Talk:Intelligent design

Shorten the SD

The WP:Short description should be improved. One, the overall article is about the creationist argument. With this in mind we can describe ID as an "argument" and thereby give the potential reader the essence of the topic. But two, more importantly, "pseudoscientific" adds unnecessary POV. Would we be happy with an article title of Pseudoscientific arguments about the creation of the universe? No. But we do have various articles in Category:Cosmogony and Category:Physical cosmology. Would any of the articles benefit from SDs that said "Scientific argument about such & such"? Again, no. Let's just say that Intelligent design is an argument and leave out the unnecessary "pseudoscientific" adjective. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"'pseudoscientific' adds unnecessary POV". Can't see it myself. 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, it merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. -- Jmc (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I observe that the simple:Intelligent Design article on the simple English Wikipedia treats the subject drastically differently than this one and doesn't even mention pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But maybe someone should change the simple:Intelligent Design article. I have experience there. Does one replace "pseudoscientific" by "stupid" or "wrong" to change it from English to Simple English? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not a question of RS for either WP or Simple WP. (No matter what, the Simple ID article must be NPOV. And changes to the Simple article are best discussed there.) I "simply" ask that we remove the POV-laden "pseudoscientific" from the short description in this regular WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not a question of RS Yes it is. You were trying to change this Wikipedia article based on what another Wikipedia article says, so you were trying to use the other article as a source for this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If something is science and looks like science, one does not need to mention that it is science. That is the reason why the "scientific" adjective is not used.

Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science, so it looks like science but it is not science. That is the reason why the "pseudoscientific" adjective is used. --Hob Gadling (talk)

My concern is about the POV vs. NPOV tone of the SD. We can describe the article as "an argument about ...." and avoid saying it is "arcane", "former", "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "dismissed in scientific circles", "hogwash", etc. The WP:SDAVOID guidance says "avoid 'former', 'retired', 'late', 'defunct', 'closed', etc.." Removing "pseudo" helps us comply with this guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not. Calling a pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is perfectly NPOV when reliable sources consistently call it pseudoscience. I think you need to actually read WP:NPOV instead of just saying it. Also WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, the logic "the rules say we should avoid X, therefore we should avoid Y" leaves something to be desired. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" are to be replaced, I do appreciate Hob's suggestion to use the words "stupid" or "wrong" instead. - Roxy the dog 06:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@S. Rich You've failed to address the point I made in immediate response:

'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, 'pseudoscientific' merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument.

You don't seem to have any issue with 'pseudoscientific' being used in the article itself, so your objection to it in the SD seems perverse. --Jmc (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for WP:SDLENGTH, but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The inclusion of the qualifier "pseudoscientific" is superfluous to the point that it reeks of bias.

I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.

Yes, the short description is… not short. Especially when you compare it to the length of the rest of the article. Further, some of its content is redundant with the body content.

But it's not just the first sentence that has a POV problem. The entire short description—nay, the whole article—is marred with bias to the point that it to me looks not salvageable. And even if it were, it seems that it's guarded by a group of ideologues: fanatics who will pile on their fallacious rhetoric until the hope is sucked dry from you by the tyranny of their majority. Emilimo (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the tyranny of WP:BESTSOURCES. <sarcasm warning>How sad!</sarcasm warning> tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Straw Man. I am not criticizing WP:BESTSOURCES. When I say tyranny of the majority (which I definitely feel is happening on a large scale around discussion of this topic) I'm criticizing use of specific rhetorical devices and fallacious reasoning such as (but not limited to) argumentum ad populum and secondary implications such as groupthink, overconfidence in conventional wisdom and secular orthodoxy, false sense of inerrancy, and myriad intellectual vices such as appeal to ridicule which you just used on me with your sarcasm.

I'm not without hypocrisy; I admit my previous comment used blatant ad hominem attack. But just because I indulged in intellectual vice for a moment doesn't invalidate my sentiment.

