Talk:Intelligent design

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. 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. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Intelligent design FAQ. 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.

Notes to 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#Theory. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Wikipedia talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Archives

2002–2004 (2002-2003) (2003) (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb) - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant? (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb) - Is ID theory falsifiable? (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb) - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean? (Nov-Dec 2004) (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005) 2005 (Jan-April 2005) (April-May 2005) (Early - Mid June 2005) - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits) Archives 11, 12, 13 (Mid-August/Mid-Sept 2005) - ID as creationism; ID proponent's religious agenda; ID as scientific hypothesis (Mid-Sept/Early-Oct 2005) - Computer simulations & irreducible complexity, Criticisms of criticism, Footnote misnumbering, NPOV (Mid-Oct 2005) (Mid to late-Oct 2005) - Mainly involving users from uncommondescent.com and admins (Late Oct to early Nov 2005) (early to mid Nov 2005) (Mid Nov 2005) Tisthammer's and ant's objections (Nov 2005) Enormous bulk of text (30 Nov - 3 Dec 2005) various proposals, peer review (Early Dec 2005) - Mostly chatter concerning the current pool of editors (Mid Dec 2005) - Whether intelligent design is to be upper case or lower case (Late Dec 2005) Two major re-orgs and the Kitzmiller decision 2006 Marshills NPOV objections Reintroduction of Vast discussion Archives 27, 28, 29 July 2006 August 2006 DI warning, DI and leading proponents again 2007 First archive of 2007 January 22, 2007 Jan – early Feb 2007 Feb 9 - Mar 30, 2007 - April 19, 2007 Initial work towards a consensus lead in April 2007. April 19-April 26, 2007 April - early May 2007, including work on lead. May 2007 unproductive discussions Archive 41. Reference formatting and other minor issues. 24 May - 8 July 2007 7 July - 3 August 2007 2 August - 21 August 2007 21 August - 5 October 2007 5 -14 October 2007 October-November 2007 December 2007 2008 late Dec 2007 - mid Jan 2008 28 January - late Feb 2008 late Feb -May 2008 Points that have already been discussed The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again: Is ID a theory? Fact and Theory Does ID really qualify as a Theory? Is ID/evolution falsifiable? Falsification Falsifiability ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc. Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article? Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant? Bias? Various arguments to subvert criticism Critics claim ... Anti-ID bias Apparent partial violation NPOV policy Why are there criticizms Critics of ID vs. Proponents Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution? Argument Zone The debatability of ID and evolution Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator? ID in relation to Bible-based creationism What makes ID different than creationism Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism? ID not Creationism? Are all ID proponents really theists? ID proponents who are not theists A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate? Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID? Scientific peer review Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody) Yqbd's peer-review arguments Is ID really not science? ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community... Meaning of "scientific" Why sacrifice truth Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant Intelligent design is Theology, not Science Philosophy in the introduction Why ID is not a theory Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.) The "fundamental assumption" of ID Peer-reviewed articles Figured out the problem Is ID really not internally consistent?; Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID The many names of ID? Removed section by User:Tznkai Pre- & post- Kitzmiller, proponents seek to redefine ID Defining ID Figured out the problem "Intelligent evolution" ID on the O'Reilly Factor Is the article too long? Article Size Notes The Article Is Too Long Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views? Inadequate representation of the minority View The "fundamental assumption" of ID Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects? Irreducibly complex intelligent designer Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time The "fundamental assumption" of ID Irreducibly complex Irreducible complexity of elementary particles Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus Suggested compromise Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully) Discussion regarding the Introduction: Intro (Rare instance of unanimity) Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests) Is this article is unlike others on Wikipedia? Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule Call for new editors Archives 22, 23, 24 Is this article NPOV? NPOV Archive 25 Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts? Support among scientists "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation Archive 26 How should Darwin's impact be described? Pre-Darwinian Ripostes\ Peer Review and ID Peer review? Lack of peer review Peer Review: Reviewed Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute? Archive 32 /all_leading_proponents Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case? Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much? The article discusses the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates FAQ

The bias is blatant

This whole article should be reworked. It is the most blatantly biased Wikipedia article I have read yet, incessantly reminding us that BIG SCIENCE rejects ID as "discredited" and "unscientific". The whole thing comes off like a nervous drive by shooting of anyone who would dare question big science instead of just reporting the history of the movement. Tomdahlberg (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)tomdahlberg

I hope you enjoyed the film. However, you misunderstand Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to present the mainstream view most prominently, as can be seen by reviewing WP:NPOV. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Science? Is that in anyway related to Big Pharma? Are they related or just kissing cousins? Do they go to family picnics together with the Big Liberal Media Bias? I want to go! Baegis (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on BIG SCIENCE. Avb 10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic argument focussed on the personality of editors here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tomdalberg, get in line. You're not the first and won't be the last to state the obvious. There has been a long parade of people trying to explain why this article is anything but neutral. Unfortunately Filll and other agressive admins maintain this blog like their personal webspace. They own this turf and thus brook no dissent and accept no criticism but from those who already agree with their narrow valueset. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but you'll worry less about the flagrant bias in this article when you understand that this is an "encyclopedia" written by twenty-somethings for an audience of teenagers. Compare for example the articles on breast (as if mammary gland wasn't enough) to the articles on toe or finger. This gives you an idea of WP's priorities. When you realize that the article about the camel is only barely more fleshed out than the article on camel toe, then you won't take these edicts issued by "experts" such as Filll quite so seriously. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC) That's funny - the toe article is a stub and the Cameltoe has more references than ID has peer reviewed papers. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Excuse me for stating the obvious. Of course Wikipedia is "biased"; that is Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia follows something called WP:NPOV which means mainstream views are most prominent. If you do not like WP:NPOV, then you are welcome to go to a wiki that does not have NPOV like Wikiinfo or Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Filll is completely correct. But, to better understand his position and mindset, replace "mainstream" with "liberal" or "progressive". Like most liberals/progressives, Filll believes there is the "mainstream" view and then there are idiots. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Folks, may I suggest WP:DNFTT? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC) And still, if Wikipedia is to be respected, it must explain what something is as a priority before denouncing it. Yes, denounce it, but explain it first. This page is controlled by evolutionist Nazis who are injecting their POV before allowing any definition or balanced understanding of what someone may want to inquire and understand what ID is - definition. The first paragraph can largely be put in a separate section, the 'Christian Objective', but that in and of itself does not define what ID is, despite how many 'agree' with it, it still requires definition which is sorely lacking in the header section of this article. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Ahh the joys of projection -- the conservative evangelical culture that spawned Creationism is far more authoritarian than that of the scientific community (which tends to be more than a little eclectic and anarchic). HrafnTalkStalk 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I am sorry you disagree with the product of WP:CON over several years. This is not the only wiki that has an article on this however. You might like some of the others better. I would be glad to give you suggestions if you need them. --Filll (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The VERY STRONG CONSENSUS and superlative is that wikipedia actually serves the purpose of providing definition of ideas and concepts before POV (not in place of consensus POV), it is the priority and the purpose of this site. When I want to learn about something, this is the place to learn, so definition is the top priority, not the last and I assure you that is the consensus. Now, instead of focusing on the POV, take another look at how this information (that I also agree with) should be layed out to present the definition of what ID is FIRST (this will take at least two paragraphs), and then follow it the proponents/opponents POV (which is all we know about ID from the current first paragraph which attacks IT without ever defining what IT is). All good info, just poorly presented. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD, and read the article more carefully. Looking at your effort above, is poor old Behe out in the cold now, and whatever happened to the abrupt appearance of cdesign proponentsists? Also see WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE – this isn't a sales brochure and we provide all expert views on the subject, not just those favouring ID. .. dave souza, talk 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, no sales brochure, for or against, until after it is defined without a POV (thats what we need and what we don't have today).Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 06:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Off topic discussion complaining about the fact that off topic discussions are shut down
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a lot easier to build a consensus when you shut down anyone who disagrees with you. It is common practice at WP to label any voice of dissension as a "troll" or a "puppet" and then ignore them. That is how a cult operates. You can own this website but you can't own the truth. I personally NEVER log in to edit or comment on this type of article for fear of retribution against my account. 98.172.21.102 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) That is irrelevant and offtopic. You are free to go to Conservapedia and I am sure you will be happy editing there.--Filll (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) No one cares if you're biased. What people object to is that you claim to be "NPOV" when you are liberal/progressive POV. Do you work for MSNBC? 98.169.241.244 (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is shockingly and disturbingly biased, and puts Wikipedia's objectivity and NPOV into question. This clearly has proved to be its Achilles’ heel, as it seems unable to provide a dispassionate and objective article on ID. Clearly, the writers have strayed from Wikipedia's stated "strength" of making it difficult to "censor and impose bias." Unfortunately, this is the case in this article.

Examples: "It is a modern form of..." rather than "According to xxx it is a modern form of..."; or "The unequivocal consensus...is..." rather than "Although the majority of those in the scientific community believe xxx, many other scientists state that..."

Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself and should at a minimum flag this article as not neutral and biased toward one side of this issue. To let this article stand as is underscores Wikipedia's detractors who believe it to be, at its core, a left-leaning, anti-religious organization. .(And stand by for ad hominem attacks on this writer who has simply observed this heavy-handed bias...shave and a haircut, _______). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicanalysis (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

_ _ _ two bits, if my understanding of the idiom is correct. As it says at the top, this article must follow NPOV with particular attention to NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The examples you raise have been carefully considered to reflect the weight presented by references, and the suggestions you make fail NPOV by giving undue weight to an extreme minority view which should be shown in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is a community project, and you should be ashamed of attacking editors by caricaturing their views in a way which does not comply with WP:CIVIL. Please have a good look at Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ which discusses the issues in more detail, . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Logicalanalysis, re: "Although the majority of those in the scientific community believe xxx, many other scientists state that..." Wikipedia:AWW ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of lead

The lead reads (first sentences):

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science.

So ID is an "assertion"? What an odd word to use. Surely it's a bit more than that: it's an argument. In fact it's a syllogism: the universe is too complex to have come into being by chance; the opposite of chance is design; ergo, the universe was designed. But better is to call it an argument. It does argue its case, it doesn't just assert.

Going on a little further, it would seem, and I would agree, that ID is "a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God." That being so, how about a small revision of these two sentences, like this:

Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science. It asserts 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"

That should keep you all happily occupied for a day or two. PiCo (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about you scroll a page up an look at the discussion that has already taken place on this subject?. Or are you just trying to flame? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a new variation, effectively shifting from "ID is an assertion that.... it is an argument" to "ID is an argument..... it asserts that..." The good side is that it now becomes "an argument that asserts.." rather than "an assertion". The problem is that it pushes the ID proponents' definition into the second sentence, after the secondary analysis of what it really is, and ID supporters are likely to reject that. Worth careful consideration" . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, ID is not itself an argument. It is a variation on an argument for the existence of God, but as it does not explicitly argue for the existence of God (or for or against anything else), it not itself that argument. It acts as an umbrella for a wide range of old and/or repackaged anti-evolution argument, but is not itself any of these arguments. It likewise does not contain any explicit argument, as this would require a form of 'premise + logical reasoning = conclusion', which it lacks. After much debate, the best word we could come up for this philosophical ambiguity is that it is an "assertion". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, it is a loose paraphrase of the conclusionary statement of the teleological argument: '...therefore a God who designed life and the universe must exist' → "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause [who most ID proponents admit they think is God]". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, we used to have something like that for the intro. After a long debate with ID supporters, we settled on this language instead. Guettarda (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Guettarda. I guess this will be an ongoing issue that people will raise from time to time, especially when, like me, they don't have experience of the history of the article. PiCo (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say: Intelligent design was the assertion, etc? The past tense seems appropriate, given that ID has been roundly dismissed by all the relevant authorities? :-) ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 02:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, Academic Freedom bills mean that ID textbooks have a new market – watch out for the next lawsuit in Louisiana. .. dave souza, talk 10:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Using ID textbooks on the basis of an Academic Freedom law would be a really bad tactical blunder. These laws rely on providing wiggle room, and work best where there's plausible deniability about the exactly what was taught -- was it ID, was it creationism, etc? With a textbook (as opposed to some teacher speaking from unknown sources), a lot of this factual uncertainty over what was taught is eliminated, and the whole thing revolves around (i) expert testimony & (ii) matters of constitutional law -- both areas in which ID/creationism court cases typically get massacred. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and my memory may be at fault, but my recollection is that they'd hoped to sell anti-evolution texts like Icons of Evolution and the equivalent, leaving it to the teacher to "just mention" intelligent design in the Caroline Crocker manner. Since the law and the school boards would be facilitating such teaching rather than mandating it, their hope would be that court cases would have to be taken against individual teachers rather than the district, making it that much harder to mount a challenge. As you'll have noticed, this comment is rather timely,[1] further links at PZ's. As you say, they're beingcareful to deny it, but less careful elsewhere. . . dave souza, talk 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Their whole strategy relies on (i) school boards being sufficiently careful/cautious as not to be sued/not to lose (which worked really well from them at Dover) and (ii) if/when they do lose a case that other boards not being risk-averse against trying (again, worked really well for them post-Dover). Even leaving to one side the morality/constitutionality of what they're doing, it's simply unworkable -- it only works if the least well informed, least disciplined members of the movement (the grass roots at the school board/classroom level) all keep on message, at least where their opinions will be recorded. Some of them won't and the ACLU will get to cherry pick which complaint gives them the most loud-mouthedly-religious defendants and the most sympathetic complainants for their test case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Richard B. Hoppe elaborates on this point on PT: "Whoever called this law a 'Dover trap' [that was me: RBH] was, therefore, on point. It’s main effect will be to encourage local boards to approve wingnut 'science' for use in the classroom and so invite Kitzmiller II. The local boards that do so – in open meetings, on the public record, as Louisiana law requires – will have their decisions invalidated in federal court, where they will be hit for large fees and costs. Legislators who think the prospect is one of local interest only forget that Louisiana pays up to half of every local board’s costs by way of our Minimum Foundation grant system."[2] Sounds like the Louisiana school board set-up makes it about the worst place to try this sort of strategy, in terms of getting creationist gaffs while implementing it on the record. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of sources

This should be removed from the article:

While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer, and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.

The sources all appear to be promoting forms of creationism other than ID. WP:QS is clear that questionable sources, including any promotional sources, may only be used in articles about themselves, and this article is not about Young Earth or even Old Earth Creationism. The Verifiability policy further indicates that contentious claims may never be referenced from questionable sources. So that is two separate reasons to remove this. 65.39.195.36 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The above user is a serial sockpuppeteer who is banned from editing creationism-related articles for abusing Tor proxy accounts to cause disruption. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

?? These sources are identified in-text as non-ID creationist sources. I'm not following...--ZayZayEM (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please DFTT. The exact same issue was brought up at Talk:Young Earth creationism (as well as in other related articles) where multiple editors explained to the Tor-hopping IP why AnswersInGenesis is a reliable source for the views of YECs, and also why it is not covered by the policy governing the use of self published sources. This editor, however, appears to have made it a personal crusade to eliminate any references to AiG from Wikipedia, and to do so in a manner that explicitly violates WP:DE and WP:PROXY. He/she is well-aware that all of this has already been explained elsewhere. This thread should be archived to prevent further time-wasting. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to ZayZayEM: It doesn't matter that they're identified as such in text. WP:V is clear about where questionable sources can be used and what can be cited from them.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves as described below.

Since this article is not about Young Earth Creationism, sources promoting YEC can't be cited here. Even if they could, the material cited above is contentious, and thus is excluded by the policy. Now, if this is not the actual intent of WP:V, as some contend, then the policy should be rewritten. 91.66.13.46 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay i am starting understand what you mean. Creationists don't check facts, ergo creationist material is QS. However, this article IS about YEC opinions on ID, while not being directly about YEC itself. The sources and materials are used well within policy/guidelines and are not used to support any real-world facts. The QS source is directly used in relation to the QS itself, follows policy.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, ID = creationism. Cannot be denied. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It could be argued that there QSs are being used in an article about creationism, since this article is about creationism. ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain what this term "QS" means in the context? I'm sorry but I only speak English, not guess-what-the-initials-mean. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

QS = Questionable Source(s). Sometimes it helps to review the discussion to see if initials are being used as shorthand for something that has already been spelled out once before. It was used here in the second posting, but I had to look hard to find it, and QS isn't a common usage outside that particular page (WP:RS, or Reliable Sources). Doc Tropics 17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken New Republic links

The citations linking to the New Republic 92 and 93 are both broken, and no archive link is available. LexisNexis keeps back issues of the New Republic, but I couldn't find the cited articles there. My skills on LexisNexis are somewhat limited, though. Can anyone else who has the time and necessary skill please try to locate these sources? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can look, if it is available in the standard academic version of Lexis.--Stetsonharry (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

NR doesn't like sharing anymore. Has anyone tried the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive (archive.org)? FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not on my version of Lexis. Reader's Guide Online refers to it as follows:

"Title: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name Other Titles: Review article Personal Author: Coyne, Jerry Journal Name: The New Republic Source: The New Republic v. 233 no. 8/9 (August 22-29 2005) p. 21-33 Publication Year: 2005 Abstract: (omitted)"

From this, it indicates that this article appeared in a "double" issue of TNR. References 92 and 93 give the incorrect impression that there are two separate articles, not one article in a double issue.

