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.

Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#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 late May 2008 - early July 2008 July 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? Theory, focused on sources 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) Assertion, view or theory? 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

An Alternative Without a Definition

Just looking at an article that is not unfriendly to a creationist I notice there is a disclaimer that the neutrality of the article is under dispute. But this article, which is also under dispute, but obviously unfriendly to intelligent design, (for example, in the second paragraph it hastily mentions that certain groups that are evolutionary biased call it 'junk science' even though said groups call abiogenesis science when it cannot create life in a laboratory) yet there is no disclaimer that says that this article on Intelligent Design is under dispute. Wikipedia is a fraud. An outright fraud that froze up this page. You guys are pro-evolution, liars, who go to bed saying, "I'm proneutral I don't side with evolution. I am a liar." And you are liars. Next time you call ID junk science I dare you to produce life in a laboratory and call abiogenesis a science. Until then you are liars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.95.195 (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To say that Inteligent Design is the "modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God" is to say that evolution is the "modern form of the ATHEIST argument that there is no God". In fact Inteligent Design is an old concept and the argument is much more than a modern form of anything. It has antiquity outside of any argument for God. This first paragraph is controlled by some controlling Nazi non-collaborationists who have never bothered to understand or rad what Intelligent Design actually is. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be informative to show if there are still curricula that teach ID. Are there still schools in the USA that have such an obligation? Sikkema (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, et al:

I have objected to the first paragraph of the ID article on the grounds that the opinion that ID is the "best" explanation is not a definition of ID and should not be presented as such. I have proposed various definitions of ID but my definitions have not been accepted. I am therefore going to offer an alternative proposal. The following paragraph does not contain a definition of ID but it does attribute to the proponents of ID the assertion that ID is the "best" explanation. The reader will now correctly understand that "best" is the opinion of ID proponents, rather than a part of the definition of ID.

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. The primary proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, 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." These proponents reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. They believe that the "intelligent cause" is the God of Christianity.

Scott610 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything above is exactly what's in the first paragraph of our article, just rearranged. As such, I don't see anything wrong with it. In some ways rearranging it as Scott did does make sense. It puts a neutral definition before an attributed assertion. I like it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The rearrangement muddles the nuance that the term was introduced by a proponent who is no longer associated with the DI, at a time before the DI came into existence. The opening works pretty well for me, but the second part of the paragraph needs work. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave: Your point is well taken -- "the term [ID] was introduced by a proponent who is no longer associated with the DI". So I changed "primary proponents" ("primary" implying "first") to "principal proponents". And I added the date that the "modification" of the argument took place, and an example of the kind of modification ("creation" replaced with "intelligent design"). These changes are included in the following paragraph.

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. This modified argument was composed in 1989, after the publication of court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. The changes to the argument included, for example, replacing the term "creation" with the term "intelligent design". The principal proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, 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." They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. They believe that the "intelligent cause" is the God of Christianity.

Scott610 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

not bad, and I like the idea. I'd like to suggest a couple of major tweaks, though...

Intelligent design is a thesis proposed by Christian advocates as part of the creation-evolution controversy in the US. It is a version of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that refers to an unspecified Intelligent Designer rather than to God: proponents 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." This thesis was offered by individuals associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute in an effort to introduce alternative science textbooks in schools, in the wake of various court rulings that prohibited the teaching of creationism as a science. They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

--Ludwigs2 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't like that one. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFL - just on general principle?  :-) --Ludwigs2 19:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"A thesis" misdescribes ID, and the historical context is wrong, as my comment above. Don't like the phrasing, more details available if need be. In the fullness of time. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of other reasons too. First sentence says "Christian advocates" which, while technically true, paints the proponents too broadly. It's a creationist argument (not all Christians are creationists) proposed by DI (not all creationists are DI). The second sentence is unnecessarily complex... Several other reasons as well. Plus Scott gave a reason for his suggested changes. My comment "Don't like that one" was actually longer than the reasons given for the tweaks; there were none. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What is "alternative science"? Is it anything like alternative rock? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - well, you know me well enough to know that I can provide reasons to excess; I thought I'd go the more passive route this time. guess that didn't work either. I don't get what you mean by 'unnecessarily complex', however, unless you object to the use of a semi-colon instead of a period.

Dave. I see your point about the historical context, but I don't understand your objection to 'thesis'. that seems an appropriate term.

SA - "alternative science" is a failure to read the text. the actual phrase is "alternative science textbooks". --Ludwigs2 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the new minimalist Ludwigs : ) but you should really give at least one succinct reason when proposing changes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

true. maybe I went a little too minimalist there.  :-) tomorrow I'll do better. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Of Pandas and People is not a science text, alternative or otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

well SA, I tend to agree with you, but that doesn't say anything about the well-established fact that it was offered as an alternative science text. saying it was offered as such is generically true, while in no way implying that it legitimately qualifies as such. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

SA: What is "alternative science"? Is it anything like alternative rock?

Hmm... rock. Rock = geology. Alternative rock theory. Heh, heh. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I could offer myself to Angelina Jolie as an "alternative" to Brad Pitt. Doesn't really make me a viable alternative does it? --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

speak for yourself, FilmFan... =) --Ludwigs2 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another alternative lead paragraph

Please consider my proposal for a first paragraph; in my version, several of the points in the existing opening would be incorporated in the following paragraphs. My goals are to provide an introduction that offers the basic issues surrounding ID in a nutshell, creating a good set-up for a similarly concise paragraphs describing the ID movements claims, their critical reception, their relationship to historical creationism, the Kitzmiller trial, and whatever else needs to be touched on in the lead. I have attempted to improve on the existing intro in terms of neutrality of presentation and felicity of prose.

Intelligent design is the proposition that life was caused by a guiding intelligence and that empirical evidence supports this conclusion. The term is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization that has, since 1996, promoted the intelligent design hypothesis to the general public. Stephen Meyer, a leader of the Discovery Institute who describes himself as “one of the architects of the theory of intelligent design,” states that “intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins—one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.” Despite such claims, the unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science at all; scholars, journalists and jurists have concluded that intelligent design masquerades as a scientific controversy in order to promote religious or political beliefs.