A new article need to be written about what ID really is at a fundamental level—a theory of the origin of life—outside of and disconnected from its social contexts. Emilimo (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a scientific theory. Not even a scientific hypothesis. Because nobody took care to formulate it as a cogent scientific hypothesis. Phillip E. Johnson died without knowing the hypothesis of intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an appeal to ignorance. The theory is not valid because there hasn't been a person who has put it in a form that acceptable to you and the consensus/majority? Who is the authority on what constistutes a "cogent scientific hypothesis"? Why would we need Phillip E. Johnson to come back to life and do it for us? How do you know one is not already out there? Emilimo (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait you got me on another red herring there; I never claimed it to be a scientific theory. Which is why I think there needs to be a page presenting it without any claims of it being a scientific theory, similar to the page on the Big Bang. Just because I am suggesting the theory—in and of itself—as not scientific does not mean that it is pseudoscience. On the contrary it would arguably call for it to be, by definition of pseudoscience, no longer labeled as pseudoscience. You don't see the Big Bang theory labeled as pseudoscience. As should be the case with ID. Emilimo (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Big Bang, despite your protestations, is a widely-accepted scientific theory. For the metaphysical correspondent of ID, see Teleological argument. That, my friend, is a bona fide philosophical argument, but alas it has nothing to do with science. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an appeal to ignorance Oh, the irony. ID itself is one huge heap of appeal to ignorance ("I tried to find a way how evolution can make things like X, and I failed"; insert every biological feature for X); it does not have any actual content beyond that. And that is the very reason why ID is no scientific hypothesis. You are talking to people with lots of experience debating "Cdesign proponentsists", and every time one asks one of them for the theory of ID, one gets crickets.

How do you know one is not already out there? The burden of proof is on the person who claims that it exists. Bring it here, and everybody will be baffled, stunned, and surprised.

Independent of that, this is not a forum. Your claim of bias is commonplace for every article about any pseudoscience - see WP:YWAB - and does not impress anybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources are sometimes bias as well. Given that it is a controversial topic we should add further in the article that "it is considered by most scientists a pseudoscientific argument" given the right sources, but not in the opening paragraph. Is like if someone made the opening paragraph of Gender pay gap to be "The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the ALLEGEDLY difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working." - Barumbarumba (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, all pro-Intelligent Design sources are notoriously unreliable, and "unbiased sources" are invariably accused and denounced as being negatively biased due to accurately describing Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired, anti-science flimflam. Mr Fink (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Since the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn't consider it appropriate to apply the label "pseudoscientific" to ID theory, it seems reasonable to avoid that in order to preserve neutrality. The better approach would be to neutrally include the statement by the US National Academy of Science saying that it isn't a legitimate scientific theory. I would argue that the term 'pseudoscience' is appropriately applied to theories like Flat Earth. Because ID has support from a number of scientists with relevant educational backgrounds, I believe it is more accurately categorized as 'fringe science' or 'questionable science' prominent supporters of ID include: award winning chemist Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of biochemistry Dr. Michael Behe, and Microbiology professor Dr. Scott Minnich. Further, a 2018 Pew Poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 2% of members believed humans had always existed in their present form, and another 8% believed that human evolution was guided by a supreme being. [Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue | Pew Research Center] BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Please align with reliable sources

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100006119 174.62.129.125 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Britannica does explain intelligent design, this is where it is explained in full detail: https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

user:tgeorgescu - that’s a good article, I particularly liked the mentions of Fisher or Hardy-Weinberg more than the focus on Paley and IC. But from the OP briefness I cannot tell what they meant by “align”. Perhaps from the brevity they didn’t get very far in the details and are just talking the lead here versus how what they pointed to starts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that they are referring to the much more neutral tone of other encyclopedias. E.g. The lack of the term 'pseudoscience' in the linked articles. Similarly, Intelligent design - Citizendium does not make such a definitive conclusion. Stating much more objectively that "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, in its present form, ID cannot be regarded as scientific because the claims made by its proponents are not testable." BeLikeBritannica (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The difference is one of tone, not of meaning. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The meaning is different. Labeling ID as pseudoscience is a conclusion, not universally agreed, nor objectively measureable, nor even adequately supported by referenced expert opinions. Stating that the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that in it's present form ID cannot be regarded as scientific is a neutral objective statement of a fact. Nearly all statements from organizations rejecting ID don't use the perjorative term 'pseudoscience' BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

