The presence of the word “pseudoscience” adds no meaning or value to the description and only serves to purposefully color the reader’s impression of Meyer in a negative light. Thus, I would respectfully suggest that the phrase be edited to either, “He is an advocate of the hypothesis of intelligent design…”, or simply, ““He is an advocate of intelligent design…”. Such phrasing better complies with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia’s rules. 2600:1006:B137:8622:3DCE:4E76:D94E:A2BC (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite message but articles at Wikipedia are written to provide information to readers and they should be informed early that intelligent design is, to put it politely, pseudoscience. Honestly, it's junk and the world needs more people to call junk junk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You’ve probably never listened to him. 172.91.239.161 (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

All people who use sciency-sounding jargon seem credible to many. Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between science and pseudoscience, but decidedly sides with science, see WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

Change the term pseudoscience. That’s not accurate. 2600:6C55:600:2B33:AD66:ACE5:E52A:90D4 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No, thanks, it's accurate, well sourced, and required by pseudoscience policy . . .dave souza, talk 16:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024

Change pseudoscience to theory or hypothesis

The use of the word pseudoscience to describe intelligent design research is prejudicial as ID is not of necessity “outside the scientific method.” A survey of Meyer’s work will reveal him to be a rigorous adherent to the scientific method but NOT methodological naturalism, itself a philosophical position. Moreover any criteria rigorously applied used to exclude ID as not fitting the definition of science proper would exclude numerous prevailing naturalistic theories. 69.109.235.155 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

See above, under "Please read before starting". tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this proposition. Chrisallen87 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

“Pseudoscience” Needs Removed

Hi there all, I’ve read all the discussions here and see that there is some contention. I would like to comment on this as I have some background in this area while pursuing a physics degree.

I think it’s important that we all set our personal views aside and have a very straight forward discussion here that is fact based alone, and nothing else. I’m not here to say that evolution didn’t happen, in fact, it almost certainly did. The reality is, in the realm of Christianity there definitely IS pseudoscience that exists, and such would come from folks like Ken Ham who think the earth has only been around for 6,000 years. He, though a genuine individual, is badly in error and disregards the entire scientific method.

But as someone who has read all of Stephen Meyer’s books (among books from all kinds of scientists), I can tell you, he does not leverage any evidence that is not well accepted by the entire scientific community. That is a key, and critical difference between him and other pseudo scientific voices in Christianity. Other “scientific” voices in Christendom will invent their own views by starting with a conclusion (Bible), and then working backwards to make sure their conclusion works. Stephen does not take this approach at all, and is merely having a conversation about cosmological and biological processes using well known evidence that everyone agrees upon. At no point does Stephen point evidence out that someone would contest and say, “that’s not evidence.” In Ken Ham’s world, whom is an actual popular Christian pseudoscientist, he just blatantly states false information and then draws conclusions from it, and acts like they are facts. You can write “pseudoscience” on Ken Ham’s page all day long and that would be accurate.

But if we say that Stephen’s use of real data and facts to have a meaningful discussion about a potential intelligent actor behind cosmology, then there is only one word for that, and it’s bias. You cannot read his books and come away saying, “this is crap” (which is what I said when I read Ken Ham’s books). They are, truly, well grounded in real world data drawn from legitimate scientific sources. Take this from someone who enjoyed Dawkins book about evolution (The Greatest Show On Earth). Or books from Hawking or many other renowned atheistic scientists. Stephen is very careful to only work within validated data and evidence, and only speaks on information everyone agrees on, so that real conversations between experts can happen on the subject.

The word “Pseudoscience” needs removed from this article. The only way this word can remain is if every single other article on Wikipedia that explores other potential models of the universe that aren’t yet well accepted are also labeled “pseudoscience”, which would be ludicrous since challenging the status quo is how progress is made. Especially given that we all know the standard model of physics is probably going to end up revised by a unifying theory of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics (meaning, there are MANY books that openly challenge the current accepted model, and there are only going to be more, all of which, we would have to qualify as “pseudoscience” to maintain this view in this case).

PLEASE let’s ensure we are always looking at these matters from a completely unbiased perspective. Just because we disagree with his conclusions does not mean he doesn’t have worthwhile arguments that are based in real data. Chrisallen87 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)