--BTfromLA (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BT - I could work from this as well. let me think about it a bit and respond more tomorrow. and let's you and I (and whoever else wants to work productively on this) go ahead and make something decent, and ignore the naysayers for the time being. honestly, I'm tired of spending my time providing explanations to people who don't have any interest in listening. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, sunshine ;) There's been a lot of discussion about the particular point that it's an assertion rather than a proposition. It's not just "that life was caused by a guiding intelligence", see their efforts in astronomy for example. The claim "that empirical evidence supports this conclusion" does appear in their writings and is significant, but it's not part of the central "definition" which proponentsists consistently use. Meyer's comments don't have that common usage amongst the various leading proponentsists, and his assertion that it's not religious doesn't stand up in court so shouldn't be presented out of context. The last sentence is weak and completely understates the overwhelming consensus across many different disciplines. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I trust you are not addressing me as "sunshine," and that there must be some history to the ugly word "proponentsists" of which I am unaware. As to your comments: I think "proposition" is no less accurate and a bit less tendentious than "assertion," but I could live with that change. I strenuously disagree that the claim of empiricism isn't central to ID--what definitions are you looking at? I chose Meyer's quote because I think it concisely asserts 3 of the main 4 points that characterize ID's self-representations, in my reading, and it hints at the 4th. They are: 1. ID is not dependent on religious beliefs or scripture, 2. ID is a scientific theory or research program based in empirical observation, 3. ID offers a critique of "strictly materialistic" evolutionary theory, 4. That critique extends beyond the materialist philosophy of science to intellectual and political life in general. (There is a good case to be made that this larger aim—undermining what they see as a pernicious ideology that dominates culture and public policy—is the defining principal of ID, if you see ID in terms of the Discovery Institute's "movement." This is made clear in the Wedge document.) As to the last sentence being "weak"--I think such a judgement will be influenced by what follows it, right? How, with a neutral tone, would you improve it? BTfromLA (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The remark about "sunshine" was a flippant response to Ludwig's concern about listening, arising from my local culture. The ugly word "proponentsists" is the missing link, and you should be aware of it if you're familiar with the topic of ID. My suggestion is that you look for the word in the article and follow the link, as well as reading the whole article before rethinking the lead section which is intended to summarise the article. . . dave souza, talk 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I am familiar with the results of Barbara Forrest's sleuthing through drafts of "Pandas and People." I am guilty of failing to commit the word "proponentsists" to memory (had you written "cdesign proponentsists," I'd have recognized it). I hardly think my non-recognition of that bit of trivia merits a patronizing response impugning my competence as an editor. BTfromLA (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My misunderstanding, apologies. . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Apology accepted. If you have thoughts about the substance of my earlier post, I'd be interested to know them. BTfromLA (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it defines ID both as "a proposition" and the claim "that empirical evidence supports this conclusion". This is a bit of a puzzler: isn't every theory both its proposition and the contention that it is empirically supported? Otherwise, what is a theory but a random conjecture? It seems to reason that empirical evidence must be separate from the theory/proposition itself and not definitionally part of it. Obviously, this criticism wades into murkier waters about whether ID is pseudoscience since other theories don't have to define themselves as empirically based. But to the extent that ID proponents wish to be taken seriously on such a basis, empirical support should not be a facet of the definition but rather part of the proof. -no sig yet, civilly...

I skipped your point about astronomy. If it is true that we need to add "or the universe" to the definition, then we should. The focus of ID is overwhelmingly on origins of life (and on the weakness of materialist science) as far as I've seen. I don't really know about their cosmological claims beyond ones that the universe os designed, or fine tuned, to allow for life, but I'm happy to learn. BTfromLA (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The focus of ID is essentially the creationist focus on evolution, not abiogenesis (though they commonly conflate the two), and their call for immaterialist "science" follows from that tradition. . . dave souza, talk 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's missing an important reliably-sourced and weighted component that our current article has right up front: "[Intelligent design was created] to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science". The second sentence in your suggestion says it is a "hypothesis" that was promoted "to the general public". That's not entirely correct. It was a unsubstantiated claim (irreducible complexity, ect.) presented as a Constitution-friendly bonafide "theory", and promoted to school systems. If it were just a hypothesis (dime a dozen) and just promoted to the general public (less notable), we probably wouldn't be talking about it. ID is notable because of the attempt to get it into schools. Not sure how you would include that in your suggestion, but it's a core component. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nealparr. The reason that I propose moving the mention of the 1989 "Pandas" to a later paragraph is that I think that the formulation in the current first paragraph suggests an oversimplified interpretation of ID as a whole. It basically asserts, as the thesis of the whole article, that ID is merely a euphemism for old-fashioned creationism. There's truth to that, but it also overlooks much of the story. I think there's a danger to allowing "Pandas" to become a stand-in for ID. The 1989 edition of Pandas was published before most of the distinctive characteristics of ID as we understand it now had been formulated. Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, the "wedge" document and the founding of the CSC are all, arguably, much more significant and illuminating factors in the definition of ID than Pandas. Don't get me wrong--the substitution of "ID" for "creationism" in Pandas belongs in the lead, but it should be placed in a context that doesn't give it undue weight in terms of the overall definition of ID. As to the "general public" claim: what I was trying to get at was that the DI is engaged in a campaign to sway public opinion, as opposed to professional scientific opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that much of their effort has been addressed to the public at large, via newspaper and magazine opinion pieces and a special focus on the established communities of fundamentalist christians and right-wing cultural conservatives, including public opinion leaders like radio talk hosts and syndicated columnists. If there's a concise phrase better than "general public," please suggest it. BTfromLA (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Swaying the public opinion isn't as notable because that's a given. They naturally needed public support and public financing to pursue... (the end of the dot dot dot is the notable). The notable is that they marketed it to officials in charge of public school curricula, and that resulted in a famous court case. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ID is primarily about the inadequacies of the theory of evolution. It is secondarily about abiogenesis and fine tuning of the universe. It was created to try to create some way to fool the United States Judiciary and constitutional law experts so that biblical literalism could be taught in science classes in public schools, or even that teachers could be forced to teach biblical literalism in science classes in schools. It is part of a grand scheme in some cultural war that fundamentalist extremists are mounting to reform US society. There is minimal science behind ID, and therefore it is not really much of a hypothesis or a theory. It is a public relations and legal strategy by and large. It is essentially intellectually vacuous. The two meagre scientific ideas associated with ID, specific complexity and specified complexity, are mildly interesting but have no evidence to support them, and plenty of evidence against them. A major demand of ID is that "materialist" science be discarded, by which they mean that the definition of science should be returned to its pre-Scientific Revolution definition a few centuries ago, and that magic (and astrology) should be defined as scientific. This in fact is identical to the ideas promulgated by Al Ghazali around 1100 CE that destroyed Muslim science, then the most advanced in the world. --Filll (talk | wpc) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitriary section break

BT - please assume (where it makes sense) that any flippant, sarcastic, demeaning or otherwise irritating comments are directed at me. I seem to attract that kind of thing (possibly because when people talk with me seriously, they tend to lose the debates... <smirk>). don't let it bug you; I don't.

and Dave - pumpkin... ;-) - I know that a lot of text has been wasted trying to find the most minimizing word possible to refer to ID, but all that's done is tangled and confused the discussion mercilessly (particularly, it's caused drastic confusion between 'what' ID says, and 'who' ID is). words like 'proposition' and 'thesis' are perfectly appropriate descriptions of what ID says, and save a whole lot of waffling over the intents and motivations of who ID is.

so let's separate things out here:

• ID as a thesis is fairly close to what BT says: (modified) it's "the proposition that the universe was caused by a guiding intelligence, and that empirical evidence can be found which supports this conclusion". this thesis has fairly long philosophical roots (going back, as is pointed out, to the teleological proofs of god). that stands separate from the political aspects of ID.
• ID as a movement was (as Filll points out, but without his relatively strong language) an attempt to bypass the United States Judiciary and constitutional law so that school administrations (which are controllable political entities could tell teachers to teach biblical literalism in science classes in public schools. there's actually a long history on this kind of issue as well - state's rights vs federal authority - and the issue was never specifically religious, but rather a question of how far the federal government could intervene in the actions of state and local government for the general welfare.
• granting that the ID movement is largely political, we ought to give credit where credit is due. I suspect that most ID proponents actually believe that 'science' has overstepped its bounds and begun intruding on matters of faith where it has no place. I can understand the frustration that some deeply religious person might have when the government comes in and says "sorry, your children are not allowed to believe the same things that you believe, but are required to study something that (ostensibly) disproves your faith." casting proponents as purely politically machiavellian misses the reasons why they are so deeply committed to the attempt, and makes them look a lot worse than they actually are.