ID pretends it is scientific AND ID cannot be regarded as scientific, therefore ID is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

BeLikeBritannica, this is covered by the FAQ. The goal of the FAQ is to avoid wasting time on useless discussions, like this one. --McSly (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Intelligent_design#Anti-evolution_legislation

The second paragraph does not seem to fit the heading, afaict not legislation and not obviously anti-evolution. Should we move it or remove it? Also, first paragraph should have some decent cites, FA and all that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a pretty unsatisfactory section. It makes only peripheral (uncited) reference to Intelligent Design. I'd be for its wholesale removal. -- Jmc (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And the first paragraph, which is under-cited, can be cited using the references in Anti-evolution legislation. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience? Creationism?

Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say: “The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” 2601:404:CB83:D50:44C8:EE37:6741:1F40 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. You could also take a look at Argument from incredulity. --McSly (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX--Mr Fink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also see Hoyle's fallacy. -- Jmc (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And WP:RS and WP:OR. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a proposed edit in IP, but the FAQ does not include Hoyle since the article does not. Seems reasonable to discuss if Hoyle *should* be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity. The article does mention Paley which is far distant past and not as direct a link nor related to the ID concepts expressed in this article. I easily found reasonable cites in the history of ID that 'the term Intelligent design appears to have been coined from Hoyle and Horrigan', and a prominent criticism referring to specified complexity as a 'variant of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's old claim' (about the probability of a tornado assembling a Concorde) -- so having a mention of the precursor and wikilink to Junkyard tornado seems reasonable. But p-value use of probability common in scientific studies (although commonly problematic) is more the see-also wikilink than Argument from incredulity since presenting details of method and calculation is not properly termed "incredulity". So -- mention Hoyle here, in SC, or not at all ???? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's important not to conflate the argument from design with intelligent design. The argument from design posits that only an intelligence could have created the universe. Intelligent design OTOH posits that the argument from design is a scientific one and also that it can be bolstered through scientific research.

So Hoyle did not endorse ID. TFD (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD - That the article does conflate the argument from design with intelligent design is a different topic than the question of whether to mention Fred Hoyle as a precursor - perhaps in the "Origin of the concept" or the "Fine-tuned universe" sections. And to the contrary, Hoyle is listed as a supporter of ID -- though again the question was whether to note him as a precursor, either here or at Specified complexity. To be precise the 'support' means as a precursor he preceded the Intelligent design movement by a few years with his own ideas of life on Earth came from outer space, the argument of improbability and use of Information theory (similar to Specified complexity), his creating the Junkyard tornado metaphor, plus remarks about Fine-tuned universe, etcetera. His 1983 book The Intelligent Universe "Examines the origins of life on earth, analyzes the Darwinian theory of evolution, and argues that life is the result of a deliberate plan." The 'support' does not mean he was a member of Discovery institute and as far as I've googled he made no comment at all about the IDM or court case -- at least nothing as famous as his originating the above concepts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that ID advocates claim him as a precursor. TFD (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD - so to check, are you answering the question with a yes, that the article mention Hoyle and phrase it 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No, not unless reliable secondary sources routinely mention that ID supporters claim him as a forerunner. And even if they do, it doesn't give us licence to copy the quote above. The purpose of the article is to describe ID based on how it is reported in reliable sources, not to engage in advocating it. TFD (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD - understood, although I hope you mean Third-party sources and WP:WEIGHT. The ID proponents are obviously RS for what ID proponents say, as 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' is objective fact. Second-party would be anti-ID such as NCSE and hence not reliable for what ID claims nor for WP:WEIGHT. Third-party would be outside reporting such as USnews.com - though I only see they reporting it as fact, not ‘ID advocates claim’ e.g.