Style question: since two succeeding footnotes refer to the same source, shouldn't the second footnote no. 93 be an "ibid"?--Stetsonharry (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I finally got to an entry through EBSCO, but apparently the article has been removed from the index for some unexplained reason. Anyway, I have combined the two duplicate references in a single named reference, and I have done away with the link altogether since apparently no electronic version of the article can be accessed, even with an institutional subscription. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Style answer: my impression is that the guidelines are against 'ibid's or similar -- for one thing, wikipedia articles are dynamic, and you never know when an intervening citation might be added. WP:CITE#Shortened notes is a good alternative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Impressions

This section written on intelligent design is obviously done from an atheistic viewpoint... it would be nice if the facts were just presented as facts, and people could be left to make their conclusions based on raw information presented, not based on information manipulated to have an atheistic slant.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.187.201 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll pray for you. ... dave souza, talk 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an atheist by any means, but I don't think that is a fair criticism. Not all religious authorities accept creationism, intelligent design etc. --Stetsonharry (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. ID essentially rejects science as it doesn't presuppose that unknowns are proof of God. From the ID perspective, the Archbishop of Canterbury has an atheistic viewpoint. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that the anonymous poster presumes that ID should be identified with God as Designer.PiCo (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

this isn't an Athiest point of view, it's a completely neutral agnostics point of view. Which is the way Wikipedia approaches everything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.50.230 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's about right though I think the viewpoint is intended to be secular rather than agnostic. Effect's much the same, dave souza, talk 16:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(note: I posted the previous comment, I just bothered to log in this time)Actually, I would like to think that a secular approach implies an agnostic one, since an atheistic stance implies that we have proven a negative, which a secular society should realize is impossible. So essentially what I am saying is that wikipedia is an agnostic flavor of secular, NOT an atheist one. it certainly isn't intended to push any unproven (or unprovable) view. Playwrite (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a devout catholic and personally belive it's nonsense. Of course that doesn't have much afect on the article, but many scientists also agree with me, which does have significant effects on the way it's written.--Serviam (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

forgive me if I sound insensitive, but what is it that you believe is nonsense?Playwrite (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Creationism.--Serviam (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Thankyou. just wanted to clear that up.Playwrite (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lynn Margulis

In the "Peer review" section there is a reference to Lynn Magulis. It should say Lynn Margulis. This is her link in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis Estebangil (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So how possible is it...

To change all the capital-g Gods in this article to be god, so that the article stops pretending to be about Christian god and is thus, gasp, about the idea of god in general? Vael Victus 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Both "God" and "god" are used in the article, and more often that not "God" is used in quotes or specific contexts. Can you be more specific? Thanka. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think God would be the correct usage when used in the context of a monotheist religion (which is ubiquitous in this article). User the lower case implies one god among many, and polytheism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The assumption that Christians are the only ones who believe in monotheism is inappropriate to boot. - Denimadept (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What assumption? Capitalising merely indicates the definitive article. And in any case Intelligent Design is almost exclusively Christian. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the assumption made by the person who started this section. Inasmuch as Muslims can be considered heretical Christians, agreed. - Denimadept (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no Muslim supporters of ID, so the point is moot. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right there in this article, actually. - Denimadept (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As it says, the ICR appears to be more popular, and as I recall there was a shift away as it is of course blasphemous to suggest that there could be another god than Allah, as implied in ID's inherent dissimulation. A minority view which shouldn't be given undue weight against the Kitzmiller assessment that "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity" . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The closest that this section comes to a Muslim ID advocate (as opposed to Creationism advocate more generally) is a Muslim signatory of ASDfD -- and many non-ID creationists sign that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well alright, if you want to capitalize it so you can for some reason give a name to the idea of a god at all, why not call it, "the creator"? I'm seeing christian bias here and I don't like it one bit. (even though they're not the only ones to call their god God apparently) Vael Victus 02:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - if it's still mainly Christian, then you still have to accomodate the people that aren't Christian. Christianity will die soon enough, then what will happen to intelligent design? Vael Victus 02:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See the Kitzmiller assessment cited in my comment earlier in this thread. The intelligent design movement is likely to die out shortly as it fails to achieve its aim of legitimising anti-evolution teaching in US public schools, creationism is probably going to carry on regardless, and I'm sure that Christianity will continue into the forseeable future with mainstream denominations continuing to reconcile God's word with secular science. . . dave souza, talk 09:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

External links: a forest of advocacy

I note that the external links section in this article is unusually large, and rather a lot of them are to advocacy websites, many of which might well fall afoul of the "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" criterion for exclusion (see Wikipedia:External links). Have the items on this very long list recently been reviewed for appropriateness? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The EL section has always been long, and are regularly pruned. I think a reader that notices the headers (ID perspectives, non-ID perspectives, and media articles) should have a sense of what they're reading. Are there any specific links that bother you? Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the links from the top downwards, it's evident that the first ones are promoting viewpoints that, in the scientific arena in which their proponents firmly place themselves, are those of a tiny fringe at best, and are often simply misrepresentations of science by religious conservatives. It seems to me that the effect of including these links in the external links section, rather than discussing them with an accompanying link within the body of the text if and when it is appropriate to discuss them, is to promote fringe views and pseudoscience through the medium of Wikipedia.

In addition I have a particular problem with evolutionnews.org. The URL itself is misleading, and so is the description in the external links section of our article: "Discovery Institute website tracking media coverage of intelligent design." Actually the site seems to comprise a series of op-eds written by Discovery Institute contributors about selected mainstream press articles. It's a quasi-political blog, basically. The identity of one of the main contributors should set alarm bells ringing: Rob Crowther, who according to the website "holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and twenty years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist," That's right, he's a spin-doctor by profession and proud of it. This is unashamed advocacy intended only to promote intelligent design.

But that really isn't the only one I think is inappropriate. For instance, while William Dembski is an important figure within the Intelligent Design movement, I don't really think it's appropriate to include a link to his blog in the external links of this article. Perhaps in William Dembski, but here I think it gives undue weight to his views as written on his personal website (rather than his academic work and his books). I feel that this is simply a matter of incongruity, a bit like including a link to a personal website belonging to Stephen Hawking in the article about black holes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I don't think anyone has ever complained that the ELs are too pro-ID :)

I think you have a point with evolutionnews.com. With regards to Dembski's blog - I'm not sure if there really is a good distinction between the personal opinions of the main ID proponents and "official" ID. But yeah, I see your point. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you say this is a first, I'm frankly surprised. It looks to me as if the effect of editing down the years has been to produce something resembling an atttempt at "balancing the pros against the cons". There really are quite a lot of bare links to advocacy sites there (I'm referring particularly to the pro-ID ones; there are one or two links there that also seem to be there solely attack ID, such as talkorigins.org, a very broad-ranging website that happens to contain many anti-ID articles.)

Don't misunderstand me: I'm definitely not saying that the Discovery Institute, ARN, ISCID and whatnot shouldn't be covered in an article on ID. I am simply saying that if as now we include, outside the article body and the references, a bare link to a website, we should be especially careful to ensure that the effect isn't inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I note that ARN, Discovery Institute, etc, are cited quite a lot within the article where they are relevant reliable sources for statements about ID and about their members and themselves. This I consider appropriate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if any guidelines are violated but I agree that some of these are extreme. Wouldn't it be better to link to an article in an established magazine setting forth the case for ID?--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. I wonder if I could get a general consensus that we should simply remove all entries from the "external links" section in one go, on the understanding that any entry may be restored if we have consensus that it complies with all Wikipedia policies. Some links could be restored immediately by someone being bold, because nobody is likely to want to challenge their appropriateness. Others, it may be more appropriate to discuss before adding back. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. There's a number of useful links there and nowhere else. Odd nature (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this undo, given here by difference

["Made up" information userfied to User talk:Doug youvan Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ]

I would suggest we look into Minsky and Vinge. Doug youvan (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"I would suggest" that you first establish (i) what the heck 'Minsky and Vinge' is and (ii) what possible relevance it has to the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see: http://www.panspermia.org/thirdalt.htm and references within that article and others that branch from the root webpage. Doug youvan (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia . It appears this ID article neglects contributions from the 5th century BC through Arrhenius to Crick and Hoyle. Doug youvan (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am getting heartily sick of this irrelevant disruption. Either cough up WP:RSs (which neither the panspermia site nor wikipedia itself are) showing how this is relevant, or stop posting this crap. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my offer to help with this article. Doug youvan (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of policies

Doug youvan, as set out in WP:TALK this page is for discussing improvements to the article, and is not for speculative original research which you seem to be proposing. The article is about intelligent design in its modern meaning with all points verified from reliable sources. The questions you raise about possible antecedents are already covered in reasonable detail in the intelligent design#Origins of the concept and intelligent design#Origins of the term sections. If you feel that more detail is needed, you must provide verification that a suitable expert authority has described that detail as relating specifically to intelligent design. Something you think looks similar cannot be included, as that would be original research which Wikipedia policy excludes. Please set out your detailed proposals with the required sources on this talk page for discussion before editing the article, or your changes are likely to be reverted. You may find it best to work up your ideas in your userspace before exposing them to scrutiny and criticism. . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. I had assumed "good faith" meant cooperation between editors on an article's Talk page before a new editorial effort was mounted. My assumption was wrong. Sorry. Doug youvan (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIntelligent_design&diff=218385656&oldid=218337319 Doug youvan (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, have a look at WP:AGF. . dave souza, talk 08:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dave, Thanks. I've decided not to even try to contribute to this ID article. Doug youvan (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

POV in lead; request for arbitration

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some comments about the point of view of this article: Regarding the statement that "[t]he unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience": that intelligent design is not falsifiable moves it outside the scope of science, but to say that something is pseudoscience implies a judgment that it is false, a judgment that we should withhold. (If it is false, then let the reader decide.) Also if, on the one hand, we were to accept that intelligent design is in fact the modern form of the teleological argument, then given that it has been subject to debate for hundreds of years, we should take extraordinary pains to be neutral about it (that is, not imply that it is true or that it is false) (even within my own religious tradition I do not know whether the "teleological argument" debate has been definitively resolved); however, if it is merely the Discovery Institute's end-run around the judicial system, then the lead should clarify that it is only one of several possible modern forms of the teleological argument. Finally, regarding the request for arbitration, I think this should really go to mediation instead, as it is a content dispute first, and a conduct dispute second. If the mediation committee rejects this suggestion, then resume the article RFC. Bwrs (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC) The request for arbitration is not a content dispute perse, so I don't think it's relevant here. Pseudoscience is that which is not science passed off as science; it's not limited by definition to falsified scientific concepts. Aunt Entropy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, but "pseudoscience" is a POV-laden word. I propose to separate the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" from the same proposition couched as a testable scientific theory for the purpose of being introduced into public-school classrooms, and have copied the lead and the "overview" section to userspace for this purpose. Bwrs (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC) You mistake the meaning. NPOV: Pseudoscience has a specific meaning in terms of WP:NPOV policy, and as fully verified in the article, ID falls within that definition and the definition of a fringe theory. Remember, this article is not here to give "equal validity" to the extreme minority expert view that ID is valid, or has other origins than those shown by the sources given. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC) There is a huge compromise area between giving equal validity to a minority viewpoint and declaring said minority viewpoint to be pseudoscience or fringe theory. If someone wants to use science to justify religious doctrine (intelligent design by definition) or if someone wants to reconcile religious doctrine with science, that is a legitimate line of academic inquiry, and to call it a fringe theory or pseudoscience is not neutral. But if the proponents of the modern form of "intelligent design" want to couch religious doctrine as science in an effort to inject it into public schools, that is a problem; these are two different things. My proposed solution is to separate intelligent design itself, from the Discovery Institute's assertion or assumption that it is a scientific theory). The former (the assertion that the origin of the universe is best explained by an intelligent, not a random, cause) is not pseudoscience; as for the latter, let the reader decide. Bwrs (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding Bwrs' second point - it isn't really an either/or argument. The fact that ID is a teleological argument doesn't mean that it is identical to other teleological arguments. And the fact that it is an argument designed to exploit Scalia's loophole in Edwards v. Aguillard doesn't mean that it is (or isn't) a teleological argument. ID is a mixture of old and new arguments. It is, quite frankly, extremely complex. As for the RFAR (now archived) - it really has nothing to do with this article. I believe that only one editor even touched on the ID article. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, but I think that it is still the sort of dispute for which formal mediation is the best solution, precisely because it defuses the conduct dispute and gets us focused on content. Bwrs (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think one can seriously argue that pseudoscience implies falsehood. There are, for instance, many scientists who have religious beliefs which they do not consider to be scientific. Thus, the declaration that the world was literally created in six days can fairly be described as pseudo-science, if it is raised in the process of scientific discourse, although the believer scientist might not deny that, yes, the all-powerful creator in which he believes would be capable of performing such miracles. By describing it as pseudo-science, the believer is simply stating that it implies knowledge not achievable, or refutable, by scientific means. It requires an appeal to faith rather than reason and observation, and the scientist explicitly rules out faith as a criterion for judgement of facts. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Intelligent design explicitly demands that the definition of science be changed to included deductions based on faith, as in theistic realism, so that unexplained questions are described as scientific proof of the existence of the Creator. Pseudoscience has two basic elements, a claim to be science and a departure from scientific methodology. Whether it's a falsehood or a delusion is open to question. Evidently many people are completely sincere about such "science", perhaps because they don't realise that untestable science is a contradiction in terms. . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I disagree with the assertion that "don't think one can seriously argue that pseudoscience implies falsehood," because even if falsehood is not part of the denotation of pseudoscience, it is part of the connotation. For example, if you were to hear your doctor say that "x treatment is based on pseudoscience," you would take that as an indication that she is calling x quackery. "Pseudoscience" is a pejorative word, which can deprive an article of fairness of tone. Looking at the bigger picture, it seems to me that what we have is a religious belief, and the assertion that the facts, as observed and explained by science, support the religious belief, and the assertion that #1 or #2 above is science. As written, the article seems to be suggesting that the assertion "that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process" (i.e., #2 above) is pseudoscience, but I think that what the scientists are calling pseudoscience is actually #3 above. Bwrs (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) On teleological arguments, I think it's fair to state that they've fallen out of favor and stayed out of favor for so long largely thanks to scientific works attacking teleology. The most famous of these was Darwin's Origin of Species, in which he constructed counter-example after counter-example, all of them scientifically plausible and testable, demonstrating that the appearance of conscious design may be achieved by natural processes in the fulness of time. The destruction of teleology is often conceived nowadays as being achieved in the field of biology, but the destruction of teleological theories of cosmology and, latterly, geology, preceded and laid the groundwork for the biological revolution that followed. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) On a grander scale, a teleological view that everything has an overall purpose can be held along with acceptance of science. At the closer scale of things like planetary movements and speciation earlier teleological arguments were pushed aside by a more deistic idea of (designed) laws. There was a fascinating series about the Medieval Mind on the BBC which made the point strongly that a bestiary was used to describe the purpose of animals as moral lessons to humans, and the mindset of things having to have a divine purpose still clashes with the scientific mindset of replicable testing, even today. . . dave souza, talk 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC) There is a line between saying something isn't "falsifiable" and saying it is "Psuedoscience" and that line is crossed when the something tries to masquerade as "science". Unlike the Time cube article which just categorises the article as pseudoscience, this article supports the Psuedoscience claim with 4 references. The references ultimately are to organisations which cannot reasonably be considered partisan, fringe or unreliable. They outnumber many-times-to-one the Discovery Institute and represent a very broad section of society both in the US and abroad. So the Wikipedia claim of pseudoscience is reliable and to not call it that would unbalance the article because that one word very clearly defines the concept of the Intelligent Design argument to the world i.e. it summarizes the majority view. For us to remove that word and "let the reader decide" would be selfcensorship. I also don't see the problem with the current lead that ID is "the modern form of the teleological argument"..... It shows the falsehood of ID in that to me something is a lie if it omits a relevant fact. The fact here is the mention of "God". The lead is thus a very accurate summary of the subject.Ttiotsw (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Dude, it says that the scientific community regards it as a psuedo science, which is perfectly true, it doesn't say wikipedia regards it as a psuedo science, or that it is as psuedo science, or that would violate our NPOV policy--Serviam (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Good point. Maybe we can agree to disagree. Bwrs (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) BTW, arbitration is not available for simple content disputes like yours. Furthermore, please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles. Its sets forth the following rules for handling articles that deal with pseudoscience: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. This article was written to comply with this ruling, so you're not likely to get anywhere with your objections. Additionally, this article is a Featured Article, as such it's already been heavily reviewed by the community and judged to be well within our content policies. Odd nature (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Accepting the reality of the SUB-COMMUNITY

I am neither a proponent nor an opponent. However...
The subject is introduced in terms of avoidance -- this cannot be reflective of NPOV even if it concurs with CON. The article is Featured under Religion, mysticism and mythology rather than a Science category. Perhaps the article should be Featured under Culture and society, due to its controversial nature, so that the religious poppycock and scientific certainty ideologues, and all viewpoints in between, can be fairly represented.