the lead ought to reflect (or at least acknowledge) all of these points.--Ludwigs2 19:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The political and religious aspects are very much intertwined, and I agree that from this springs the belief that science seen from the proper religious perspective must support faith. ID as a term was chosen to bypass court decisions, the movement is part of the larger creationist religious and political movement which produced creation science in a preceding attempt to bypass earlier court decisions. My understanding is that it's not a question of how far the federal government could intervene in the actions of state and local government for the general welfare, but a constitutional issue of how far any government can intervene in the rights of the individual by supporting a particular religion and failing to give equal rights or support to other faith positions. Whether the efforts of proponents are sincere and deeply committed or purely politically machiavellian is obviously difficult if not impossible tp determine, and we can only report the opinions of reliable sources. It is clear that proponents want to redefine science to support their faith in supernatural explanations, but we have to be very careful in sourcing that to avoid original research and undue weight being given to that particular aspect. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The lead (a summary of important points in the actual article) ought to reflect half a dozen points that have nothing to do with the notability of ID (or in some cases even the topic of ID)? Seriously? And that supposedly includes? a long history of teleological arguments that are not ID, a long history of states rights vs. federal rights (not even an issue that came up in trial, the Civil War kind of settled that a century and a half ago), a frustration that science is dipping into religious matters (versus the other way around), a sidepoint on how the government forces people to believe something (rather than instructs them on accepted scientific theories). That one's of particular concern to me because it's not only OR, it's wrong. The whole thing about ID vs. evolution is that ID says there has to be a designer. Evolution doesn't preclude a designer. Why oh why does the lead have to reflect or at least acknowledge points that have nothing to do with the article? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal - the lead already reflects most of what I said, except that it gives no suggestion that ID proponents might have honest motivations: please don't confuse my explanations of points as though they all belong in the lead, not unless you're trying to make a straw man. the main thing I'm suggesting here is that the current article gets tangled up trying to talk about the thesis and the motivations as though they were inseparable, whereas taking them apart and dealing with them separately makes for a cleaner, less biased presentation.

incidentally, (and tangentially), states rights issues were not settled by the civil war. according to the constitution, matters of interstate regulation (mostly) fall on the federal government, while all laws not specifically granted to the federal government are automatically given to individual states. this causes questions about many issues, including education. the federal government provides funding and accreditation for schools, and that places it as an interstate issue, which is why the government and the courts can dictate what textbooks are used. if you wanted to start a private school and teach creation science exclusively no one could stop you (so long as you weren't worried about funding or accreditation). --Ludwigs2 20:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You said the lead needs to "reflect (or at least acknowledge) all of these points". I apologize if I misinterpreted that as meaning the lead needs to reflect or at least acknowledge all of those points. If you feel that the current lead already reflects most of what you said (I don't think it does, in the way I described above), and that you're just looking to separate them, that's what the article does. It has sections. The lead is just a summary. Btw, whether something is under the federal rights by way of the Constitution, or whether something is under states rights was decided long ago, and was not an issue related to ID because everyone understood it was a Constitutional issue, thus federal issue; the question of state's rights vs. federal rights was/is not an issue related to ID (thus not in the article and not in the lead). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

One point re the 10th Amendment -- it should really becalled the sloppy-seconds amendment: it guarantees only that the states have powers over those issues that the Federal Government, whether via the Constitution or via legislation, has not claimed for itself.

Neal, is quite correct, by the way. As a state has to agree to abide by the Constitution in order to remain a state, anything that is potentially or factually unconstitutional is the perview of the Federal Government. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal - It seems as though you're not disagreeing with me, so I'll try making some edits later.

Jim - that amendment was actually intended to protect the states, believe it or not. the fear was that the executive branch would start making rules and imposing them willy-nilly. the modern example would be if GWB decided to declare that gay marriage was illegal, and used his power as president to keep states from allowing it. the reason that states like California and Massachusetts can legalize gay marriage is that marriage is a 'power not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states'. I'm not advocating for gay marriage, mind you, just pointing out how it's a protection, not a 'sloppy seconds'. --Ludwigs2 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The purported original intent is irrelevant, the de facto application is what matters. As for gay marriage (with which I have no problem) it is not regulated by the Federal Government yet. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing that all the points you said need to be covered actually need to be covered. I don't think some of them have much to do with ID and that we run the risk of obscuring the coatrack with not necessarily related coats. If you think the coats are already there, then I'm also saying we don't need to expand on them (though I don't really think they're there). Of course since I haven't seen any actual proposed text, I'm just talking in principles rather than specifics. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ok then. mostly I just want to clean up some misattributions in the text. we'll see how it goes. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to other ways of wording that convey the important concepts and provide accurate summaries of the article per WP:LEAD. I won't shoot down good ideas : ) For example, I like BTfromLA's "Despite such claims, the unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science at all; scholars, journalists and jurists have concluded that intelligent design masquerades as a scientific controversy in order to promote religious or political beliefs" as a replacement for "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience." It's more informative. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Noun omission?

Describing ID as an "argument" or whatnot is awkward. Why not just begin by saying: "Intelligent Design maintains (or contends or argues) that....." This way there is no judgment as to what it is.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute might argue, Intelligent Design is their argument. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

well, what is the proper attribution here? this is part of the problem in this article, mind you. if ID is a theory or a thesis or a proposition or somesuch then Stetsonharry's usage is perfectly appropriate; if it's not then we need to attribute ID as the position of some group or person, who we can then cite. we can't have it both ways, and we can't have it neither way, so which way is it going to go? --Ludwigs2 22:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Intelligent design maintaining, contending, or arguing, or doing anything at all, is a personification of ID. I don't see how giving an inanimate idea human traits is good encyclopedia writing. Intelligent design, the assertion, in the current article is attributed to "certain United States creationists" and "the Discovery Institute". It's first defined as an assertion, and then supporting sentences describe who's doing the asserting. Taken together, as a whole paragraph, it's fully attributed. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Neal is correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

no, sorry, that's a standard usage, at least in academic circles. when an idea is considered as the opinion of a particular group or person, it's attributed to the group (i.e. ID proponents say idea X, which says...). by contrast, when an idea is considered as part of an established argument or discussion, the idea is usually offered without attributing it to people (i.e. idea X says that...). for instance, it is much more common to say that 'the theory of relativity says...' than to say 'Einstein says, in the theory of relativity...' at any rate, I'm just trying to clear up attribution. the current first line reads Intelligent design is the assertion that... - so who's asserting? either we are trying to say that a specific group is asserting this, or we're trying to say this is a general assertion, independent of particular speakers. which? --Ludwigs2 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, read the paragraph for your attribution. It is clearly attributed as the views of a particular group. It doesn't have to be one really long sentence. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: The proponents of ID at Discovery Institute have never offered an alternative definition of ID. I now believe that they are still using the definition of ID that was set forth in Of Pandas and People. Based on that definition, they assert that ID is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things". They also assert that ID is a scientific theory. What do you think of the following revision for the first paragraph of the ID article?