The term "intelligent design" appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle, who in 1982 argued that "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design." The term "intelligent design" was also used by non-scientist James E. Horigan in his 1979 book Chance or Design? where Horigan used the term "intelligent design" and framed his argument as an empirical one, "without resort to biblical or other religious references," and without investigating questions about "ultimate purpose." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

To assert that USnews.com is reporting it as fact seems a claim too far. It appears in a guest blog by a creationist who begins his post thus: "Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself." -- Jmc (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Jmc well, among all the googles I had missed that header -- so the USnews.com quote is showing one example of ID advocates saying Hoyle was a precursor and their mentioning the objective fact that "intelligent design" was a term Hoyle used a few years before. Anyway -- do you have a position about the question of how or if to mention Hoyle in article ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

ID proponents are not RS for what ID proponents say, because each one is expressing his own opinion, not speaking as a spokesman for the movement.

The fact that Fred Hoyle put the words intelligent and design together in the 1960s doesn't mean he was advocating a belief system that developed decades later.

I don't know why you keep pushing this. Of course some things we cannot explain could be caused by ghosts. But that's beyond the realm of scientific enquiry. TFD (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

TFD Clearly what was published and that IDM mentions Hoyle of the 1980s is objective fact, the question was how or if to mention Hoyle as a precursor in article, which you have already responded to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mark, you seem to be trolling and/or trying to synthesise an argument using primary or unreliable sources. Don't. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

dave souza Hi Dave. I am asking a simple and obvious question — taking note of the IP (which indeed is objective fact and appears fairly commonly mentioned in IDM) to ask if Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity. I would prefer if a simple edit question could be easier with simple edit answers, but I suppose any controversial topic has this kind of difficulty of lots of off-question replies. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Per weight, Hoyle only belongs in the article if mentioned in reliable secondary sources about ID. As WP:FRINGE says, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."

ID proponents would obviously have us believe that Hoyle endorsed their views. If he did, it would give them respectability. We would need a reliable secondary source to comment on that. TFD (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

An article unworthy of Wikipedia.

The article, as currently conceived, exhibits a significant bias aimed at discrediting the Intelligent Design theory rather than offering a comprehensive explanation of its principles. While it's reasonable for any theory to include a section critiquing it and presenting opposing viewpoints, the article appears more focused on criticizing Intelligent Design rather than providing an impartial overview of it. It appears that any theory suggesting an alternative perspective to the established norms of scientific materialism is met with apprehension by certain Wikipedia users. There is nothing more unscientific than consensus ;-) Sergeant Batou (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't do impartial on this website per the WP:NPOV-policy. It may seem strange, but it's how it is. WP favors the mainstream scientific view, so we're partial in a lot of places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:FALSEBALANCE. In every written discussion, ID proponents fail miserably against science proponents. All their reasoning is crap. They have nothing, not even a theory. This is reflected in reliable sources, and that is what we report. If you read only what IP proponents say, you will obviously have a distorted view at odds with reality, at odds with reliable sources and at odds with the Wikipedia article, and you will attribute "bias" to the article. You should read the sources linked in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia favors the mainstream scientific view, so we're partial in a lot of places" This, my dear wikipedian, is perhaps the most unscientific thing imaginable, and history provides us with countless examples; science may establish theories as certain and gain massive support from the scientific community, only to later dismantle them. My point here is why some entries on Wikipedia seem to receive such radically different treatment in tone and form depending on their content. It doesn't seem fair to me... Sergeant Batou (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Anybody who believes that ID is science has no business telling others about what is scientific and what is not.

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources say ID is pseudoscience. End of story. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that sets science apart from religion, science can change it's mind, annoying politicians and other people. If ID ideas get the post 1950 Alfred Wegener treatment at some point, we'll deal with that when it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)