The tone of the introduction seems to reflect an unwillingness to accept that Intelligent Design scientists EXIST within the scientific community. Regardless of anyone's opinion of how wisely these folks are using their PhDs, they are a SUB-COMMUNITY that is not going away. If the Wikipedia community values a lack of bias, accepting that minority dissenters are a real presence on the landscape of the cosmological debate is a practical way to demonstrate it.
Championdante (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the introduction seems to reflect an unwillingness to accept that Intelligent Design scientists EXIST within the scientific community. There are a handful of scientists who are ID proponents - you can pretty much count them without running out of fingers. There are probably quite a few more who are sympathetic to the idea. But no one is actually using ID in science. They're a real political presence, yes, but they aren't using ID in their scientific endeavours. So, as far as the "science" of ID, they don't exist. We have a separate intelligent design movement article that deals with the political movement. This article is about the so-called science of ID.

How would you propose we change this article? What sources are we missing, or are we misrepresenting? It isn't really about our opinions - it's about representing sources in a balanced fashion. What do you suggest we change? Guettarda (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of 480,000 scientists surveyed in a 1989 Newsweek survey, only 700 believed in intelligent design, that's hardly anything, about 0.17%, hardly a sub community, and that number will have dramatically decreased in the 19 years since then.--Serviam (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Championdante is mistaken. Intelligent Design is not a "sub-community" of the scientific community. This can be seen by the large number of prominent ID proponents that are not scientists, but rather lawyers, philosophers and/or theologians. Just because some scientists do it, does not automatically make it a scientific endeavour -- any more than scientists doing transcendental meditation would make that science. Rather, ID is a Christian apologetic endeavour, and ID (like all forms of Creationism) is part of the Christian apologetics community. This in itself would not create any major controversy, as a number of scientists engage in Christian apologetics -- Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins being two names that immediately come to mind. The problem with ID is that it is widely regarded as being based upon ignorance and/or misrepresentation of the true state of scientific research regarding evolution and, in attempting to pass itself off as legitimate science (rather than admitting that, like all apologetics, it is a philosophical argument, regardless of its basis), it is pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the vast majority christians (Virtually all of those outside the US, plus plenty of them inside) accept current scientific consensus.--Serviam (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

question

I was about to do start some cleanup on this article (and yes, I recognize this is a highly temperamental article, and so I plan on treading cautiously), but I immediately ran into a question that needs discussion. the last two paragraphs of the lead section feel as though they aren't really 'right' for the lead, but would fit better in the "origins of the concept" or "movement" sections - they seem a bit too historically specific, I think, to fit comfortably in the lead section. is there a reason that I am unaware of that they are in the lead, or can I consider repatriating them to other sections? --Ludwigs2 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Pop the bits where you think they belong, and we'll see how it goes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bold is one thing, suicidal another. =D I'll give it a try, though. --Ludwigs2 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the worst thing that can happen? Somebody will revert your edit. This is pretty normal for Wikipedia, really. It's how it's intended to work. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony here, and I want to make a further point: The intro is well within both policy and guideline as it stands which is apparent to anyone who takes the time to read the reading the archives. It is the product of hundreds of hours of debate. It enjoys a broad and long-standing consensus, standing more-or-less as-is since 2005, this last year as a Featured Article. Which brings up another relevant point: Intelligent design is a Featured Article. As such it has already been carefully reviewed by the community and and found to meet Wikipedia's highest standards governing content. A very strong case will have to be made that the article's content actually is in violation of those policies and guidelines for any significant changes to pass muster. This has been the case and continues to be the case. As for which guideline Ludwigs2's suggested changes run afoul of, I'd say WP:LEAD comes first to mind. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand. actually, the lead reads as fairly balanced to me as it stands, and I wouldn't want to disturb that. my main feeling about it is that it is a bit stiff-sounding, which I think may be the result of a careful avoidance (on all sides) of saying that this manifestation of intelligent design was a political gambit designed to circumvent laws against teaching creationism. at least, when I clean it up it in my head it comes out much better when I say that outright; as it stands it's thoroughly implied but never stated.

I'll look over wp:lead, just to be sure... --Ludwigs2 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, interesting. having read through this article thoroughly, and poked around in the archives, my first thought is that this article is really an article about the socio-political movement called intelligent design (and should probably be merged with the "Intelligent design movement" article, or vice-versa). there's almost nothing here about the historical and philosophical uses of intelligent-design-like arguments. for instance, and just off the top of my head, I can point out that the modern construction of evolution theory was itself a political move designed to curtail the power and influence of theology in science. Darwin would not have rejected the Intelligent design argument outright - there are 'Creator' references in The Origin of the Species - and Lamarck suggested a theory of evolution that allowed for teleological development (basic difference: darwin theorized that unfit creatures died and fit creatures bred; Lamarck theorized that marginally fit creatures would produce offspring who were slightly more fit). the 'random mutation' model came later, when Mendelian genetics was warped into Darwinian theory, and the Lamarck approach was rejected largely because it could be turned into an ID-type theory, whereas random mutation was effectively God-proof.

there are still variations of Lamarckian theory floating around in modern biology, incidentally: it's a small but notable position in the field.

further, this article doesn't seem to recognize that the creationism/ID/evolution debate is really just one thread in a larger philosophical problem: the what is man's place in the universe thing. the Abrahamic worldview is built around a conception of man as the pinnacle of the universe, with all of creation having been created as his property and birthright. Scientific research has (more or less unintentionally) progressively de-centered man, reducing him to a creature like other creatures - not even the highest form of creature but just a currently successful phenotype. In this context, intelligent-design-type approaches are one way of trying to preserve the centrality of mankind while accommodating (or at least paying lip service) scientific advances.

in short - hooooboy... where do I start with this? lol. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Start by recognising that "intelligent-design-type approaches" is a neologism you've coined for a big field which isn't called that name by experts in the field, and find verification for the article you want to write. The term intelligent design has been taken, and in modern usage means the assertions, or as they would have it the "theory", put forward by those "design proponents" as shown in this article. You might find it rewarding to work on other articles which cover the field you're interested in, perhaps those related to theology such as teleological argument. . 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC) oops, too many tildes - signature missing, comment was by dave souza, talk, clarification added 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 'Intelligent design' = intelligent design movement + pseudoscientific arguments (irreducible complexity, specified complexity & The Privileged Planet-style cosmology) used to support it.
2. "the historical and philosophical uses of intelligent-design-like arguments" can be found at Teleological argument
3. "the modern construction of evolution theory was itself a political move designed to curtail the power and influence of theology in science." I know of no reputable scholarship that makes this claim.
4. The "what is man's place in the universe thing" would appear to be well beyond the scope of what this article can reasonably be expected to cover.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn - no doubt you're right about the neologism, but this is a talk page; I'm just trying to sort out my impressions. please remember that this article has a tremendously long history, and try as I might I can't be expected to know all the details of the discussion as they have panned out. that being said, your comments suggest more strongly to me that Intelligent design and intelligent design movement should be merged, and that a disambiguation line should be included at the top, saying something like "This article is about the political and social Intelligent Design movement in the US. For the theoretical or philosophical perspective, see..." I mean, just as a naive reader, I expected to see some discussion of Intelligent design itself on this page. what little is there, however, is buried beneath long discussions of the political, legal, and historical descriptions of the movement. I can't honestly say that this page gives me a good idea of what intelligent design is, or how it fits into the larger philosophical world.

with respect to your specific points:

1. this is good argument for merging pages.
2. teleological argument is a bit narrowly construed for this. I could expand it, of course (and that might be an interesting project).
3. I can source this if we get to that - I remember reading the argument in a book about Darwin and Lamarck that I can picture sitting at the bottom of a big box in the garage underneath a pile of junk.  :-( for now, take it more as an indicator that this topic is larger than and precedes ID as it has been construed here
4. I'm not suggesting that we branch the article out into metaphysics, but I do think we ought to tip our hats to it. unless (again) this is only supposed to be an ID movement article.

maybe it will help if I say that what I'm trying to figure out here is whether the page effectively discusses what it is supposed to be discussing. unfortunately, what this page is supposed to be discussing is buried under geological layers of rhetoric, which makes that task a bit difficult. if you can help me clear up that point, that would make things easier. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Two issues – the things you suggest off the top of your head are wildly inaccurate, and this article discusses intelligent design, the movement article goes into greater depth about the movement pushing intelligent design. Specific proposals with sources for improving this article will be welcome, but your failure to understand the article isn't a good starting point. . dave souza, talk 20:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...> Dave, a couple of things you should know about me:

• I'm never 'wildly inaccurate,' at least not unintentionally. I may be wrong sometimes, and I'm always willing to admit it when I am, but as a rule I miss by inches rather than miles. if you think I'm being 'wildly inaccurate,' all that tells me is that you're not really taking me seriously. that's a mistake.
• when I raise a problem or ask a question, I won't give it up just because someone doesn't feel like answering. I'm not difficult to convince, really - I always listen to reason and I'm a great fan of discussion - but if you don't try at all, then I'm just going to assume you can't answer, and look for input from others.

now, I don't need sourcing to suggest that two pages with almost identical contents should be merged; and when I am asking for clarification on what this page is supposed to be about, telling me I don't understand is hardly helpful. so maybe we can take a step back and try again? --Ludwigs2 02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs: would you care to elaborate on why you think that intelligent design and intelligent design movement articles should be merged? You say there's a good argument for the merge. It would be helpful if you could let the rest of us know what that argument entails. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll spell it out in the section that got started below...--Ludwigs2 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I merely observed a determination to further marginalize an already marginal assertion/argument, rather than a willingness to allow it to reside in the near-infinite reaches of Wikipedia alongside Piltdown Man. Guettarda says that a handful is not a sub-community -- I see nothing to support that assertion in the Scientific community article. "No one is actually using ID in science" is only true if the rich and varied roots of Natural Philosophy (Newton was an alchemist; Maxwell was a mystic) are not considered -- SCIENCE means many things to many people. User:Hrafn brings lawyers into it (what's with that) -- I was talking about scientists. Membership in the Scientific Community is essentially defined by education, not endeavor -- read the article. So...I am NOT mistaken, I simply disagree with YOU -- which brings me back to my very first post: the mere existence of minority dissenters (even those with PhDs) is clearly an inconvenience to the prevailing "keepers of the tone" of the Intelligent design article. User:Dave_souza trounces Ludwig2, who made some good points about this Featured (bow down, bow down) article. Guettarda, Hrafn and Souza equate the decision to disagree with the failure to understand. I'm not even a creationist, and I see the bias. The guardians of this FEATURED article really need to find out about solipsism and examine themselves. The "Please read before starting" box is a case in point: it tells all newcomers that they can't possible hope to understand the nuances of so EXALTED an endeavor as this page -- what a great way to stifle boldness and ignore introspection.

As to my suggestions for improvement, in addition to what I ALREADY posted concerning Feature designation: in all the essentials concerning Article changes I agree with Ludwigs2. BTW, Hrafn, what makes one an expert in so useless a subject as this? Championdante (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Championdante: you say that "science means many things to many people". Be that as it may, this isn't the place to debate the meaning of "science". Nor is it the place to debate what constitutes a scientist. While the Wikipedia scientific community article isn't a terribly useful source, to say that the scientific community is based on "education, not endeavour" misrepresents the article - it describes membership of the scientific community in terms of "education, employment status, and institutional affiliation". Simply having a PhD in a scientific field does not make you a member of a scientific community - it also requires that you participate in the broader community. But to say, as you did, that ID should be considered a subset within the scientific community is fairly meaningless if they aren't using ID to so science. If they are doing what the IDists call "materialistic science" then it really doesn't matter what they believe. If they aren't doing the kind of "non-materialistic science" that ID requires, then it doesn't matter if they support the ID movement or not. They are acting like they belong to the mainstream scientific community. Since no-one has figured out how to do "non-materialistic science", your "ID subcommunity" is no more meaningful that "scientists who avoid stepping on cracks in the sidewalk" or scientists named Steve. Guettarda (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2/Championdante: The dated, but unsigned, comment above my own most recent one is Dave's not mine (the result of accidentally using ~~~ not ~~~~. In answer to Championdante's question misdirected to me, relevant experts would be Historians/Philosophers of Science who have made a study of ID -- most prominent examples would be Barbara Forrest and Robert T. Pennock. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, it may be an artefact of oversimplification, but your assertions about Darwin and Lamarck appear to be woefully misinformed. Darwin was distinctive in rejecting the teleological argument as it relates to speciation, though he continued to accept the possibility of evidence of a Creator in fields such as astronomy which were beyond his competence to decide. It's a side issue, and if all you want is a mention of ID's relationship to its wider philosophical predecessors, see #Origins of the concept. You're welcome to make specific suggestions for improvement, with sources. . dave souza, talk 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

that's possible - I'm not Darwin scholar, except in a general interest sort of way. If we need to discuss it for this article we can get into the literature and piece it out (or if you'd prefer to discuss it just for the heck of it, we could move the question to a talk page). I'll leave the question open for now, because it's not really pertinent. --Ludwigs2 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"cdesign proponentsists", "creaintelligent designism". what other evidence do you need that it was deliberate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playwrite (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design and intelligent design movement