Intelligent design is the assertion "that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact". [Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 1989] This assertion 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.[3] 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.[4][5][6] The principal proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute,[7][8] believe 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 argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory,[11] and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12] They also believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Scott610 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

well, this asserts that intelligent design is an assertion of Davis and Kenyon. is that correct? personally, I don't have a problem treating Intelligent design as part of an established argument, without reference to its authors (in the old-fashioned high-school debate "Resolved!" sense), but I get the feeling that's anathema here because it sounds too much like giving ID credit as a theory. me, I'd prefer something like this:

The central argument of Intelligent Design is that a guiding intelligence lies behind the creation of the universe, 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". This general claim was put forth as part of the creation-evolution controversy in the US, first appearing in the textbook Of Pandas and People, (1989) which states "that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact". It was further developed by individuals associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, who argued for a radical redefinition of science so that intelligent design and its supernatural explanations can be accepted as valid scientific theory. Intelligent design is widely believed to be an adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that specifically avoids identifying the Designer as the Christian God, done with the intention of circumventing various court rulings that prohibited the teaching of creationism as science due to creationism's overt religious references. It has never been accepted by the scientific community as a valid scientific theory, and ultimately suffered the same legal fate as creationism.

this separates out the argument from the movement and treats both separately, and makes (I think) a cleaner read. --Ludwigs2 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It also skips over what it is and jumps right into what it says. Assertion (what it is) is skipped to central argument (what it says). It'd be like listing off the central points of the Constitution without first saying that the Constitution is the supreme law of the US. It's what we've been talking about for several weeks now. You can't separate the argument from those arguing it. Intelligent design is defined as the assertion by DI et al. that blah, blah is best explained by blah, blah. The argument is intrinsically tied to the movement, the arguers. After you state that, then you can separate them out and talk about them individually. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Davis and Kenyon are the authors of Of Pandas and People and they presented their definition of ID in that book. I do not know to what extent their editor was involved in composing that definition but they have put their names on the book and did not attribute the definition of ID to anyone else. It therefore appears to me to be their definition.

I prefer the format of my first paragraph (above) because it (1) provides a definition of ID, (2) puts ID into a historical context (a teleological argument), (3) explains why ID was formulated (to circumvent court rulings), (4) identifies the people who are promoting ID, (5) what they believe (ID is the best explanation) (6) what their goal is (legitimize ID by redefining science), and (7) what they believe (the intelligent designer is the Christian God). I think that my proposal has a better temporal flow. In contrast, your proposed paragraph does not embody that kind of temporal flow. For example, you put the opinion that ID is the "best" explanation before the definition of ID. The definition came first and should be stated first. Scott610 (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And, yet again, Neal is correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - Jim, I'm sure Neal appreciates having his own cheer squad, but...  ;-)

Neal - look, I find this assertion - e.g. "you can't separate the argument from those arguing it" - silly and manipulative: it's the kind of approach that Jim Crow advocates used to use (e.g. 'civil rights is something only blacks talk about - why should anyone else care?'). but if you really insist on it, then I suggest we take it seriously and start cutting everything from the article that implies there's some argument above or beyond the political manipulations. start with the assertion that ID is an extension of the teleological argument for God (no connections to larger arguments allowed), then move to the point that DI people believe in the Christian God (now irrelevant to the discussion). probably most of the sections on irreducible complexity and etc need to go, as well as most of scientific the counter-arguments (since in fact those are no longer necessary as well). I suspect we could cut the article length by 30 or 40 percent if we're diligent. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, almost Godwin's Law to have your assertion compared with Jim Crow's racism. I guess the thread isn't long enough yet to have it compared with Nazism. Call it silly or manipulative all you want. It's still basic encyclopedic writing 101. You have to say what it is. In this case it's a group's assertion, argument, political maneuvering, whatever you want to call it. But whatever you want to call it, it's still theirs since they're the only proponents of it. Even Godwin's Law is Godwin's. You can't just skip that for whatever reason you felt the need to. You have to be upfront about these things if you don't want to manipulate the reader. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry Jim - I don't know how to give examples of bias except by pointing out the opinions of biased people. and the fact of the matter is that ID has an intellectual history all its own, without any reference to DI (note that many people who know what ID is have never heard of the DI). besides, no one here is suggesting that we fail to note the political side - please read my last attempt, for heaven's sake. all I am suggesting is that the idea can be treated independently of the movement. your arguments to the contrary are just plain bad reasoning. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No cheering squad, just saving myself from having to type too much.

What is this sudden desire to cut the length of the article? How do you assume that certain sections are not necessary any more? They're every bit as necessary as they were when the article reached FA status. Keep in mind that WP is not a news journal, cowing to and driven by the present whims of the masses, but is an encyclopedia that must, pretty much by definition, include the history of whatever is being written about. Hence, the sections you mentioned are very much necessary.

Your analogy with Jim Crow advocates is spurious. Realistically a better analogy would be to note that any discussion on Stalinism cannot be separated from the Stalinists and Stalin himself. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I have no particular desire to cut the length of the article, but the article ought to reflect the preconceptions we put into it honestly. if we're going to begin with the assertion that the idea and the people cannot be separated, then logically we should carry that idea all the way through the article. it's senseless to assert that the idea can not be separated from the people, and then later criticize the idea itself rather than the people who present it.

and no - my reference to Jim Crow may have been ill-advised (apologies) but it wasn't spurious. your reference doesn't work the way you think, either: Stalinism is commonly used to refer to forms of government that Stalin and his followers never had contact with. even my computer dictionary defines it as 'any rigid centralized authoritarian form of communism', and I've read a number of academic and non-academic critiques of the Bush Administration that refer to it as Stalinist. the idea is clearly distinct from the particular actions of Stalin or Stalinists. --Ludwigs2 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is it that the proponents and the idea are not criticized together, when there's criticism? Where is this independent criticism? Throughout the article the topic is presented as an assertion by political advocates and both are criticized together. Why is that the case? It's because if they weren't political advocates, there'd be no criticism. It'd be like any of the other religious articles. Criticism has little weight in them. It's the political advocacy that ID should be taught in school, and that ID is science, that elicited the overwhelming criticism that plagues ID. The advocates did that. They are intrinsically intertwined with the idea. The article makes that very clear. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if you're looking for the topic where teleological arguments are not mostly political, and not mostly intrinsically intertwined with political advocates, courtroom dramas, and elitist definitions of science, that's exactly the teleological argument article. That's where you have your separation of idea from advocates. It's linked from this article in a way compatible with summary style. But there's no confusion that ID is just teleological. ID has other, more notable and heavier weighted components (courtroom dramas, elitist definitions of science, huge backlash from trying to politic it into schools, etc.). ID is not just another teleological argument. A way to visualize this is: A square can contain triangles, but a triangle does not contain squares. The square takes on other aspects the triangle doesn't (like right angles). It's the same with ID and teleological arguments. Teleological arguments fit into ID easily, but ID does not fit into teleological arguments just as snuggly. It's because it has other aspects that your run-of-the-mill teleological argument doesn't (like courtroom dramas, elitist definitions of science, huge backlash from trying to politic it into schools, etc.). It's not your typical teleological argument. The advocates, the political drama, all of these things (like right angles to squares) are intrinsically intertwined with the idea. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal - you and I both know that it would be perfectly easy to treat ID as an intellectual idea only, without any reference to the political movement. it goes just like this: The central argument of Intelligent Design is that a guiding intelligence lies behind the creation of the universe, that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". It entails a radical redefinition of science to account for supernatural explanations. It has never been accepted by the scientific community, since no empirical evidence exists that would lead this theory to be preferred over others. I'm not suggesting that this be the sole treatment of ID (as you keep erroneously suggesting), but I am saying that your refusal to accept this as part of the discussion of ID is a ridiculous, unfounded bias. I mean yeesh! - this is not difficult, dude... --Ludwigs2 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I never said you wanted it to be the sole treatment of ID, and I never refused to accept it as part of the discussion. In fact, I even said that after you say what it is, then you can separate it out into various topics where the idea and its proponents are not intertwined, accurately stating that there are multiple aspects to ID, agreeing that there's several notable issues at play and that all need to be covered if they're relevant and not just coats obscuring the coatrack of ID. I even pointed out that we already do separate them out in summary style. You do, however, want the separation to be up front, the primary starting place in the opening paragraph of the lead, totally out of place, and totally not a definition. You're the one making it difficult by continuing to skirt around what it is, so it can be presented as something it's not. It's not an intellectual idea. At best it's an appropriated intellectual idea for the purposes of political agenda. Characterizing it as just another intellectual idea is complete mischaracterization. It's notable for the political movement. So what do you put first? How do you define it? Sure as heck not like you do, starting off with an orphaned "central argument". Central argument of what? What is ID? How the heck would we know, you never told us. Try and write an actual definition of intelligent design and you'll very quickly realize that can be no separation of the idea from it's proponents. Go ahead, give it a try. Instead of writing "the central argument of" try and write something begining with "Intelligent design is". Then we'll talk. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, to your comment that says what I'm saying is "ridiculous, unfounded bias", I'll again say don't take my word for it. The U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (a man hired by the courts to be unbiased) ruled that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". I'm sure the guy put a lot of thought into that ruling, and that a lot of people consider him to be unbiased, but for some reason when I say "you can't uncouple the two" I'm biased? Please. Think about your own biases for a few before commenting on mine. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal - first, my apologies if I got a little snippy. This talk page sometimes frustrates me, mostly because I think we all talk past each other and end up arguing about things that we don't really disagree on (because the arguments have gotten hard-wired into the discussion, maybe...).

that being said, on what basis do you claim that "It's not an intellectual idea"? the very concept of a 'non-intellectual idea' is bizarre on the face of it, and the article goes to great length to point out that the idea was presented as an intellectual idea (including tying it in to historical philosophical debates, giving detailed explanations of intellectual variations, and including scientific refutations). the reason I put the 'intellectual idea' of ID first is that I assume any reader searching for information about ID is going to want to know - first and foremost - what ID says. the fact that it is a political movement is secondary, because it's a political movement built around an idea. the fact that the idea is a failed idea is secondary, because you can't have a failed idea unless you have the idea presented first. I feel like editors here have (collectively) gotten so tied up in trying prevent ID from being treated as a scientific theory that they've forgotten that there are many ideas in the world that aren't scientific theories (some of them good and some of them bad) that ought to be presented as ideas anyway. and please don't misuse quotes from prominent jurists: that judge did not say that there's no idea there, nor did he reduce the entire movement to political shenanigans; he said that the idea in ID was the same idea presented in creationism, and should be subject to the same rules. that's actually proof that there's an intellectual history (otherwise how could it be tied to other religious arguments)? I understand that you don't want ID to be seen as a scientific theory, and I don't want that either. but I don't understand why the point continually gets pushed past any and all common sense. --Ludwigs2 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an intellectual idea. It's an intellectual idea plus. That's the basis. There's so many things wrong with what you're saying. It's not a political movement built around an intellectual idea. It's the exact reverse. The intellectual idea was built around the political movement; ID was created to support their agenda of getting religion into schools. Teleological arguments already existed, but intelligent design the teleological argument was created to support a political agenda. It's not a teleological argument. It's a teleological argument plus. Automobiles already existed before Ford. The Model T was created by Ford Motor Company as an affordable car for the masses. The Model T isn't an automobile. It's an automobile plus. The Model T article doesn't start off with "the central idea behind a Model T was to transport individuals from one location to another". The Model T article starts with (paraphrased) "The Model T was an automobile produced by Ford Motor Company that is generally regarded as the first affordable automobile". What it is, what it is, what it is. Misuse quotes? The judge said exactly that the idea cannot be uncoupled from its creationist antecedents. It's an idea plus. The Model T cannot be uncoupled from its Ford antecedents. Do we just say it's an automobile? Do we just say ID is an intellectual idea? No. We say what it is. Like we do in the current article.

I don't care if someone out there sees ID as a scientific theory. Wikipedia should not say (or imply) it is a scientific theory is the extent of my feelings on that. But this isn't about that. I'm saying, as clearly as I can, that ID is not just another philosophical idea either. It is a manufactured argument, manufactured much like the Model T was, for a specific purpose. Like Ford building a Model T out of spare automobile parts, creationists built intelligent design out of spare philosophies. It is a newly manufactured thing (originating from spare parts as described in our "origins" section). ID is (c) Discovery Institute, creationists, et al. Wikipedia not saying that clearly, muddling it, skirting it, avoiding it, hiding it behind coats, etc, is Wikipedia not doing its job of being direct, informative, and reliable. What it is, what it is, what it is, belongs in the first paragraph.

In any case, I'm tired of repeating myself. On this issue -- let's call it "Issue:101" -- so I can save myself from carpal tunnel, if I respond: "I don't like it - Issue:101", please assume I am saying all of the above (including some of the archived material) all over again. That'll at least save me the trouble of saying the same thing I've been saying for weeks now, "The argument and it's proponents are intrinsically intertwined" (just like the Model T and Ford). I'm pretty firm on this issue. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can well understand your frustration, this has been going on for weeks now. Neal is correct, ID cannot be split from the political imperitives that led to it's invention. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems a little bizarre to criticize ID on the grounds that it is a "manufactured argument". What else could it be? All human statements are necessarily manufactured, including scientific theories. Take Newton's law of universal gravity for example. Now show me where that law existed before he created (or 'manufactured') it. Of course, you can show me that gravity existed prior to his law (but it's OK, I believe you already), but "gravity" and the "universal law of gravity" are not the same thing. One is a natural phenomenon, the other is a statement (explanation/description) about the natural phenomenon. The natural phenomenon exists independently of human thought; the statement, however, does not: it is created by a human, and thus must be "manufactured" for a "purpose".

(BTW, I am not a religious person in any way. Nor am I a proponent of ID or an enemy of evolution. I just starting reading this out of interest, but I must say, I am appalled by the way this subject has been handled. And the weirdest thing of all? The tone, attitudes and rhetorical tactics seen here are really no different to those of used by any fanatic, including fanatics and zealots of religion. Do I want my kids being taught creationism and ID in school? No! But I do think anyone, including my kids if they so desire, ought to be able to come to a site like this and see description, information and discussion that is complete, fair and neutral. Absolutely!)AlistairLW (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Neal, that sounds suspiciously like you're arguing that the Model T wasn't a car, but rather a cheap ploy to extract money from the masses by giving the something that Ford 'claimed' was a car. in other words... hunh?

you can be as firm on this point as you like, but being firm doesn't make you correct. all I need to do, in fact, is to point out that ID is a simple and clear derivation of creationism (which the article already notes) and that creationism is a simple and clear extension of the pre-creationist (Scopes-trial-like) debate between religious faith and evolutionary science. your entire Issue 101 goes up in a puff of smoke, because most of the DI people weren't alive for the Scopes trial, much less for the origins of the debate (whenever you want to place that, assuming you even can find a proper beginning). the assumption that you can talk about ID without noting its place in the ongoing intellectual debate is groundless.--Ludwigs2 06:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, twist me saying it's not just a car (I was very clear about that) into me saying there's some conspiracy where Ford was fraudulently passing off something that wasn't an actual automobile. I said automobile, plus. You know exactly what I was saying so don't pretend you don't.