Closed as long-settled per definition of 'scientific theory' in Theory, per WP:WTA#Theory and in 'Is ID a theory?' in 'Points that have already been discussed'. No WP:RS has been presented to justify re-opening it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ludwigs2 has proposed above that the intelligent design and intelligent design movement articles should be merged, and that a disambiguation line should be included at the top, saying something like "This article is about the political and social Intelligent Design movement in the US. For the theoretical or philosophical perspective, see..." My understanding is that this article is about the current usage of "intelligent design" as an argument or "theory", necessarily including an outline discussion of its protagonists as well as the theoretical and philosophical aspects. intelligent design#Movement gives a summary style outline of the aspect dealt with in detail in intelligent design movement – read WP:SS and you'll find out why. There may be an argument for focussing the movement article more narrowly and for tightening up the summary style section here, but each article still has to be self contained and cover the essentials. Any detailed proposals? . dave souza, talk 08:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Strictly speaking the 'Creating and teaching the controversy' section could also be considered to be on the IDM but, because of its prominence, has its own section (and several, more detailed, articles). The ID project follows a roughly hierarchical structure, with this article at its apex (or 'trunk' to use another metaphor). While we may at times debate splitting/combining 'twigs' (to use my second metaphor), I rather doubt Ludwigs2 would get any support for merging two of its main articles (if for no other reason, then because the amount of work & renegotiation involved would be simply horrific). HrafnTalkStalk 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ok, the way this appears to me is that everything in the Intelligent Design article from the movement section on down (1/2 to 2/3 of the article, excluding the copious footnotes) overlaps with, duplicates, or supplements the intelligent design movement article, because it is all talking about the particular political, legal, and intellectual strategies adopted by the American ID movement. there are exceptions on both sides of that dividing line, of course. for instance, the sections on 'peer review' and 'defining science' are relevant to the discussion of the theory of intelligent design (though in the article half of each of these sections is devoted to legal and political ramifications), while the upper section is peppered with political comments (e.g. the comments that all the people who support intelligent design actually believe in the christian god) that have no bearing on the theory itself. and honestly, when I read the ID article I get the distinct sense that only reason theory points are raised at all in the article is cast aspersions on the motives of the movement. I'm not actually objecting to that, mind you - I personally see the ID movement as a somewhat Machiavellian political effort that probably calls for aspersions - but still, I hate to see theory and philosophy reduced to those levels by either side. my merge suggestion is based on the assumption that there is no real interest in this article (or in the project as a whole) in discussing the theory in its own right. in that case, theoretical discussions should be excised in their entirety, these two articles should be merged as a discussion of the Intelligent design movement, and I'll go over and expand the ID section in teleological argument and make a link as I suggested above. if in fact there is an interest in discussing the theory, then I could see the value of two pages, one called Intelligent Design (movement) that covers most of what's on this page and the ID movement page, and another called Intelligent Design (theory) that restricts itself to discussing the theoretical and philosophical aspects, without engaging any of the political or legal foofaraw. I mean, I don't actually think the content on these pages is bad - I just think that the political and scientific discussion here have been badly confounded, and that they need to be teased apart and held separate. by mixing them like this you just can't avoid a POV article. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC) There is no "theory in its own right" -- ID has no positive theory of how things happened, just a bunch of arguments as to why evolution couldn't possibly have done it -- conveniently leaving a God-shaped hole for Creationism to fill. Therefore it is hardly wikipedia's fault if this non-existent theory doesn't get discussed. HrafnTalkStalk 19:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC) yes, I know this is the prevailing wisdom on Wikipedia (in a lot of fringe theory articles, actually), but it simply doesn't hold water. there are no 'lower-bound' limits on what can or cannot constitute a theory, at least from the perspective of a scientist. the Great Spaghetti Monster Theory is itself a perfectly acceptable scientific theory. now, if ID (or GSMT) were actually treated as the scientific theory it claims to be it would fall into ruin overnight - it's unfalsifiable, it explains nothing that is not better explained and better supported by other theories, it's impossible to create any sort of research paradigm from it - but that's a different issue. it is the job of scientists to debunk ID as a scientific theory, not the job of wikipedians. there's a different political issue here, of course, that ID promoters have tried to introduce a theory into the education system that hasn't been tested or accepted by the scientific community. it's a violation of the trust we put in our school systems that any educator would even consider teaching a theory like that to students; I can't tell you how much that annoys me. but it's not correct to confuse the political machinations of the proponents of ID with the presentation of ID as a scientific theory. the former is unpleasantly suspicious; the latter is a normal part of the scientific process. --Ludwigs2 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Not to be impolite, but I think you might want to do a bit more research (off-wiki of course) into what is truly a "theory" from the scientific viewpoint. "And the Intelligent Designer said let there be light and there was light" is not a scientific theory. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC) lol - Jim, I'll refrain from the easy comeback that maybe you should do a little more research.  :-) That "an Intelligent Designer said let there be light" is surely a theory. it's just not a very good theory. The only reason to say it's not a theory is so that you can dismiss it before you've looked at any evidence. Dismissing things without looking at evidence is not science, it's prejudice. if you want to oppose this on scientific grounds then you are obliged to take it as a theory, and treat it as such. again, politics is getting in the way of science here. --Ludwigs2 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[Ludwigs's continued insistence that we must reopen this issue, based upon nothing more than his own base assertion, userfied to User talk:Ludwigs2 per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ]

again, as you prefer. but this does not close the issue. --Ludwigs2 09:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Closed. ID is a Featured Article and so has been widely reviewed and found to meet Wikipedia's highest content standards for NPOV. Broad consensus in the larger community that this the case.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I use Wikipedia daily, and this is the first and only Wikipedia article that I have encountered which reads like a position paper, instead of an encyclopedia article. If the authors cannot figure out why people are claiming that this article is not "neutral" in perspective, perhaps I can shed some light on it, and offer some proposed revisions. "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer." This is leading with a false statement. It would be more correct to say that it CAN be used to argue the existence of God, but an "intelligent designer" does not require a supernatural being or entity. A more advanced life form, for example, could be an intelligent designer. This life form does not need to be divine or all powerful... or even exist anymore. One might infer, for example, "an intelligent designer" from examining the inner workings of a mousetrap. "The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[3][4][5] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute[6][7] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[8][9]" This paragraph calls into question the theory because of certain beliefs held by its proponents. The actual theory does not depend on any of these beliefs. Not to mention, an article discussing a theory should not lead by calling into question the theory in the second sentence. It would be like an article about Barack Obama which begins by disscussing questionable positions held by Reverend Wright. "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[12][13][14][15]" The sentence would never appear in an objective piece about any topic. Even phrenology. It can be rephrased in a more neutral way, and should be shifted to a subtopic regarding criticism of the theory. "Many scientists oppose the theory because A, B, and C." "Pseudoscience" is a mere conclusion; it is better that the reader make his own conclusions based upon what the scientists actually say regarding A, B, and C. "U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[16]" Since the theory does not require "supernatural intervention" as claimed by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, this sentence should be stricken, as it may mislead the reader into erroneously thinking intelligent design requires supernatural intervention. Anyway, a particular group's position on a theory does not belong in the intro paragraph of the theory, but in a "criticism" subtopic... The subsequent court cases, possible motivation for advancing the theory --> All belong in a "criticism" section. I believe these changes will improve the overall neutrality of the piece... LuckyLavs (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC) I think the reason someone might feel this way is because overwhelming scientific opinion is not sympathetic to ID. That seems to be the source of much dissatsifaction with the tone of the article. Perhaps something can be done to fix the tone, or give advocates of ID a better shake, but otherwise I don't see how that can be overcome.--Stetsonharry (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) These are sweeping assertions which do not follow from the sources which the article cites, and your proposals fail to comply with the provisions of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ as listed in the Please read before starting box at the head of this talk page. See also WP:FRINGE for guidance. Note in particular that your proposal to move any critical content to a subtopic fails NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". For further detail, see Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ . dave souza, talk 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Dave - These may or may not be sweeping assertions, but they are intelligently put criticisms that require responses. throwing out a bunch of policy links intended to discourage reasonable, good faith discussion is not in the best interests of this article or of wikipedia. Please desist. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Ludwigs2: these "criticisms" fall apart completely without these "sweeping assertions" -- in fact ID is not a theory (even by occasional admission of its proponents), it is widely regarded that it does require supernatural intervention, far from "not depend[ing] on any of these beliefs" -- it is these beliefs -- just with "God" artfully replaced by "designer" ("Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -- William Dembski), wikipedia frowns upon isolating criticism in 'Criticism sections'. Take these away and what criticism do you have left? HrafnTalkStalk 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC) To discuss compliance with NPOV policy, we have to refer to the relevant policies, especially when proposals obviously fail to comply with these policies. For changes like this, we must start with verification from reliable sources, not with discarding the well sourced statements in the article because of feelings that ID should be something else. . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Hrafn: I disagree. just looking at his first point, re the phrase "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer..." the words modified to avoid are clearly leading the reader to assume that the action was both intentional and evasive (and thereby suspect). you can see it clearly in this equivalent phrase: "that's pretty much what John did at the bar last night, modified to avoid a fight with his wife." does that make you want to respect John, or smack him upside the head?  :-) Your disagreement is uninformed. The ID assertion is merely the conclusionary assertion in the "traditional teleological argument" with 'designer' substituted for God. The anti-evolution arguments (IC, CSI, FTU) are more sciency-worded rewrites of the original body of the argument. That they are tactically avoiding naming the designer is well documented (e.g. here, here and here). The words are clearly simply summarising well-documented evidence -- including admissions from the 'father of ID' himself. HrafnTalkStalk 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Hrafn, your response misses the point completely. I am not arguing about what the ID people did; I'm arguing that the phrasing used is biased. saying "ID is the TTA without reference to the existence of God" is factual and neutral. saying "ID is the TTA modified to avoid reference to the existence of God" implies a political agenda. this is fine (assuming you have proper sourcing) if you are talking about the political 'movement', but clearly biased if you are talking about ID as a theory. again, we're back to that distinction you simply refuse to make. --Ludwigs2 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Dave: I'm all for the use of policy and guidelines. I just don't like seeing them used as tools to forestall conversation. if you have a particular point in LuckyLavs' comments that violates particular aspects of policy, then please make appropriate comments to that effect, with clear quotes from the policies in question. However, you are currently using policy the way you would use a rolled up newspaper to smack a dog on the nose, and that is not proper. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Ludwigs2, please assume good faith. LuckyLavs' comments have to be related to policy and founded on verifiable reliable sources if they are to make any headway. The sentence you're picking up on is based on sources 4 and 5 in the article, if you'd like to propose altenative wording that equally matches these sources or find an altenative reliable secondary source supporting a change of wording, that will be helpful. . dave souza, talk 21:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Ludwig: I don't think the policies and guidelines were used to forestall conversation but rather to promote intelligent conversation that is within WP's well-established paradigm. If one does not fully understand NPOV, how can one argue whether an article meets the NPOV criteria? Editors and users need to understand that "neutral" does not necessarily equate to a 50:50 split, especially on pseudoscience and fringe topics/views. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Ludgwigs2, I think you have to recognise that ID was constructed as part of the Wedge Strategy, and thus that failing to describe it as a reformulation of creationist teleology constructed primarily as a legal strategy for putting creationist ideas into schools would be very wrong. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Dave: I always assume good faith, believe it not. I would ask you to do the same. your assumption that LuckyLav was not already aware of those policies is completely unfounded by the content of his post, and your blanket, unfocussed, undifferentiated barrage of links was clearly not intended as a strategy for explaining things. If you think that LuckyLav violated policy in some particular way, then it is your responsibility to say specifically what you mean, not his responsibility to dig through the seven different policies that you threw at him to try to figure out what you're talking about. frankly, if you can't spell out how a policy applies in a given case, then you have absolutely no grounds for saying someone has violated it. Jim62sch: I found LuckyLav's comments to be well-stated and intelligent. I'm not sure what you feel you need to 'promote' here, if not that. and I will point out that just because someone disagrees with you about what NPOV means, that doesn't mean they don't understand the term. ANLAT: pardon the abbreviation... I'm well aware that ID was a Machiavellian construct designed more as a piece of political subterfuge than as an actual scientific theory. That still is not grounds for failing to examine it in its own terms. as I keep saying, you can write an article about the political aspect of the movement, or you can write an article about the theory, but if you try to do both at once you're going to end up doing a disservice to one or the other - which is what has happened in this article. --Ludwigs2 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Ludwig, my assumption that LuckyLav was not already aware of those policies was based both on the content of his post, making assertions without any reference to verification from sources, and from the fact that this post is the only edit LuckyLav has made to Wikipedia. I therefore welcomed LuckyLav with a reference to policies to aid his/her education, and pointed to the necessary preconditions for the changes proposed. If you found LuckyLav's comments to be well-stated and intelligent, perhaps you could favour us with detailed proposals based on these comments to improve the article, complete with verification from reliable sources without the "original research" that's all that's been presented so far, and with due care taken to comply with NPOV policies. This would help to dispel the unfortunate impression that you're trolling. While I'm sure that you mean well, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, per WP:TALK. . dave souza, talk 09:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ok, I'll take that under advisement and see what I can do. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) "Teleological argument" is not a false statement. It is backed up by references. It has been used and carefully worded after quite a lot of consensus discussion. The use of words such as "modern form" and "modified" allow for ID not being identical to previous forms of the argument. Namely the supernatural component has been expanded to allow for arguably non-supernatural alien entities. In my view any hypothetical life form more advanced than us still falls under "supernatural" as it is outside our currently verified limits of natural. Secondly the unequivocable reception of ID as pseudoscience is a perfectly valid, and supported statement. This statement is also the result of a lengthy consensus process. It accurately characterises scientific view of ID. It does not say that ID is pseudoscience, merely that is how the scientific community resoundingly perceives it. Thirdly the opinions of leading proponents regarding the identity of the designer are important as well. This statement is verifiable and accurate. The identity of the designer is obviously important in a designer-centric idealogy. It is also a key component of the surrounding controversey. It makes no judgement on what the impact of the proponent's view have on the validity of their basic assertion. It is actually quite neutrally worded. The overall controversial nature of this issue makes it difficult present an acurate portrayal of events without allowing intelligent and discerning readers to make conclusions about ID. ID is internally inconsistent, deceptive, duplicitious and absolutely overflowing with ignorance. Wikipedia has no control over this and is only capable of reporting facts. It does not censor itself about subject matter that will expose its own failings.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) One has to intellectually torture himself to arrive at the conclusion that this article is written from a neutral point of view. By the second sentence of the article, sources that are openly hostile to intelligent design are allowed to supplant the definition of intelligent design provided by the very people who advanced it. This is tantamount to allowing a creationist to give us the "true" definition of evolution, ignoring what Darwin actually had to say about the matter. Not surprisingly, the new definition we are given is substantially easier to attack than the definition originally presented. In logic, this is known as the "straw man" fallacy -- distorting a proposition and then attacking the distortion, instead of dealing with the proposition head-on. If you are really interested in attaining neutrality, however, you would never let an opponent of a proposition redefine the proposition for you. Various people have stated that I have not provided a source which supports the premise that intelligent design does not depend on Creationism, divine entities, or the supernatural. This inference, however, may be readily drawn by the definition already presented and sourced. The term actually provided in the definition is "intelligent cause." You can't just wave your hands and pretend that it reads "supernatural entity", "divinity," or "god" because you don't like the proposition and would rather have it read in a different way. An "intelligent cause" is exactly what it sounds like, i.e. there is intelligence, but it does not necessarily require divine powers or supernatural phenomena. To illustrate, if humans could one day create a computer capable of rational thought, and the computer became aware of its own RAM, processors, and data buses, it could one day infer from its own inner workings that it had been intelligently assembled. However, the humans who created it could not be fairly said to be "divine," "supernatural," or "gods," for they are subject to the same rules of nature as everything else. But don't take my word for it. The people attributed to advancing intelligent design have stated this premise ad nauseum, in fact, this can even be found in the same sources cited in this article used to support the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Kitzmiller at 35. So there is internal inconsistency with the definition, as proponents say ID means A, opponents say ID means B. The real question then becomes... if your goal is to present a proposition from a "neutral point of view" - wouldn't it be better to take the definition of the proposition from the person who actually advanced it than from some other person? For example, if you were to present Faraday's law in a Wikipedia article... wouldn't Faraday be the best authority to ask on the subject? I don't suppose that Faraday's postman or his gardener would be able to give it to you any better, so I would be very reticent to rely on these sources, let alone allow them to supplant what Faraday has already told us. But I would be even more reticent to take the definition from a person or organization who may have a vested interest in preserving a theory that ostensibly competes with Faraday's law. And when I say vested interest... please recognize that there are many scientists who have devoted substantial portions of their lives to researching, investigating, and exploring various facets of the big bang theory. They receive research grants for these projects -- to them, the big bang is their very livelihood. We should therefore expect ID to provoke a fair amount of hostility from the scientific community. However, we should also be smart enough to know that bald assertions, conclusory statements, labeling, name calling, ad-hominem attacks, etc. have no place in an encyclopedia article. This subverts the intellectual process, for it denies the reader the opportunity to understand the idea and evaluate it on his own terms. We should also be smart enough to know that the rules of logic are not suspendable by consensus or popular vote. If someone presents an idea as X, the idea doesn't change to Y because certain people would rather deal with Y. To those of you who robotically cite one Wikipedia rule after the next, routinely faulting people with legitimate concerns about the neutrality of the piece for failing to become familiar with the policies outlined in the "Please Read Before Starting" section -- it may very well be that all of us who have read this article "coincidentally" ignore these policies and wind up committing the same faux pas anyway. Another possibility, however, is that a select group of people are using the rules as a justification to prevent any changes to the article which they do not personally agree with. Don't you find it quite telling, for example, that a "Please Read Before Starting" section is even included with this article? Apparently, NPOV has been used so frequently to squelch undesirable positions that someone felt that a sign-post should be erected for future convenience. I happen to be a scientist by trade, but I do not have a pony in the ID / big bang contest. However, I do think the proposition has been bastardized here... Whether you call this particular proposition "science" or "pseudoscience," a "theory" or merely "junk science" -- these issues really deal with semantics and ignore the actual idea. This notion that ideas should be compartmentalized, labeled, and summarily dismissed or accepted based upon the label assigned or the group that assigned them does not further science, but more importantly, it does not assist a person desiring to understand the idea from an encyclopedia article. The core idea is essentially that if we are looking at a certain system at time t, can we infer anything about the origins of the system based only upon our observations at time t and later? This is simply an inductive proposition, similar to how one might infer an explosion, or "big bang" based upon estimated velocities of stars taken now. We cannot say with 100% certainty that there was such explosion, as no one was there to witness or record it; however, based on our observations of the trajectories of the stars now, that the universe is apparently expanding, from these observations--we might predict there was such an explosion. In the same vein, based upon perceived complexity of a human being (i.e. that each human contains a network of interworking systems: i.e. a reproductive system, a nervous system, a digestive system, an immune system, memory, means for balance and coordination, cognitive processing, etc.) can one infer some form of intelligent assembly? Evolution is not in itself a counter-argument to intelligent design , because it could be possible that a "means for evolving" was part of the original assembly. I've said enough about neutrality. By this point, you will either have taken my points, or instead, you will be frothing at the mouth ready to pull the rule-book trick again. If you are in the latter category, I would only request that before you respond and start throwing around consensus, how everyone in the scientific community agrees that ID proponents are morons, the various awards the article has received for its high standards of excellence, etc... please first take up my challenge. Present this article to random people in your neighborhood. Non-scientists, non-religious types, people on the fence, or people who have no stake in ID at all. Ask them if they think this article was written from a neutral point of view. I guarantee you that even a high school class would be able to recognize that this article was not written from a neutral point of view. And they could make this determination without even really understanding the ideas presented herein. LuckyLavs (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Random people in your neighbourhood probably don't have a clear grip on what "NPOV" actually is. NPOV is not neutral in the sense of mainstream media or what joe everyman might be led it means. NPOV allows introduction of controversial and judgemental material as long as it is used correctly. This means attributing sources, accurately portraying sources and ensuring use of reliable and verifiable sources. This article does this tremendously well. NPOV doesn't mean a they say-they say approach, balancing material, or avoiding sensitive points.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC) ZayZayEm - I think you missed the meat of LuckyLavs post, which I'll reproduce here: "This notion that ideas should be compartmentalized, labeled, and summarily dismissed or accepted based upon the label assigned or the group that assigned them does not further science, but more importantly, it does not assist a person desiring to understand the idea from an encyclopedia article." I heartily agree with this point. When someone comes to a page like Intelligent Design, they would expect - and ought to be allowed - to develop a decent idea of what intelligent design is and says before they are confronted with the criticism of it. no implication here that the criticism isn't important, but this article (as it stands) starts the critical analysis of ID in line 2 of the lead (maybe line 1...), and doesn't get back to any non-critical assessment or analysis of ID until (depending on how you read it) paragraph 3 of the lead, or paragraph 3 of the overview. and from then on it's spotty. I mean really - this is kind of like starting the article on Islam with the phrase "Islam is best noted in the west for its relationship to terrorism..." random people may not have any idea of what NPOV is, true, but my friend's four-year-old understands when something isn't fair, even if he can't quite put that understanding into words. we can sit here and argue NPOV, NPOV, NPOV, until the cows come home, but what really matters here is what all those people (those who would never think of editing Wikipedia, and who don't even know about talk pages) think when they wander by and look at this page. do you think that they think this article is fair? --Ludwigs2 04:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Just passing through to offer my 2¢: Ludwigs2 and LuckyLavs are plainly right about the bias in the writing here (and FWIW, I'm no fan of ID). The fact that a perspective is widely held and well documented (in this case, that ID is a religiously and politically driven movement that masquerades as a scientific theory to advance that movement's ideology) does not mean that Wikipedia articles should be wriiten from that perspective. As I understand it, the premise of the NPOV policy is that the articles should fairly represent the issues at hand (including making it clear when an idea is broadly rejected by established authorities in the relevant discipline), but the writing should not advocate for one position over another. The intro of the article as it currently stands insists on dismissing ID as old-fashioned creationism while omitting any summary of the ID-ists claims for what they do. It fails both the NPOV standard and basic standards of good writing. Even the most ardent anti-ID advocates, such as Barbara Forrest or Eugenie Scott, allow the ID position more of a platform before they dismantle it, and they are writing explicitly partisan arguments that would surely fail the NPOV test. I would venture that NPOV means that both the ID-ists and the anti-ID-ists should see their perpesctives fairly represented in the article. I don't believe that is the case now. BTfromLA (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I feel that ID is wrong in every regard, and really enjoyed Pennock's book critiquing it. But I have to admit, the first time I looked at this article a few months ago, I was shocked at how one-sided it was. And then shocked again to find out that it's a featured article. When I came here it was with the thought it mind that I wanted to see a clear statement of what iwhat proponents think the theory is, and what they believe supports it. I stopped reading before I'd finished the lead, and left in disappointment. TimidGuy (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) If you can work out a clear and concise statement of what proponents think the "theory" is, fully referenced to a reliable source like Pennock, Forrest or Scott, please put it forward as a proposal on this page, preferably in a new section. These authors are reasonably representative of the overwhelming majority expert opinion, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" means that we don't present ID claims as having equal merit. Be aware that leading ID proponents, such as Johnson, don't think they've got a "worked out theory". They seem to throw a rag-bag of creationist claims about in the hope that one will stick, or simply make anti-evolution claims without bothering to have a positive hypothesis, but perhaps a short and clear statement can be found. . . dave souza, talk 22:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