On the other part of what you said YES! That's exactly what you need to do. Funny that when you get down to "all you need to do" you finally start phrasing it as "ID is..." ID is(!) "a simple and clear derivation of creationism". Thank you. That's all I was friggin' saying the article needs to say, straight up, first line, like you just did. That's issue 101 and you just solved it by being clear for once. Poof, puff of smoke. Gone. Once you say what it is, then you can separate it out and cover the other things, such as historical origins. You argue and argue with me, misrepresent what I say, twist it around, pretend you didn't hear anything, say I say things that I do not (like that I said you can't place it in historical context -- BS, I never said that) and after all that drama you end up with a "all [you] need to do" that is exactly what I've been saying you need to do all along.

Seriously, if you WP:AGF with me, assume I have the best interests of the article in mind, read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote, use what I wrote exactly as I wrote it and not twist it into some weak basis for an assumption of bad faith, we can both save each other a whole heck of a lot of time here. "The argument and it's proponents are intrinsically intertwined" is exactly "Intelligent Design is a simple and clear derivation of creationism". Shop that around to other editors for consensus. Judge Jones is a reliable source in the article for it. It's the perfect lead sentence (with minor tweaks). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal, there are a handful people I interact with whose good faith I question - you are not one of them. even when we squabble it is always clear to me that it's only a matter of miscommunication. that can make me batty, yes, but... that's just life on the internet.  :-)

alright, let me consider this a bit and see if I can draft some changes that will satisfy both of us. --Ludwigs2 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the changes. No hard feelings. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(undent) Since when did the logical search for fact-based answers using the scientific method become elitist? --FilmFan69 (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

About the 1930s, when there was a a separation of science from non-science. Hard science is elitist. It's very exclusive. If you're not in the club you're out of it. I wouldn't put that in an article, but come on, call a spade a spade. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Science is elitist in the same way athletics is elitist. Anybody can run around a track but to contribute in a substatial way you must have talent, work hard, and abide by the rules. It is not elitist in the way of a private club. People are not "excluded" on the basis of their personal opinions, for instance. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As one who has no particular athletic skill, and even gets regularly criticized on the golf course, trust me, athletics is elitist too : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If your defenition of elitist is anything that excludes somebody based on their own circumstances, would it not also be fair to say that Wal-Mart is elitist? I only have 5 dollars, so Wal-Mart won't let me buy a 10 dollar movie. ELTISTS!!!!Playwrite (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I applied at Wal-Mart once for a job when I was a kid. They turned me down saying I didn't have enough experience in "retail". Pfft. Elitists. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the comments, I have to agree with Neal's view that omitting the noun would amount to personification and not good encyclopedic writing.--Stetsonharry (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with the article

1. The article claims that "Intelligent design" is an assertion about intelligent causes, but the references it cites claim only that "Intelligent Design" involves this assertion. 2. Is the article about "Intelligent design" or "Intelligent Design"? Both terms are used, along with "ID," without care being taken to distinguish them properly.

4seeislengthy (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)4seeislengthy

Welcome 4seeislenghy! The title of the article (little "d") is due to Wikipedia's manual of style which has a standard for capitalization in articles.[1] The capitalization of the term throughout the article is likewise due to the manual of style directives. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

waitwaitwaitwait. "undirected process such as natural selection" um, natural selection is a directed process, not undirected. An undirected process would be, say, genetic drift. 60.240.162.169 (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, but when cdesign proponentsists / ID supporters use the term "undirected" they mean without intervention by a god or similar supernatural bean. . . dave souza, talk 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a direct quote, so any factual inaccuracies are just that - quoted. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Polls

I have no personal dog in the evolution/ID/creationism fight, but I'm concerned about whether we are maintaining a truly neutral tone in the section entitled "Polls." Right now it appears thusly:

Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which sought to determine the level of support for intelligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".[122] Although Zogby polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.[123][124][125]

Are we guilty of selection bias here? This paragraph suggests that public support for ID is low, but we are giving the 10% figure without any context. The linked source to the Harris poll is entitled "Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God." Given that many people (on both sides of the debate) feel that ID and creationism are more or less the same thing, it seems disingenous for us to leave that statistic out. The Harris article goes on to state that "Moreover, a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories should be taught in public schools, while 23 percent support teaching creationism only, 12 percent evolution only, and four percent intelligent design only." So while there appears indeed to be very low support for the teaching of only ID, an overwhelming majority (82%) favor some inclusion of religion-based biological explanations, and that 59% specifically favor the inclusion of the ID explanation (usually alongside the other two). If we consider the Harris poll to be an appropriate encyclopedic reference, we are operating in bad faith if we cherry-pick a single 10% figure and leave the rest alone (especially when we've spent much of the article debating whether or not ID and creationism are even different concepts).

As for the Zogby polls, if they are demonstrably flawed, I'm not sure why we are even bothering to mention them.

Funnyhat (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One article

I found an article [2] which could be useful for a reference, it deals with two bad and two good arguments against ID. A newer version was recently released but viewing it requires subscription. I cannot add this to the article, if this is good could someone add it? Here is also an abstract. [3] 86.50.9.167 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read so far, the philosopher concerned starts with a basic error in equating anti-evolution creationism with YEC, when the movement started as OEC in the 1920s and continues to include those holding that position. . . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New definition from DI fellow

you are a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute that studies and believes in Intelligent Design. How do you, as an Orthodox Jew, reconcile with this kind of generality - with the view of their being a hierarchy with a chief "designer" - while believing in and praying to a very specific God?

The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.

The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God.

No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.

Medved interviewed by Jerusalem Post, hat tip[4] . . dave souza, talk 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody tag this so we can refer to it next time the 'is ID a theory/what is ID?' debate turns up. It's amazing how much more honest IDers are when they're talking to a religious audience. Better yet, maybe we should find somewhere to put it in the article. Given the problem of finding an unambiguous consensus on what ID is, a RS on an insider's view of what it isn't has solid value. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that ... that is finding a way to incorporate it into the article. Careful quoting so as not to appear guilty of POV-bias or "quote mining" would be my only caution. -- DannyMuse (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like double standard about "quote mining" to me. But anyway, I'd like to point out one thing before you get too excited: David Berlinski is a Disvocery Institute Fellow, and he does not support ID. So if a Fellow says that ID is not a theory, only a challenge to evolution, is this the official statement from the Discovery Institute? Just curious. 87.94.111.158 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Another interesting article has a succinct critique of ID, and responds to proponents[ists] Sherlock and West who "come to the defense of "intelligent design theory" as a scientific alternative to Darwinian biology." . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And another exciting link! "The Institute of Discovery has today shockingly revealed the one letter Darwinists have tried their utmost to hide. Its contents reveal once and for all the devastating truth of Ben Steins allegations in Expelled and show for all to see the bankruptcy of Darwinian morality." . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD

John G. West is being considered for deletion. Editors may wish to offer an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John G. West. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Issues

A quote from the article:

'Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,[183] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[184]' A kind of circular argument, surely. It would seem to imply that a journal whose "peer review" consisted entirely of Darwin supporters would similarly lack impartiality and rigor.