reopening the debate on ID as a theory

Closed No WP:RS specific to the topic of ID presented, suggested changes violate WP:NOR.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ok, I'm particularly busy today, so I'm going to put this down and come back to it over the weekend. that will give everyone here a chance to chew over it and come up with responses. the main reference for what I'm writing is Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (ISBN: 978-0-226-45808). as I get a chance over the weekend, I will supplement this with one of the articles that gives a summary of this work (mostly so that I don't have to dig out my copy and dig through the text looking for page numbers). sorry, Kuhn is heavily cited (he is one of the major voices in the philosophy of science), and digging through the mass of texts that use him is too much for today. anyone who doubts the veracity of this, however, can begin reading the original text if they don't want to wait for the supplementary articles. it's written in a fairly non-academic style, and it's interesting, so it should go quickly. for our purposes, the important parts of Kuhn's theory (often called instrumentalism) are as follows: Normal science the kind of thing that we normally refer to as plain old 'Science' Kuhn refers to as normal (or sometimes paradigmatic) science, and is distinct from revolutionary or pre-paradigmatic science. The term 'paradigmatic' is used to mean that scientists practicing normal science are merely taking a variety of methodological exemplars (or paradigms) that are accepted in their field, and applying them to different subjects for the purpose of publishing papers, establishing a reputation, getting tenure, grants, or other rewards that will advance their social status in the field. for example, some new piece of technology might be used to measure a certain kind of phenomenon - once that technology is accepted by the community, other researchers will take it and try to apply it to different situations, hoping to leverage some type of reputational advantage in their discipline. this has several ramifications that Kuhn points out: normal science is first and foremost a social activity of scientists; the preservation of exemplars is more important to most scientists (because their reputations depend on it) than the nature of their results. there is no such thing as a unified, cohesive 'scientific methodology.' Scientists are simply pursuing practical (not necessarily scientific) ends using the analytic means that have been accepted by their communities. any effort at expressing a 'scientific methodology' in the abstract can only be an after-the-fact, synthetic attempt at rationalizing the given behavior of scientists as though it had a systematic basis (which, for Kuhn, it doesn't). people engaged in normal science actively avoid or dismiss evidence or theories that conflict with their methodological exemplars (Kuhn calls these anomalies). again, it's bad for one's social reputation as a scientist to run into something that can't be explained by one's preferred methods. pre-paradigmatic and revolutionary science these are similar concepts - revolutionary science begins when some anomaly or anomalies in normal science reach a state where they can no longer be (or at least no longer are) ignored, and this throws the standard exemplars in the field into a methodological tail-spin. Pre-paradigmatic science is the state prior to the initial establishment of a dominant paradigm, where various, more-or-less flakey theories compete. in either case, the competition is at heart a social/political struggle - a new dominant paradigm emerges when one camp or another gathers a sufficient hegemony in the academy to control the allocation of research funds, personnel hiring, and the like. Kuhn (in his day) pointed to psychology as an example of a pre-paradigmatic field, since there were any number of psychological theories arguing past each other, none of which had sufficient power to create a "consensus" about what was 'psychology'. I will point out that Kuhn later backed off from the radically social view of science. if you read the appendices starting with the second edition, I think, there's a debate Kuhn has with a detractor where Kuhn ends up admitting that there is some degree of forward progression in science, and not just a purely socially determined exchange of paradigms. but that's not relevant to the points I'm making here. so... I'm suggesting to you that the dismissal of ID as a theory can't stand on wikipedia, for the following reasons. asserting that ID is not a scientific theory implies that there is a unified, cohesive 'thing' called scientific methodology which ID fails to measure up to. that violates wp:NPOV because it does not take into account one of the major perspectives in the philosophy of science, which denies that a unified scientific methodology of this sort exists. Kuhn would clearly place ID (and all fringe theories, for that matter) into the category of theories that recognize an anomaly in the practice of normal science, and are trying to present themselves as revolutionary competitive theories (for ID, incidentally, the anomaly they notice would be complexity of existence or some-such, per the teleological argument). the fact that ID is a purely political machiavellian stratagem wouldn't phase Kuhn for an instant, since in his view the vast majority of scientific action is purely political machiavellian stratagems. for him, that's just the way science works. therefore, trying to call ID unscientific or non-theoretical again violates wp:NPOV, for the same reasons as above. this is actually kind of fun. when I get a chance, I'm going to pull out my notes on Dewey, Feyerabend, and Lacan, all of whom, I think, have a place in this discussion. maybe a few others as well, particularly from the post-modernist critiques of science. in the meantime, please feel free to comment. --Ludwigs2 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1 doesn't hold - as an uberparadigm, science is something that ID fails to adhere to.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2 - wasn't a deficit in science but to support a noscientific paradigm i.e. religion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Ludwigs2, do please take care to comply fully with WP:NOR, and ensure that you have a reliable secondary source that specifically relates thes speculative ideas to ID. .. dave souza, talk 23:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I was originally going to simply archive this as it adds no legitimate new perspectives. Then I decided that at this point it probably is "child's play for [me] to explain to [him] where I've gone wrong in [his] reasoning" -- mainly because he has forced me to waste time revisiting these arguments. Kuhn does not say that ID is a theory. In order to infer this statement from his work one would first have to demonstrate: There is a scientific consensus that there are "some [major] anomaly or anomalies" in evolution that would necessitate a major rethink of the of how we explained it. This is not the case. That ID is a legitimate alternative. This is also not the case. ID provides no positive theory -- it is thus no more legitimate an alternative explanation than "leprechauns/fairies/the Invisible Pink Unicorn did it". Its lack of legitimacy is part of why the "not evolution, so ID" argument is called a "false dichotomy". In any case, even if the above could be established, this inference would still be WP:SYNTH and impermissible on wikipedia. This is why, per WP:PROVEIT & WP:NOR, I have demanded a WP:RS (sufficient to meet WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, given the contravailing evidence) that states that "ID is a theory" before discussion of changes to the article, on the basis that ID is a theory, can be countenanced. Lacking such a source, I will quickly proceed to re-archive this thread. HrafnTalkStalk 06:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I agree that User:Ludwigs2's proposals stray far over into original research. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Hrafn: thank you for not archiving an ongoing discussion, and for taking the time to respond to me with a degree of consideration for my position. I appreciate that. however, you (and dave) have missed the thread of my argument. let me comment on your points briefly, and then state my argument in a more succinct form that should be easier to evaluate. re your point 1: of course Kuhn doesn't talk about ID - ID (the movement) was invented long after his heyday. re your point 2: I am not making any inferences here. in fact, my main argument is that inferences are being made by a cohort of editors here, very likely unintentionally; all I am trying to do is address that error and remove the flawed inference. the argument I am making, put as simply as I can at the moment, is this: editors here have made a positive claim to the effect that 'ID cannot be considered a scientific theory,' on the grounds that it does not meet some basic criteria of scientific methodology. this claim (assuming good faith on the part of the editors involved) is based on reliably sourced research in the philosophy of science, or on reliably sourced opinions of scientists who can be assumed to have an understanding of the philosophy of science. if this point is not true, then the editorial claim against ID conflicts with WP:OR, and therefore cannot be used. I have shown (above) that there are prominent, reliably sourced authors in the philosophy of science who dispute that a meaningful definition of scientific methodology exists, or that any effective criteria of inclusion or exclusion can be made. therefore, the claim 'ID is not a valid scientific theory' goes against policy, because either: it violates WP:NPOV (where it says "...representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources..." - emphasis mine) since it privileges one particular perspective on science, or... it constitutes original research or synthesis to the extent that is asserts a resolution to a question that is still contested by experts in the field. I will reiterate two points for emphasis. I am not asserting that ID is a valid scientific theory; I am questioning the prevailing assertion that it is not a valid scientific theory. hopefully you can see that distinction, so that the discussion doesn't get sidetracked by any further by efforts to refute claims I'm not making. I have no particular ideological stance here, and dislike being treated as though I do. this is merely a question of proper reasoning for me, and I'd prefer to resolve it on that level. acceptable? --Ludwigs2 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Some brief thoughts. This issue isn't what editors say here, it's what it is that is reported in the article. As far as I can see, the article reports on notable opinions. Arguing about Kuhn's definition of science is beyond the scope of what we are supposed to do here. We have reliable sources that describe ID as non-science. We also have some additional material regarding what science is, but that's just background for our readers. We aren't drawing conclusions based on ancillary material. The way that is presented is an entirely separate issue. If you want to suggest ways to improve that, please do. But that's entirely aside from reporting the facts, per NPOV. Saying "I disagree with the sources based on my reading of Kuhn" is unacceptable, per Wikipedia policy. Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Guettarda - actually the assertion that ID is not a scientific theory is a talk page argument, not a article content argument. see this and this from the archives, as well as the archived discussion I was involved in above. now while I would normally assume that talk page and article content arguments would be handled by different rules, in this case the talk page arguments have become a major determining factor in article content, so I'm not sure we can actually make this distinction. whether we like it or not, this 'ID is not a scientific theory' assertion is deeply embedded in article content, and whatever biases it represents are implicitly biases that the article shares. for an apt (if unfair) comparison, I know a guy who belongs to this private club that styles itself as highly egalitarian; they have membership rights for women and minorities written straight into their charter. however, you can only get membership through referral from other members, and for some reason no one ever refers women or minorities... the bias is built into the assumptions, even though the surface is clean as a whistle. and no, I never got a referral either. liberal as they are, it seems they draw the line at letting in college professors.  ;-) --Ludwigs2 23:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Ludwig, please actually engage in positive debate. "[ID is not a scientific theory]" is accurately referenced and sourced, to numerous and independent sources, throughout the article. While many editors certainly agree assessment from sources like the NCSE, AAAS, NSTA, Supreme Court etc. it is certainly not mentioned in the article solely on the opinions editors. Indeed in the lead you will find this correctly attributed statement: "Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory". Your answer has been provided. Please do not continue with self-victimisation and ignoring points that have been presented to you. It is no longer constructive criticism.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I can understand why the word "theory" is not applied to ID. While it may seem that way to a layman, "theory" is a term of art that clearly does not apply to ID.--Stetsonharry (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC) ZayZayEm - you might want to read my argument again, because you've failed to address it entirely. in fact, you'll note that your entire post (except for the ad-hominem at the end) is covered by my point 2. there are two more points after that to read... --Ludwigs2 04:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Stetsonharry - while I understand that that's a common opinion, it's not one that's borne out in the philosophy of science. --Ludwigs2 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to Talk Page

Closed. WP:TALK and WP:NOT already deal with this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Discussion is defined as "consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate." In a majoritarian sense, and in light of NPOV: Giving "equal validity", this IS a neutral article. It might not be considered so elsewhere, but it is on Wikipedia. (The records are voluminous.) The community has decided that the majority of editors are not "taking a stand" concerning ID, but "describing majority views" and "fairly explaining strong arguments" concerning ID. That may be unpalatable for the minority, but Assume good faith requires it. The Discussion has been over for a long time! This article's neutrality is not "open" for consideration. This is not due to moral flaws of the participants (nor due to this article's intrinsic perfection), but because the community has made its decision. My recommendation would be to hang a statement similar to this at the top of the Talk page -- it presents a more forthright tone than some of the more easily ignored notices that currently reside there. That does not change the fact that this page has, heretofore, been rancorous, surly and terse (sounds like a law firm); but it might cut down on problems in the future AND save multitudes a lot of time. Championdante (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC) just as a general principle, trying to use authority to curtail conversation generally leads to more rancor, not less. and I will say that while a This article's neutrality is not open for consideration tag would certainly amuse me to no end, I doubt it would have any real effect, except to convince people more that someone is trying to exercise page-ownership here. you may call me naïve, innocent, foolish, idealistic, or whatever other term you like (believe me, I've heard them all), but I seriously believe that an effective balance can always be achieved through discussion. when I see a page like this where there is a lot of angry tension, what that tells me is that is that a good number of people are sore because they feel they haven't been heard, and a whole lot of others are unwilling to listen because they're sore over having to argue for everything. that's not a healthy state, and it can't possibly represent balanced, consensual neutrality. I'm not suggesting that you'll ever reach a state here where everyone wants to go run though a field of flowers together, singing old seventies songs, but I do think it can reach a state of grudging acceptance. --Ludwigs2 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC) In my opinion a good number of people are sore because they don't understand Wikipedia's core policies, and don't want to understand these policies. It's not easy to get to grips with these policies, but they're well thought out and well tested. It surprises me that you've been editing as long as you have without appearing to understand verifiability and no original research, if you try to follow the advice you've been given I'm hopeful that you can propose worthwhile improvements to the article. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I can certainly see the appeal of Championdante's suggestion, however my personal experience suggests that it would probably not have the hoped-for outcome. As dave souza alludes, at least part of the problem is with new editors who don't properly grasp core policy and how it applies - exactly the kind of person who will ignore the warning and thrash around on the talkpage, forcing regular editors to cover old ground for the "nth+1" time. I still haven't seen a really effective working solution for this situation, and it is a very common theme at certain articles... Doc Tropics 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Dave, Doc - I can only speak for myself, as a reasonably bright, well-intentioned editor with a decent grasp of Wikipedia policies (in principle, at least, though no doubt there are a lot of nuances hidden in the details that I am unaware of). let me tell you what I see when I approach this page: in the article itself, there is a palpable tension, and such a thorough merging of theory and politics that the two have become indistinguishable. and yes, I understand why that merging is there, but I happen to disagree with it. the whole thing feels like a heavily defended point of view (I'll leave the facticity of that as an open question, to be fair, but it sure feels that way) in the talk page, there is an incredible mass of only partly structured archives. even the FAQ (Points that have already been discussed) section, while at least somewhat structured, is still basically just a mess of previous arguments there might be a useful solution to this point actually - if someone familiar with the debate could take the time to extract out the main points and make a nice condensed list of the arguments that have been raised and how they have been resolved, that would make it much easier for people like me to acclimate. conversation here is elliptical, almost cryptic - probably, yes, because you've all been over this ground umpteen times, and so one word brings up 500 lines of discussion for you, but that makes it difficult for me. for instance, when I get a comment like no, please read wp:NPOV, well honestly, I have read wp:NPOV, but that leaves me no closer to understanding what your no comment means. everyone else here might understand, but I don't. maybe I'm just a little more tolerant of the 'umpteenth time' thing than most (I teach college, and so every class I get a new batch of fresh faces asking the old batch of stale questions; I'm used to it), but it would be nice to get a little more direction than a blanket go look at this. I mean, here I am thinking I have valid concerns about the article, and finding myself running a gauntlet just trying to express them - it's frustrating. I happen to be stubborn, and I'm willing and able to hold my own to get my point across, but I can just imagine how it looks to people who take an interest in this topic but who don't have my well-developed billy-goat nature. really, all I'm asking here is that even if you find people annoying (which is perfectly understandable in my case - lol), at least take the effort to give then the time of day. --Ludwigs2 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Running a gauntlet -- what an accurate description. I must clarify a previous entry: my characterization of this article as neutral is more a bow to the absurd than a rousing endorsement -- it is neutral because the community, with its own quaint ways, has made that determination. Championdante (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I think this talk page has more than enough headers already. These headers contain enough material that coincides with the spirit, if not the exact wording of your proposal. I agree with other editors that such a proposed header will probably incite more trolling and unconstructive discussion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC) There are plenty of places to express views as it is. I did notice that one discussion was archived a bit fast.--Stetsonharry (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Start with a Definition of ID, not with Casey Luskin's Opinion

Closed. The WP:RS used are the most notable sources. Claims that that are not are not well-founded
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The first sentence of Wikipedia's "intelligent design" page begins with Mr. Casey Luskin's assertion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things". However, that assertion is not currently attributed to Mr. Luskin. The first sentence of Wikipedia's "intelligent design" page should read, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact" [this definition is found in Of Pandas and People; include citation]. This definition of intelligent design can be followed by Mr. Luskin's assertion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation, and that assertion should be attributed to Mr. Luskin. Casey Luskin has compared intelligent design to the theory of evolution and has concluded 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." He refers to his conclusion as "the scientific theory of intelligent design" (see page 4 of The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454 ). Mr. Luskin asserts that intelligent design is a scientific theory and that it may be taught as such in science classes at public schools (see "Intelligent Design could slip into science class," by Marc Caputo, http://www.miamiherald.com/458/story/454417.html ). However, in 2005, Federal Court Judge John E. Jones III held that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and it cannot be taught as such. Scott610 (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Please follow sources in the article before making judgement. The sentance is correctly attributing to primary DI resources. Such as CSC FAQ. That Casey Luskin, a program officer within the DI, should use similar or identical wording (or vice versa, the DI use identical wording to Luskin) is hardly a surprise. This wording is not necessarily original nor sole propriety of Luskin. Using the DI version in the first sentance has also been the result of several serious discussions regarding consensus on how to accurately and appropriately explain the nature of ID.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Dear ZayZayEM: The video that you referenced in your response (above) is a video of Mr. Casey Luskin stating his opinion. Please note that Mr. Luskin is not attributing the "best" in his statement to some other person. That "best" is coming out of his mouth; it's his opinion. Furthermore, Mr. Luskin repeats that opinion in "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", which he signs "Sincerely, Casey Luskin" [along with his co-author, John West]. If you are going to continue publishing "Intelligent design is the assertion that..." then the person or persons who are making that assertion should be identified and it should be made clear that the "best" in that assertion is the opinion of a particular person. The opinion that ID is the "best" explanation should not be presented anonymously, especially when we have heard that opinion come out of the author's mouth. Please note that Discovery Institute is a legal fiction (a corporation). Discovery Institute cannot assert that ID is the "best" explanation. It's directors, officers, and employees can offer such an opinion but Discovery Institute cannot! The directors of Discovery Institute might adopt a resolution declaring that ID is the "best" explanation but I doubt that the institute's Board of Directors has done so. Scott610 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC) The discovery institute asserts it on their website. Since it is not attributed to any individual, the statement is properly attributed to them as an organization, not to any individual within the organization. And if you don't like that, I suggest you write to them and have them modify their website. But until and unless that occurs, this article will remain as is. Raul654 (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I make no mention of any video. Nor do I need to. Courtesy will not get you anywhere if you continue with rabid nonsense.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

current requests for comment

Talk participants should be aware that a Request for comment Project is going on right now.
Championdante (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

<comment moved from middle of ensuing discussion>

• I do not think it serves to help an already convoluted RFC to discuss it in this pages. Please leave discussion of the RFC on Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design. Thank you user Championdante for alerting project users of the RFC.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed definitions

Re-closed. Definitions in the article are taken from most notable of the WP:RS sources available. Claims that that are not are not well-founded
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Championdante: You endorsed the "View" that I posted on the ID "Request for Comments" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design . I recommended that the definition of ID "be separated from the opinions of ID proponents and opponents." In the following paragraph, which I wrote as a possible replacement for the first paragraph of Wikipedia's intelligent design page, I have attempted to put my recommendation into practice. What do you think of my effort? How would you improve that first effort? Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC) "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."[insert footnote referencing this quote in Of Pandas and People] Proponents of intelligent design assert 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."[insert hyperlink to video of Casey Luskin making this assertion] They further assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory.[insert reference to page 4 of "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454] However, in 2005, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and cannot be taught as a scientific theory in science classes at public schools. "Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God...[continue the rest of this paragraph as it is currently written] Scott610 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC) The problem is that this gives undue weight to the extreme minority expert view that ID is science, and current ID has changed considerably from the Pandas definition which they no longer use. Text references are better than a video of Casey, no matter how photogenic he is. It loses the careful balance that the current lead displays. . dave souza, talk 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Dear Mr. Souza: Several years ago, I exchanged a number of e-mail messages with Casey Luskin. He reluctantly admitted that his "...certain features of the universe and of living things..." is not a definition of ID but is instead a "description" of ID (a description that I now know contains his own opinion). You are correct that the proponents of ID "no longer use" the Pandas definition of ID, but their conclusion that ID is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things" is based on that Pandas definition. They use "inference to the best explanation" to compare ID (as defined in Pandas) to the theory of evolution and then they conclude that ID is the "best" explanation. The Pandas definition is thus embedded in their conclusion. And then they assert that their conclusion constitutes a scientific theory, and, frankly, that's hogwash! What has changed is that Casey Luskin is now publicly putting his voice and his name behind the assertion that ID is the "best" explanation. That "best" should now be attributed to him. His "best" should not be used to hide the fact that the Pandas definition of ID is the foundation of the so-called theory of intelligent design. Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I'm sympathetic to that particular issue of the Pandas definition, but "birds with feathers, fish with fins" is wholly incompatible with Behe's form of ID, which is as near as it gets to credibility. Worth having a look at the Kitzmiller testimony, as I recall he was cross examined on it and disclaimed that definition. The rest of your proposed lead very much weakens the mainstream position and misses out significant points, as I read it. Unfortunately, don't have time just now to get into detail. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Dear Mr. Souza: I could not find Dr. Behe's definition of intelligent design but I think that it is interesting to note that Ben Stein has defined ID as a "hypothesis." See "a discussion between R.C. Sproul & Ben Stein about evolution, and the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=Expelled%3A+No+Intelligence&ei=-csSSNigCZDCqAP65aDFBA In summary, Mr. Stein asserts that ID is the hypothesis that an "all-powerful designer" created the ancestors of the forms of life that exist today, and that those ancestors were not significantly different from their currently living descendants. He embraces micro-evolution (changes in the average genetic characteristics of a population) while rejecting macro-evolution (changes that amount to the development of new species). Mr. Stein's "hypothesis" is not testable but at least he is NOT abusing us with the claim that his hypothesis is a scientific theory. His definition of ID might be added to the Wikipedia intelligent design page. His definition, which posits a creative "all-powerful designer," is more honest than the Pandas definition of ID, which seems to assert that a creator acted "through an intelligent agency." [What did the creator do? Call an employment agency that specializes in providing temporary workers who have an I.Q. of at least 145?  ;-) ] Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Discussing Scott610's proposed change to the lead, rather than the RfC ... I do not consider the proposal ("Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly...") is WP:NPOV, in that it presents ID's claim as though it were a fact. Would we accept a lead of Flat Earth that states "Flat Earth means that the surface of the Earth is flat (a plane)" (rather than the current "The idea of a flat Earth is..." -- my emphasis)? HrafnTalkStalk 05:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Ben Stein is an actor and scriptwriter for a movie claiming persecution of cdesign proponentsists, not an authoritative figure on the definition of ID. The definition the DI themselves choose to display is well sourced and undoubtedly their preferred "definition", wooly as it is. The Pandas definition isn't repeated in current literature or web pages from them, for good reason. Scott, you'll have noticed how much the Pandas definition was discussed at the Kitzmiller trial. We want to give the definition in use by the proponents, rather than expert third party opinion which is hostile and would add to the issues many editors already seem to have with this page failing to give the "equal validity" they expect, for good policy reasons. . dave souza, talk 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Hrafn - you are confusing fact in the sense of what's scientifically understood about the world with fact in the sense of what is true about the theory. intelligent design does mean something like what Scott610 suggests (if maybe not that exact wording), and the Flat Earth did mean that people thought the earth was flat like a pancake. that these theories are wrong with respect to our understanding of science is irrelevant; it is a fact that they do indeed say these things. I mean, does that fact that santa claus doesn't exist mean that little kids don't believe he exists? --Ludwigs2 05:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Ludwigs, I don't want to upset your beliefs, but Wikipedia is not here to keep alive the hopes of little children that yes dear, Santa Claus really does exist. . . dave souza, talk 07:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) "...means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact" is expressing this as a 'fact about the world', not a 'fact about an idea'. It is stating as fact that "various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact." HrafnTalkStalk 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) actually, Hrafn, it's an (incorrect) theory about the world, as well as a factual statement about the beliefs of certain ID proponents. I'm actually a bit taken aback here - you do realize that there can be social facts as well as physical facts, yes? oh, and Dave... I hereby officially endow you with the title WikiGrinch. I'll see if I can make a barnstar about it for you :-) --Ludwigs2 08:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Perhaps we can move on if you'll clarify what you mean by a "social fact". I think a bit of precision in that area would be particularly useful. Do you mean the same as NPOV means (last time I looked at it, quoting Jimmy Wales), "facts about opinions"? --Jenny 11:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC) you'd have to point me to the JW quote - it might be the same idea, but it's not on the WP:NPOV page that I can find. I was using 'social fact' more in the sociological sense. In a nutshell, that's a recognition that much of the human world is a cognitive (mental) construction, and so when you discuss the human world you need to discuss it in terms of social (i.e. cognitively constructed and communally accepted) facts rather than just physical facts. examples: (1) a clear case would be marriage. obviously, when two people get married there is no overt change in the physical environment which reflects or creates the act (no matrimonial gluon or interpersonal gravitational shift or anything like that). however, marriage is clearly a fact in society - people have been forced to do it, murdered for not doing it, punished for not respecting it, in droves. would you want to try to claim that marriage isn't a real fact because it has no physical representation in the material world? most everything can be seen this way, though: for instance (2) while gravity is a physical fact, the various theories of gravity are social facts. Newton's theory of gravity is a mental construct (social fact) designed to describe the functioning of the physical force, but in fact Newton's theory is everywhere and always slightly wrong; Einstein's theory is also a mental construct (social fact) designed to describe the functioning of the physical force. it's better than Newton's (particularly in extreme conditions) but even it has places where it falls apart. in ID's case you have a social fact that a group of people got together and made a particular set of claims, with particular arguments behind those claims. it's all well and good to say that the group had issues and that the claims weren't worth a darned thing, but the social fact of who they were and what they said deserves consideration in its own right. I mean, if it weren't such a political issue, this point would be obvious; no one, for instance, would bother to argue that we shouldn't have a frank discussion of the ancient greek belief that the sun was carried around the earth in a golden chariot (another social fact, that), even though it's pure poppycock from the perspective of modern science, right? so why should the social facts of the matter be precluded in this case? --Ludwigs2 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (undent) The problem is that ID is a Big tent idea, ranging from the fairly innocuous guy on the street version, to the slightly more implausible Michael J. Behe version, to the ranging anti-evolutionary tome of Stephen C. Meyer. There is no single definition so you have to get broad as possible with the current definition that represents years of consensus. JPotter (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC) This discussion does not appear to lead anywhere. I understand Ludwig you are advocating for a change in the page? I'm not sure what your previous argument is getting to. Do you mean to say that Scott's revised lead should be given consideration? Could you please stick on that point and argue that. Your point especially: but the social fact of who they were and what they said deserves consideration in its own right who/what/where please do not talk around the topic but directly state what you wish to include. Takk. .:DavuMaya:. 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC) DavuMaya - that was just an explanation to a concept that was requested. it has a definite bearing on this page (because of the physicalist slant that a lot of editors here take), but... if you would like a clear statement of what I would like to see (which I've made before, and had archived a couple of times), then I think a good part of the beginning of this page should be spent discussing ID as a social fact in its own right, without the critical perspectives that are strewn all over the place right now. as I've said before, people coming to this page will expect (and should be allowed) the develop a clear idea of what ID is and says, before we begin getting into the commentary about why it's a bad theory. --Ludwigs2 22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Dear Hrafn, et al: You are concerned that quoting the Pandas definition of ID would present "ID's claim as though it were a fact." In response to your concern, I propose the following definition of ID, as part of a revised "first paragraph": Intelligent design is the assertion "that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."[insert footnote referencing this quote in Of Pandas and People] Proponents of intelligent design have compared intelligent design to the theory of evolution and have concluded 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." They assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory.[insert reference to page 4 of "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454] However, in 2005, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and cannot be taught as a scientific theory in science classes at public schools. I believe that the "first paragraph" that I have proposed above has the following advantages: (1) It provides a definition of intelligent design that is labeled as an "assertion", thus addressing Hrafn's concern, (2) it documents the fact that the proponents of ID have compared ID to the theory of evolution and have concluded that ID is the "best" explanation, and (3) it addresses the status of ID -- is ID a scientific theory or not, and can it lawfully be taught in public schools. Please note that my proposed reference to page 4 of "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators" takes the reader to a page that is signed by John West and Casey Luskin, thereby identifying them as the proponents of ID who have concluded that ID is the "best" explanation. Their opinion that ID is the "best" explanation would be separated from the definition of ID, thus addressing my primary concern. After these points are covered, the philosophical nature of ID can be addressed in a following paragraph (e.g., ID "is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God..."). Scott610 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC) The problem isn't that usage of the Panda definition would present it as fact, the problem is that notable ID proponents do not operate under that definition. Michael J. Behe accepts common descent. Thanks, JPotter (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Scott610, you really need to get a better understanding Wikipedias core content policy, WP:NPOV. Please save yourself and us a lot of wasted time and frustration and get up to speed on Wikipedia's content policies first. Odd nature (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer"

Full quote of a ref I've just inserted into the lead:

Hoping to distance themselves from the intellectually marginal creation scientists and to avoid endless niggling over the meaning of the Mosaic story of creation, design theorists carefully avoided any mention of Genesis or God, although, as one of them confessed to some fellow Christians, referring to an intelligent designer was merely a "politically correct way to refer to God."