I don't particularly support ID (and I certainly have no time for Creationism) but the whole article seems incredibly biased.79.97.235.67 (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, scientific documents are never are or were reviewed by "Darwin supporters". They were lots of people disagreeing with Darwin back in the days of Origin of Species, there were a lot of them later on, and right now the Biology and Evolution theories have both expanded well past these models. To say that Scientists support or reject theory A or B prior to being familiar with it would be a misnomer, and certainly far from actual Science.

Not to mention that "supporting" a certain scientific theory is not the same as supporting some un-scientific claims or beliefs. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A minor sweep

It would be good to sweep through the article for weasel phrases, and attribute or remove them thusly. We should use the terms "many", "most", "several" very lightly, and only in summary; in the lead, they may be acceptable without expansion, but in the article text, you should explain the views if you use the terms (such as "ID is considered psuedoscience. Proponent A's opinion. B's opinion. C's opinion). Also, it would be good to cut down on singular views when a whole nameable group (such as the NSTA) has criticised the concept. An example can be found here. The first attributes the theory claim to the DI. The second removes the "Others have concurred", because it doesn't add much to the article when compared to named groups and contains the weasel word "others" (who are these others, and why should they carry as much weight as major named organisations?). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ID teaching in public schools

"By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula." This is a false statement. Let's presume that the Discovery Institute is the hub of ID. Discovery Institute has published [5] already in 2002 an article "Teach the Controversy" where Stephen Meyer suggests that Ohio does not require students to learn anything about intelligent design, its arguments or evidence for it. Don't be sidestepped by irrelevant facts: I know that ID proponents have published books and textbooks supporting ID. It does not necessarily follow that Discovery Institute supports teaching ID in schools from that fact alone. I also know that the majority of scientists believe there's no controversy in evolution or evidence for it, but that's not the point here. It is about how the opinion of the ID movement is presented here. It has stated through individual Fellows and its Top Questions list[6] that it does not support teaching ID in schools: "In fact, the Discovery Institute doesn't call for teaching I.D"[7], "Discovery says it doesn't want schools to mandate the teaching of ID, but to 'teach the controversy.'"[8]. Discovery Institute is a reliable source when it comes to voicing THEIR opinion about THEIR stance about teaching ID in schools. For a fair treatment, both sides should be presented. –

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.111.158 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So the following are just figments of our deluded imagination?

• Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook Mark E. DeForrest,
• "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science Or Religion, Or Speech?", DeWolf, Meyer & DeForrest, Utah Law Review 39,
• "A Liberty Not Fully Evolved? The Case of Rodney DeLake and the Right of Public School Teachers to Criticize Darwinism", Francis J Beckwith, San Diego Law Review 39,
• Law, Darwinism and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design, Beckwith.

Meyer is the founder of the Center for Science and Culture, so his writings cannot be claimed to be unrelated to the DI's position. The ID movement have a long history of talking out of both sides of their mouth on this, and the Teach the Controversy strategy itself was described in the KvD decision as "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're deluded, you're putting words in my mouth. This is nothing personal. I just saw that the DI publicly says that it does not endorse teaching ID in public schools and the WP article says otherwise. It seemed inconsistent and I brought the idea to your attention. About your books: I haven't read these books, but it is good that you brought them to my attention. But, after reading the titles of the books, I'm still not convinced about your position. What does the first book contain? Does it involve "sneaky tactics" to get ID in the classroom, or only speculation about is it legal to mention ID in the classroom? The second book has a provocative title (Science and Religion, whoa!), yes. Is it a discussion about the relationship of Science and Religion, or a discussion about religious implications of science, or what is it?

The third and fourth book contain the term "Darwinism", oh noes. Note to you: criticizing Darwinism does not equate teaching ID, creationism or religion or anything else. This is not a black-and-white world. Of course, I'd like to be proven wrong about my position with accurate quotes from "core" ID people. 87.94.111.158 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The DI publicly lies about this, most obviously when they lined up to testify that Pandas was suitable teaching material for Dover – then mostly fell over themselves backing out, leaving Behe to testify to that effect. For just one source about the '90s, see the cited Seattle Weekly article:

"All we ask, the fellows have trumpeted again and again, is the opportunity to make our case, to see our evidence given equal time and exposure with Darwinism, in the media, in the academy—and in the schools.

In parallel with a mission of training the media to take it seriously, the Center for Science and Culture from the beginning had been looking for local school districts and state boards of education that might be sympathetic to the campaign. It struck gold near home in 1999. School authorities (and parents) in Skagit County's Burlington-Edison School District discovered that for going on 10 years, one of its high- school science teachers, Roger DeHart, had routinely been omitting part of the state-approved biology textbook to make room for his selected readings on evolution, most notably a little book called Of Pandas and People. It is devoted to highlighting questions unanswered by mainstream Darwinism and suggesting that the new science of intelligent design might provide answers."[9]

And so on.... dave souza, talk 17:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the publisher of the first book on the list (the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, which also published Pandas), the book:

...will give teachers and school board members who want to add intelligent design to their curriculum the ammunition they need to combat the intimidation of the ACLU.

This clearly demonstrates that the aim is to facilitate the tuition of ID in public schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful reference

This could be an authoritative source. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Scott EC, Matzke NJ (2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Excellent source, thanks very much. Makes me feel out of the loop, this has been out for more than a year now! Good that the whole article is freely available, and from what I've read so far this gives a very useful summary with points that we don't really cover – like the basic point that "The creationism/evolution battle began in the 1920s as a by-product of the acrimonious split of American Protestantism into “fundamentalist” and “modernist” camps." That particular point would make a useful revision to Intelligent design movement#Origin of the movement, and could be briefly mentioned in the main article as the origins of anti-evolution are commondly misunderstood. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You might also be able to use this one. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ayala FJ (2007). "Darwin's greatest discovery: design without designer". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 Suppl 1: 8567–73. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701072104. PMC 1876431. PMID 17494753. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Neutral Coverage

Given the nature of the article, probably the hundredth time neutrality has been mentioned.

'The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."' Isn't it worth noting that, due to the huge span of time involved, the same is true of the theory of evolution? The fruit fly experiment, while it did create two different subspecies of fruit flies, had a massive error in the measurement of results: The flies refused to mate with each other, and that was the ONLY thing recorded. this only proves a behavioral reluctance, not physical incapacity or, most importantly, genetic incompatibility. In addition, the extremely small size of the subjects made it impossible to induce mating physically or chemically, or artificially fertilize a female fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.155.101.49 (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure you have a reliable source making these arguments. Then you could propose an edit based on that source. I'd suggest you post at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy or Talk:Evidence of common descent depending on the angle you want to take. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it worth noting that, due to the huge span of time involved, the same is true of the theory of evolution? - no, it's not, because that would be false. Raul654 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously it *is* testable by the methods of science - you just provided one example. The modern evolutionary synthesis can be tested historically, genetically, mathematically, logically, experimentally, what have you. God, however, cannot.

I'm sure Evolution, Introduction to Evolution or Evolution FAQ adress most of the points on the subject. --Draco 2k (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This garbage is always from an anon... --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dean Kenyon's Assertion

Dear Mr. Souza:

In response to my previous proposal to revise the first paragraph of the ID article, you wrote, "The rearrangement muddles the nuance that the term was introduced by a proponent who is no longer associated with the DI, at a time before the DI came into existence." I recently discovered that Dean Kenyon, the co-author of Of Pandas and People, is currently a Fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. That fact surprised me. I now wonder which "proponent" of ID you were referring to.