— The Creationists, pp379-380

Numbers previously refers to ID's historical basis in the teleological argument ("Although the intellectual roots of the design argument goes back centuries..." p373). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn, Numbers is an excellent source, noted for his sympathy to the creationist view. The specific issue is also well covered by reference 5 which quotes Kitzmiller – would it be worth moving ref. 5 up next to the Numbers reference? . . dave souza, talk 07:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:FeloniousMonk states that Intelligent design "is the product of hundreds of hours of debate. It enjoys a broad and long-standing consensus, standing more-or-less as-is since 2005." I'll accept that statement at face value. IF that is so, then I am gratified that the two "avoids" have finally been brought under scrutiny. User:Hrafn's wonderful footnote 3 -- (love and kisses from an admirer) is really all that's been required. Now that the first "avoid" has been supported with a neutral citation, can it be admitted that the second "avoid" is not neutral? Therefore:

I suggest that "The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science" be re-stated in neutral terms: "The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to conform with court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science." This may not be as juicy, as satisfying, as "avoid" is, but it is an accurate description of changes in practice that arise from changes in law. REMEMBER: silence is assent.
--Championdante (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Audio recording

I find this article to be fascinating and delightful to read -- and am considering giving it an audio recording. How often does it change and what sections are fairly "permanent"? If its still influx, I probably will wait until more Consensus is reached. .:DavuMaya:. 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

More consensus? This is a featured article, it doesn't change much. In fact it has been essentially as it is now for years. Odd nature (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'll start on it later. Btw, why is the lead photo a watch? .:DavuMaya:. 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ID = teleological argument = watchmaker argument . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please respect other people's time and patience

New arrivals to this article with challenges and proposals to this article's content need to make sure their objections or proposals are in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Those making objections and suggestions that do not should expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is *not* a form of rudeness, but meant to help (I'm referring to you Ludwig). To respect their own time and that of others they should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. Those who have been pointed to policy and yet continue to argue the same matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy can expect to not get the response they are looking for and have their discussions prematurely archived. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating. There's no Wikipedia policy that allows for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy and there is one against doing that, WP:DE, and it's better for all if things don't get to that point. Odd nature (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#inappropriate content hiding on Intelligent Design . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If not already done, the "discussions prematurely archived" guidline for this talk page should be clearly spelled out above in "Please read before starting." Also, instead of abruptly ending a discussion on this page, please consider providing clearer links on this talk page to existing ID subpages and creating new subpages to this talk page that allows others to express their views on "points that have already been discussed" (without bogging down this talk page). To further help things, I added a maintained template to help new arrivals get answers that otherwise may require long term experience with the article and/or talk page. Bebestbe (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd nature - I have the full intention of respecting people's time and patience, and the full expectation that people will respect my edits in turn. and as I have said before, if you think that I am making inappropriate points with respect to policy, then please point out which specific comments of mine have violated which specific aspects of policy. this generic pointing-at-the-moon-then-telling-me-to-be-quiet technique doesn't help either of us resolve the issue. --Ludwigs2 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Several people have already informed you much of your suggested content is in violation of WP:NOR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I read over the lead paragraphs. The lead paragraphs are full of inappropriate terms: "is the assertion", "modified to avoid", "developed by certain unnamed United States creationists," "to avoid", "that prohibit", "Its primary proponents", "Advocates of", "unequivocal consensus", "has stated that". Also, if intelligent design is claimed as a scientific theory, then it is only relevant if the scientific community determines that intelligent design is not scientific theory. The lead paragraph scientific community statement about ID not being science mixes apples and oranges and is POV. The scientific community statement in the lead paragraph needs to be replaced by referenced material stating that intelligent design is not scientific theory. Perhaps consider reviewing examples of how other encyclopedia's write about Intelligent design and use that to improve this article. Bebestbe (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is sourced. No "replacement" is necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bebestbe, please read the archives and the FAQ, links to which are found at the top of this page. You'll find that each of your objections has previously been discussed and resolved. Odd nature (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving of the Proposed Definitions section little more than 24 hours after it was posted was an unwise, capricious act. The first segment was addressed TO ME: archiving it before I've had a chance to read it and post a response is inexcusable -- another manifestation of ownership. (More at the RFC.) The pretense that it, as with similar archives, contained only "old news" has been WAY overused. Talk about "Please respect other people's time and patience" -- I spent several hours on a response, which I've had to re-work. Anyone would be hard-pressed to find support for such hastiness.
--Championdante (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It is SOP for maintaining article talk pages when discussions stray from content changes which are supported by policy. Windy, original research discussions at other controversial article talk pages are simply deleted outright, so please don't think you're are a victim of some unfairness. Odd nature, Hfran and the rest of the regulars have been very indulgent toward you and Ludwig2 in trying to help you work within policy. And frankly you both have been disruptive by continuing to make OR challenges despite their efforts at reform. Ludwig2 has already been warned, so Championdante I'm cautioning you now. You need to stop going on and on with your challenges to this article's content that ignore WP:NOR and stop reviving archived discussions. Such behavior is considered disruptive and can get you blocked from Wikipedia, see WP:DE. This discussion should be archived after Championdante has read it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

fresh (hopefully quick) start

alright, now that I have leave to speak openly here , let me take advantage of it without occupying too much time or space. I'm going to re-present two arguments here, ask for discussion, and see what can be made of them over the next two or three days. whether or not they are resolved, I will drop it at that point, and (if it proves necessary) continue the discussion over at the ID RFC page. I'd only ask two things from other editors

• that they do try to respond clearly and fairly to my points, to give me the best feedback possible
• that they use specific references to policy when needed (rather than vague please see WP:NPOV statements), so that I can either refute the usage or learn from it.

after that, editors may archive this (and other) section(s) as needed. hopefully this will satisfy all sides, at least marginally.

give me a few minutes to put the statements together, please. --Ludwigs2 23:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

argument 1

[ WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption userfied to User talk:Ludwigs2, per 'Notes to editors' and WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ] based on the introduction of theorists in scientific methodology, as given in the archived section Talk:Intelligent_design#reopening_the_debate_on_ID_as_a_theory above:

1. editors here have made a positive claim to the effect that 'ID cannot be considered a scientific theory,' on the grounds that it does not meet some basic criteria of scientific methodology.
2. this claim (assuming good faith on the part of the editors involved) is based on reliably sourced research in the philosophy of science, or on reliably sourced opinions of scientists who can be assumed to have an understanding of the philosophy of science.
   • if this point is not true, then the editorial claim against ID conflicts with WP:OR, and therefore cannot be used.
3. I have shown (above) that there are prominent, reliably sourced authors in the philosophy of science who dispute that a meaningful definition of scientific methodology exists, or that any effective criteria of inclusion or exclusion can be made.
4. therefore, the claim 'ID is not a valid scientific theory' goes against policy, because either:
   • it violates WP:NPOV (where it says "...representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources..." - emphasis mine) since it privileges one particular perspective on science, or...
   • it constitutes original research or synthesis to the extent that is asserts a resolution to a question that is still contested by experts in the field.

this argument, if accepted, would require a review of the current balance of sources in the article to address an over-sourcing of opposing views. --Ludwigs2 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors do not make the claim that 'ID cannot be considered a scientific theory', rather jurists and scientists as referenced in the article make this claim. Your argument is therefore flawed from the first paragraph. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. National Science Foundation, the Kitzmiller trial, and so on all say that ID cannot be considered a scientific theory. The article reports that. No synthesis involved. What more do you want? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the Discovery Institute's stance and policy on promoting ID is clearly spelled out for the reader and is balanced by citing the subsequent rulings. If you would please note specifically what tips the balance either way, it would be more clear than placing a blanket statement on the article. .:DavuMaya:. 00:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What should be explained is that we would need prominent, reliably sourced authors writing about intelligent design theory in particular to incorporate alternative views or discussion of the disputes over whether such scientific methodology exists. I see Thomas Kuhn was mentioned, but Kuhn didn't give opinion about Intelligent Design and using Kuhn as a source would be original research. One more notable source to perhaps look to would be Steve Fuller, an expert witness for the defense in Kitzmiller. As a expert witness, he would have furnished to the court a report on the topic-there maybe something there, or somewhere in his published works, that would more fully describe the alternative opinions over definitions about what is or isn't science and how it relates to intelligent design theory. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Johnson, Amatulić, DavuMaya - let me be perfectly clear:

• the editors here cite a number of scientists who make a claim - specifically, a claim in the philosophy of sciences - that ID cannot be considered a theory
  • this is a claim in the philosophy of science, because these scientists are not making the claim that ID is not a valid theory in their field, but rather that ID is not a scientific theory period
  • the opinions of jurists and the mass media are important, but irrelevant to a discussion of science
• I have cited one major figure in the philosophy of sciences (and can cite several others if given the chance) who says that no such claim is possible or meaningful

If I wanted to make a strong point, I would say that my source(s) is/are superior to yours, since your sources are not talking specifically within their field, but rather form a more general perspective as scientist. mine are experts in the particular field of the philosophy of science. but I'll be happy with a recognition that (in fact) there is no consensus in the philosophy of science about whether definitive claims about the 'scientificness' of theories can be made, which means that editors here have created an unwarranted synthesis by relying on only one side of an ongoing scientific debate to make a conclusion about ID. --Ludwigs2 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Professor Marginalia - I understand your point, but the fact of the matter is that this is a question in the philosophy of science, because the editors and the sources they are using are making claims about science as a whole, not about their particular branches of science. for example, if an evolutionary biologist wants to say "ID is not a theory that's consistent with the current understanding of evolutionary biology" then his statement should be taken as an expert opinion in evolutionary biology, and carries a heck of a lot of weight. however, if an evolutionary biologist merely says "ID is not a theory" then he is no longer making a claim from his expertise as an evolutionary biologist, but is now making a claim about science in general for which he has no specific expertise (aside from being a scientist himself). or are you saying that expertise is not related to specific fields of study? because if so, then I'm going to go start looking through the publications of anthropologists, sociologists, post-modern researchers, and other academics who (I'm quite certain) will have an interesting array of opinions about ID. really, that seems like a good idea regardless - I'll see if I can do that this week. --Ludwigs2 16:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

argument 2

the theory of Intelligent design exists as a social fact, independent of its validity as a scientific theory, and as such deserves treatment in the article independent of the scientific criticisms of its validity.

this argument, if accepted, would require a rewriting of portions of the article to present an uncritical treatment of the ID position. --Ludwigs2 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ID makes the claim to be a scientific theory, therefore should be measured against its own claims. The social effects of the ID movement, in terms of it's effects on scientific literacy in the community, education and politics, can certainly be described if referenced. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are stating. However, the policy of Wikipedia is to applying something called Neutral Point of View. Neutral Point of View states that the proportion of views of a controversial topic are determined roughly by its prominence among what are deemed to be the relevant experts in the corresponding academic field. And in this case, intelligent design is not being examined by the academic experts in food science or in European history. Intelligent design is not even being examined by experts in the philosophy of science. The relevant experts are mostly in the biological sciences, and a little bit in the geological sciences and anthropology etc; fields in which the theory of evolution is encountered. There are also a few physical scientists of course because of arguments based on fine-tuned universe and a few statistical scientists based on assorted probabilistic and statistical arguments in specified complexity. And also a few academic experts in theology. But for the most part, the academic experts that are relevant are in mainstream academic biology. And that is why the article is written how it is. Do you see? --Filll (talk | wpc) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use care when using terms invented by sociologists. Firstly, in terms of the article, I don't see how labeling ID a social fact has much bearing unless you would provide us some sources here please to identify the extent in which people ascribe to ID and how it has permeated culture. The article itself indicates The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[108] calling for broad social, academic and political changes. I will assume here that you assume Discovery Institute has successfully done this. I would be in doubt of that. My own Google searches reveal nothing to show that ID would approach the qualifications for a social fact that is different from having a religious belief. If it were qualified then this site [3] would likely note it. This source qualifies the statement that people are religious [4] and belief is a social fact. Thus social fact is covered inherently through links to various religious WP pages. Seemingly I don't understand how you want to rewrite the article, what needs to be rewritten, provide a paragraph and then your proposed suggestion. And as stated by Filll, this is not meant to encompass the entire realm of minority voices -- the cultural one here, perhaps you should go to the Discovery Institute article itself. .:DavuMaya:. 00:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any references supporting the contention that ID is a social fact, and not a scientific theory as its proponents claim? If so, it might be worth a mention, but I can't see where portions of the article would need re-writing. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is original research. You've offered no notable, reliable sources again. Ludwig2, prior to this section you were warned several times by several other admins that if you continue raising discussions based on original research you can and may be blocked. And yet here you are again. It appears to me you are either trolling this community or trying to get blocked in order to be a martyr. I'm going to see to it that you do not accomplish either. To the regulars here, simply continue archiving any similar discussions and please don't feed trolls. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of the statement should be tweaked because I'm not clear what is meant by it. For example, if this opening statement were to read, "the theory of Intelligent design exists as a social artifact apart from its status as a scientific theory, and as such deserves treatment in the article independent of the scientific criticisms of its validity," I would ask what there would be to say about the theory apart from the claims made that it is a scientific model? If it read, "there is an intelligent design social/political phenomenon and not just a scientific theory" I'd say perhaps yes, where that is a developed theme the determination whether or not it is valid science to scientists would be less prominent. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing Reliable Sources

Dear Odd nature, et al:

I was directed to WP:NPOV and to WP:RS (Reliable Sources). In accordance with those Wikipedia content guidelines, I have written the following proposal to revise the Wikipedia intelligent design page. The first paragraph of that page should read:

Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon have asserted "that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."[Of Pandas and People, 1989, pages 99-100] They have named their assertion "intelligent design." John G. West and Casey Luskin have compared intelligent design to the theory of evolution and they have concluded "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 Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", page 4, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454] They assert that intelligent design is a "scientific theory."[ibid.]

Odd nature, I have tried to learn from my mistakes. I hope that you can regard my proposal as a valuable contribution to the discussion, rather than as a waste of your time. My goal, as I have previously written, is to separate the definition of intelligent design from John West and Casey Luskin's opinion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation. Their opinion should be clearly attributed to them.

Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Stylistically, I have a problem with the opening paragraph to an article bringing up individual names that a casual reader has likely never heard of and hasn't yet read any context to determine why those names are meaningful or relevant. It seems awkward to write it that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scott,

I explained this earlier. The definition you are suggesting, that, "...life began abruptly...with their...features in tact..." is not the valid definition of ID, since some notable ID proponents accept common descent and for other reasons. The Panda textbook was written at a very early stage of the ID movement, at the cusp of when the creationist movement was morphing into the ID movement. Much of the text in Pandas was lifted from an earlier creationist version where the word "creationism" was simply copy/pasted with the phrase Intelligent Design. Thanks! JPotter (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Potter:

You do not consider the Pandas definition of ID as "valid" and I appreciate your reason for saying so. However, Judge Jones based his ruling in the Kitzmiller case on the Pandas definition and I therefore regard that definition as the most relevant definition. If Dr. Behe or others have formulated other definitions of ID since the publication of Pandas then those other definitions can be acknowledged further down in the article. For example, I have previously suggested adding Ben Stein's definition of ID to the Wikipedia article on ID. As a result of his appearance in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, millions of people will recognize his name and associate it with ID.

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my proposal. Scott610 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay Mister Scott, I think I've finally read up on the previous debates on here to also reply to this. While indeed your proposal to change the introduction is clear, concise, verified and factual, the point is, editors before you have already reached a Consensus as to what the lead should state. Let me first state that Wikipedia articles are styled in a certain way. The ID article is about the overview of ID. It is not merely the definition of it--(see Wiktionary). And so while you are making an honest attempt to edit the lead in a way that is acceptable to you and probably most ID-subscribers (which is fine), it is not what this article is attempting to do. It's not to define it. It's discussing the major notable points which have revolved around the debate since time. Thus your definition is not what is being accepted by Consensus. Let me think of an example uh, say the United States article does not state that "the U.S. is the coolest country in the world and we love hot dogs" or "the U.S. doesn't want illegal immigrants" etc these minority viewpoints come secondary to the overbearing facts which equals NPOV. While you indeed can find sources for just about anything, in the end we have to evaluate due weight in the face of Consensus. Does this make sense? .:DavuMaya:. 02:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear DavuMaya:

Thank you for writing that my "proposal to change the introduction is clear, concise, verified and factual". I now feel that the time I spent studying Wikipedia's content guidelines was worth the effort.

You report that "editors before you have already reached a Consensus as to what the lead should state." I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of previous editors. I am now asking the current editors to recognize that a very significant change has taken place. John West and Casey Luskin have publicly acknowledged that the "best" in their "description" of ID is their own judgment.

During an exchange of terse e-mails with Mr. Luskin, he reluctantly acknowledged to me that a statement on Discovery Institute's website is not a definition of ID but is instead a description of ID. He declined to reveal who is responsible for the "best" in that description. I now know that Mr. West and Mr. Luskin are jointly responsible for the assertion that ID is the "best" explanation. Now that this fact has been publicly revealed, I believe that it should be included in the Wikipedia page about ID.

I believe that the proponents of ID should not be allowed to hide behind an anonymous "best" and behind a legal fiction (the corporation named Discovery Institute). That corporation does not have a brain with which to make the judgment that ID is the "best" explanation. That corporation does not have lungs, vocal cords, and lips. It cannot state that ID is the "best" explanation. It does not have a hand to write that ID is the "best" explanation. That corporation should not be regarded as or cited as a "Reliable Source". The flesh-and-blood people behind that "best" should be identified. Their names are John G. West and Casey Luskin. They are nationally known advocates of ID and they should stand ready to accept responsibility for and to explain their judgment that ID is the "best" explanation.

You wrote, "in the end we have to evaluate due weight in the face of Consensus. Does this make sense?" Yes, it does. However, I am asking that Wikipedia reveal a fact that the proponents of ID have long tried to keep secret. Wikipedia should show that Discovery Institute's "answer" to the rhetorical question "What is the theory of intelligent design?" is not a definition of ID, as the reader of that question has the right to expect, but is instead a description of ID that has propaganda hidden in it. See their rhetorical question and "answer" at http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

Let the truth be told. Scott610 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is largely original research and personal opinion. There's a bit of promoting here as well. This is not a appropriate use of article talk pages, see WP:NOT. This discussion should be archived. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear FeloniousMonk:

I am aware of the Wikipedia guideline on original research. That is why I did not include any reference to my correspondence with Casey Luskin in my proposal to revise the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page about ID. I could live with that first paragraph as it is currently written if the hyperlink to Discovery Institute's question and "answer" about ID were eliminated. As that first paragraph now exists, I feel that Wikipedia is directing people into a propaganda trap, an intellectual ambush, an effort to confuse and deceive. Wikipedia should not send its "customers" out to a website where they will be intellectually thugged. Scott610 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources are what they are. We can't not link to a site just because we think its content is deceptive. We can't protect people from their own gullibility. Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott, I understand the point you are trying to make. However, you seem to be the only person in the entire world that considers any portion of this article to be too "pro-ID". The link is not only appropriate, but necessary for NPOV and balance. Doc Tropics 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

argument 3

Intelligent design cannot be considered a scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable.24.10.111.154 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

General response to a thread that was closed prematurely

Dear Scott610, Everything about Intelligent design is hotly contested -- everything. Absolute precision in every word, even on the Talk page, seems to be essential -- that's just the way it is, or rather the way it has been allowed to become. So, I'm very sorry (I've been here only for a short time myself) if my endorsement of your RFC view (which I only mention here for the sake of clarity, not to mix pages) as a whole, in principle, in essence (you get the picture) indicated to you an endorsement of every particular. You state in your RFC view; "I am very staunchly opposed to intelligent design being presented as though it is a scientific theory" and "the definition of ID must be separated from the opinions of ID proponents and opponents" -- with these points I wholeheartedly concur. But you have probably put too much effort into your Pandas, especially in light of the 2005 decision from the federal bench that you mention.

As User:Dave_souza points out: it gives undue weight and it is not current. And, nod to User:Hrafn, it really doesn't reflect Wikipedia:NPOV. (Also, even though it has pedigree, it is not parsimonious -- perhaps it, even the video link, might be included in the body of the article. But my only interest is in the introductory/lead paragraph.) The first sentence of the article has broad support, me included -- I can see a need for only the tiniest of footnote tweaks (done; see above at "modified to avoid") and a more neutral term than the second "avoid." Oh, and User:Raul654 is right about attribution -- let's not major on minors. Lastly, Ben Stein is a hoot, to be sure, but he's only a social commentator. On a subject like this, we shouldn't stray far from the central players -- e.g. the Discovery Institute and the National Academy of Sciences, LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER FOR NEUTRALITY ;)

Dear Ludwigs2, I'm sure, your Wikigrinch comment was intended as a friendly jibe -- it's nice to imagine an atmosphere where the full range of adult discussion, from cussing to kidding (while it shouldn't predominate), could be present without the explosions that seem to be the norm here. But the only definition I can find for Wikigrinch http://www.organicdesign.co.nz/Wikigrinch doesn't seem to be a light-hearted one. Be careful about taking a friendly cigarette break, with its attendant ribbing, next to a powder keg. :) :) :)

Dear Dave_Souza (and Guettarda) et al, You state: "We want to give the definition in use by the proponents." Bravo! The article is already doing that in the first sentence -- so you should have said "we want to CONTINUE to give..." -- I'm sure you'll agree. Except for replacing "theory" with "assertion" (an entirely reasonable and well-supported editorial decision that reconciles the social fact/scientific fact argument), the first sentence is nearly verbatim from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ launched by the Discovery Institute itself. (Perhaps, nod to User:ZayZayEM for explanation to Scott610, this could be included/streamlined with footnotes 1 & 2, or added as its own footnote, as a further demonstration of unbiased coverage, without a change in content.) -- -- MY CONCERN (please review my SUB-COMMUNITY section post) has always been the tone that "avoid, avoid" bespeaks -- though Hrafn, see below, has done something about that.

I am completely unfamiliar with the Panda book's actual contents -- though my admittedly shallow survey has satisfied me that it is thoroughly creationist. So I have no problem agreeing with you that it would be "wholly incompatible with Behe's form of ID." Strangely enough (remember, I am neither a proponent nor an opponent -- I just like evenhanded intro paragraphs), I read Behe's Black Box book when I was considering Lehigh's doctoral program in Molecular Biology & Biochemistry a few years back -- wanted to read something from it's notable son during his school district controversy (killing two birds with one stone, so to speak). He seemed a thoughtful PHILOSOPHER-scientist -- he's probably the only reason I even visited this page. I'll be sure to send him a hate-email (grin).

Your wee nod to his near-credibility seems entirely out of character, vis-a-vis the initial reception I received last week when I noted the Cabal's (just kidding, HONESTLY) seeming denial of IDers intellectual/educational status as human beings with something dissenting to say. What, I ask you, is a newcomer to think, in the face of such mood swings? I'm not trying to be difficult -- I really want to know! (The RFC seems sufficient evidence that mine is not an isolated experience.) Be as nice or nasty in real life as you want. But for me, it has to do with the cost/benefit ratio of contributing to this page. I've spent two days of a very rainy vacation getting acquainted with this subject and its page, so I'm cool; but I don't see why one MUST be a devotee (on one side or the other) to be a meaningful contributor here. Endless hours to get a civil tone just isn't worth it to me.

• Dear ALL,

re: FACT 'fact about the world' 'fact about an idea' 'facts about opinions'

In discussions about the ID page, rehashing about 'FACT' is really a waste of time. The finders of fact (whether you want to focus on the broader WP community, a federal judge, or the greater scientific community) have already "rendered a ruling" on ID.

Scott610 had an idea for the intro -- I hope he accepts that it is not appropriate on the basis of its content, rather than taking it as a personal attack. I think that many things could be 'dismissed' around here, if an atmosphere of 'dismissiveness' were not so prevalent. (I've already made my View on this known on the RFC and will not expound further on this Talk page.) BUT... he inadvertently brought up a question of FACT that has long ago been decided, generating many lines of text from many quarters (Hrafn, then Ludwigs2, then Souza, finally Jenny/RegenerateThis -- the only one who adds NEW UNDERSTANDING to the discussion) which, quite frankly, seem to me a poor use of our intellectual resources.

User:Hrafn states: 'fact about the world', not a 'fact about an idea' -- the point is already won: it's an assertion not a theory.

User_talk:Ludwigs2 states: "actually, Hrafn, it's an (incorrect) theory about the world" -- actually Ludwigs2 it's not a theory at all, as reflected just about everywhere but the DI. I know that you know this -- I've read your posts -- we've got to get off this dime!

User:Dave_souza states: "Wikipedia is not here to keep alive the hopes of little children that yes dear, Santa Claus really does exist" -- true; but neither is it here to dash the hopes of every little sugarplum-fantasizing urchin in the West. That is a prevalent ethos on this page. Equating ID proponents with believers in Santa Claus is unproductive and condescending -- it's as bad or worse than calling ID-opponents devil worshipers or some equivalent nonsense. There is a profound difference between a belief in Santa Claus (and the time-limited enjoyment of its attendant fantasy) and an a priori philosophical position (and the humane treatment of its adherents on Wikipedia -- regardless of their "minority" status). I want to mirror, with a wrinkle, one of your sentiments: anything that "gives undue weight to the extreme minority expert view that ID is science" IN PRACTICE OR RESEARCH is not reflective of NPOV. But as a philosophical perspective, id est -- why continue to seek to mash its face into the dirt?
--Championdante (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is another one-sided discussion arising from personal opinion and original research; it should be archived. Championdante, please stop ressurrecting archived discussions; they have been archived for good reason and restarting them is disrupting this talk page and keeping editors from performing necessary, actual improvements. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See too long, didn't read. It's almost impossible for other editors to make a reasonably coherent reply to such a long post which contains a large number of unrelated points. Shorter, more tightly focused comments are generally more effective on article talkpages. Doc Tropics 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresh blood -- some thoughts -- please comment

ID is at best a scientific philosophy (that's not at all a bad thing for people to have) in search of a theoretical/research framework that interfaces with the broader scientific community.

My previous "This article's neutrality is not open for consideration" recommendation was intended more as a call for self-examination than a practical suggestion. Remember, I have an issue with only one word of the introductory paragraph.

Many editors effectively deny WP readers the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not ID (which is not generally accepted by the scientific community) has sociopolitical shortcomings (or strengths).

User:ZayZayEM's entry of 03:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) has so much good to say that it should be a primer on why this article isn't as biased as ID proponents assert -- EXCEPT for "ID is internally inconsistent, deceptive, duplicitious and absolutely overflowing with ignorance." This is the verbiage of an OPPONENT, not an encyclopedia editor. You are BEING Barbara Forrest on this one -- which is fine, but not neutral. ID, as the DI presents it (despite its policy-driven evolution -- isn't it funny that a Creationism outgrowth is evolving), IS internally consistent -- it is simply not consistent with the prevailing philosophy of science. But that is an epistemological distinction. Deceptive and duplicitous -- these are value judgments; one could just as readily, and inaccurately, say that the movement is honestly self-policing and policy-neutral. As to "absolutely overflowing with ignorance," I wouldn't argue against your content, but you do sound flushed. :) Only trying to keep the tone cucumber-cool.
--Championdante (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really know who you are addressing when you say many editors. It seems prevalent in this discussion board why debates go nowhere is because each new topic of discussion seems to have a lot more than what it seems. Championdante thank you for stating what your issue is: ID... has sociopolitical shortcomings (or strengths) May I assume you feel that the article does not have many statements to support ID? If so, could you please state then exactly what you feel should be added in the text. And please refrain from discussing whatever conflict you may have with another user. As well your logic is going into circles, I am not even able to ascertain what you are directly addressing, please do not post in this manner per Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point .:DavuMaya:. 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems prevalent in this discussion board why debates go nowhere is because each new topic of discussion seems to have a lot more than what it seems. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means.

You seem to have missed (go back and read the last dozen sections) that I am addressing the Refusal to 'get the point' of many editors -- THAT is my issue. I didn't know the actual policy: thanks for citing it. I am absolutely opposed to the advancement of either pro-ID or anti-ID agendas (as all my posts demonstrate). I am not looking for support of ID; I am looking for even-handedness on the Talk page, so that more views can be openly discussed, SO THAT THE MAIN ARTICLE WILL BE BETTER! (This is what a Talk page is for.)

I have no conflict with ZayZayEM. On the contrary, I commend ZayZayEM for a well-thought-out comment, then make observations concerning those few points with which I differ -- also what Talk is for, rather than for tossing out unsupported accusations of policy violations in a very sloppy fashion.

I have made no suggestions for edits beyond the first paragraph and have made not a single alteration to the main article -- I am hardly a disruptive influence. I have continually stated my support for the content of the first paragraph of the lead -- it's tone has been what disturbs me. What I feel should be added to the text is stated in "modified to avoid" above -- you should have read it before commenting. I have attacked no one; nor do I use any loaded language or any of the 7 sorts of terms to avoid; I invoke no policies -- so I can hardly be accused of gaming the system. So neither of the policies you cite apply to me.

It is a waste of everyone's time to tell someone his logic goes in circles when you have none of your own -- please refrain from making "please do not post in this manner" requests when you do not have a leg to stand on.

--Championdante (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my comment. Your multiple tirades here are based on your own original research as best I can tell, you've offered no sources that actually support your claims. As such, don't expect to get much traction or think that you can continually brow beat others into submission by restarting archived discussions. Please, either come back with a succinct and specific suggestion for content that is WP:V and supported by sources that meet WP:RS which does not violate WP:NPOV or drop this and move along. There's a limit to how much badgering over original research the community is expected to put up with, and you're fast approaching it. To the regulars: This discussion should be archived once Championdante has read my warning. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of recent AN/I threads, and constant troubles here:

Can the 'Welcome to this page, read this first' box be moved to the top of the page, so that there's less chance of people missing it? WHile people directly linked to sections will not see it, those clicking on the 'discussion' tab will have more chance of seeing it, and it seems more likely that such editors would be those most in need of the read; they might, for example, be the type who read the article ,and then want to come here and hash stuff out (or fight). ThuranX (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to complain, but I will admit that the notice boxes etc at the top of this page have turned into a bit of a mess. A lot of detail could be collapsed. There could be better headings. The order could be changed. Maybe some of the "happy talk" could be summarized a bit and shortened.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made one attempt to clean them up -- but would agree that they're still not as concise as they should be. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption

Ludwigs2, by my count, has raised his 'Points that have already been discussed' claims on 3 occasions:

1. #Intelligent design and intelligent design movement
2. #reopening the debate on ID as a theory
3. #argument 1

He has been told explicitly that these claims are WP:OR by:

1. Jim62sch
2. myself
3. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
4. Professor marginalia

Additionally, a number of editors have told him that the contrary position is well-supported by WP:RS & made a number of similar points. Yet he keeps on going -- even having the gall to state in this edit summary of an attempt to re-open it that "I haven't even had a chance to comment yet". I would suggest that if he raises/re-opens this again, we should seek sanctions against him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)