The following three paragraphs could replace the existing first paragraph of the article on ID.

Scott610 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dean Kenyon has asserted that the "various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact." He refers to this assertion as "intelligent design." He is currently a Fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. John G. West, the Associate Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, believes that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" and that intelligent design is a "scientific theory".

The history of ideas is a field of research in history that deals with the expression, preservation, and change of human ideas over time.[1] When viewed from this perspective, intelligent design may be regarded as a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Those modifications include replacing the word "creation" with "intelligent design" and replacing "intelligent creator" with "intelligent agency".

The principal proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, modified their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. They believe that the intelligent designer is the God of Christianity.

1. history of ideas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ideas

Thanks for the clarification, though Kenyon's not very visible these days, it's interesting to note that he's still a current fellow of the CSC. As a lead the proposal seems to me to place too much emphasis on Kenyon, who really got sidelined in the 1990s, and to be rather less clear than the current intro. The new reference cited above needs to be reviewed, and it would work better in my opinion for improvements to be made to the article as a whole before blitzing the lead. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dave. Kenyon's prominence has changed over the years. He was a major player in getting the whole thing started, but his star has since faded. I can think of at least two possible explanations for this (and chances are that there are other possibilities as well): (i) that he hasn't done enough since Pandas to keep himself in the forefront, so has been superseded by more prolific authors and/or (ii) he is too closely associated with Edwards and ID's Creation Science roots, which ID is attempting to dissociate itself from these days. Whatever the explanation, his lack of prominence both currently and in recent years would mean that he should not be given WP:UNDUE emphasis in the article's intro (or most of the rest of the article), but due emphasis in discussing ID's early history. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How scientific claims are covered

Looking over this article, it seems to me to reflect a fundamental problem in how scientific claims are covered. It presents conclusions by scientists essentially as opinions, to be accepted essentially on authority (so because scientists say so), without giving any insight into the methods and observations people used to reach these conclusions. This is neither good coverage of the subject, nor helpful to a reasoned understanding of how science works, what its arguments are based on, and what its strengths (and perhaps limits) might be. As I understand it, there are essentially three types of arguments made, Occam's razor style arguments, (intelligent design is not necessary to explain what was oberved), refutation arguments (what is observed is inconsistent with it), and non-falsifiablilty arguments (the existence of an external creator can be neither confirmed nor refuted by observation, hence the subject is not properly a scientific one). For all three arguments, we ought to see more about the mechanism by which the conclusion is reached. In particular, there needs to be an operational definition of "intelligent design" -- what specifically do we need to observe to claim that we have detected or refuted it? For Occam's razor arguments, we'd need an augmented model that contains an "intelligent design" element and a reduced model that doesn't, and a test -- ideally a statistical one -- showing one is as good as the other. For the refutation arguments, we'd need to show the non-design model is better. For a subject as complex and disputed as this, there should be an inner techical article that explains exactly what models people are using and the assumptions behind them, complete with descriptions of statistical tests and p-values if relevant. Moreover, there has to be a clear disclosure of operational definitions. What exactly is it people are claiming not to have observed, claiming to have observed inconsistent evidence, or claiming can't be observed, when they claim the proposition to be unnecessary, refuted, or non-falsifiable? I'm going to point out that the operational definition problem is a particularly difficult one because one could argue that any claim that the existence of an intelligent design has to leave particular signature marks is an essentially a theological claim, not a scientific one. Claiming that a God must necessarily work in the world in certain ways is arguably not a purely scientific claim, and I believe an opportunity should be given to discuss whether the implied theological claims made are naive or not. Theology has had to deal with other arguments in the past that theologians would find similar, whether or not scientists would. The Problem of evil was basically an argument that a good God would have to leave a certain signature on the world, whereas we see what looks like a lot of evil, ergo the existence of a good God is refuted. The argument is millenia old and religion didn't topple over it. The problem of an intelligent God in the face of what looks like a lot of randomness in the world is not necessarily a fundamentally different problem, theologically, than the problem of a good God in the face of what looks like a lot of evil. The theological claims scientists are making when they make operational definitions are in some ways the analogues of the centuries-old claims made in the Problem of evil. I suggest that more space be given for theologians who dispute these claims as naive or unsophisticated or perhaps even strawman or pseudo-theology. I don't wish to push my personal view (which, for disclosure, tends to lead in the direction of non-falsifiability). But I do think that more exposition of the skeleton underlying the various claims, particlarly operational definitions and method, is necessary for an intelligent discussion of the subject. Finally, I think that there should be a clearer distinction between claims the subject is not scientifically addressable (i.e. science has a limited scope and can't evaluate every kind of claim) and claims it has been scientifically refuted. The two are very different. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've a headache reading this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If I can briefly summarise, Shirahadasha thinks the article should be improved with citations to suitable sources supporting the improvements. To which I respond,

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.... etc. . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC) [sofixit trimmed to be more apposite]. dave souza, talk 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have any problems with any part of the article, please, be bold and edit it as you see fit.

Remember that Wikipedia does not publish original thought and rests on verifiability rather than "truth". If something is explained in another article, or in direct citation, or is blatantly obvious, it can be amended from being mentioned for reading comprehension purposes. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

addition of a word....

in the lead, hows about "It is a specific modern form of the traditional teleological argument"? - I've just been chatting with someone IRL about this article and was going over the confusion between the differences between 'teleological argument' and 'intelligent design' and I recalled that I too used to consider these terms synonymous. Would this word help make the terms of the subject discussed in this article a bit clearer? (does it reflect them well?) - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be against "specific" as the delineation of ID is frequently too vague and equivocal to allow specificity. "Specialised" or similar might be a better adjective -- as it has a specialised purpose rather than a specific form. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Would be a lot easier to say what kind of specific we're talking about here, if anything - just by itself it'd be a weasel word. I.e. what makes it special? --Draco 2k (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability."

This statement appears to give an erroneous basis for ID's lack of falsifiability. Many events that are neither directly observable nor repeatable (the Big bang for example) are falsifiable. The reason that ID is not falsifiable is that it does not make any testable predictions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read the Sober article that this is sourced to, I don't think that this article (which makes a number of important, but subtle and multithreaded, points) can be legitimately used to make a bald statement on ID's falsifiability. It's final word on falsifiability is:

If scientists observe that “purely physical

antecedents” at time t9 give rise to complex information at t10, this does not refute the ID claim any more than a mindless printing press does. ID proponents will simply maintain that an intelligent designer was present at an earlier stage. If scientists press their inquiry into the more remote past and discover that mindless physical conditions at t8 produced the conditions at t9, ID proponents will have the same reply: an intelligent designer was involved at a still earlier time. If scientists somehow manage to push their understanding of the complex information that exists at t10 all the way back to the start of the universe without ever having to invoke an intelligent designer, would that refute the ID position? Undoubtedly, ID proponents will then postulate a supernatural intelligence that exists outside of space and time. Defenders of ID always have a way out. This is not the mark of

a falsifiable theory.

In addition, the proponents of ID who make this argument have lost sight of the role of observation in Popper’s concept of falsifiability. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it is not enough that it be inconsistent with a possible state of affairs; it must also be inconsistent with a possible observation. Granted, the ID position is inconsistent with the existence of complex information that never had an intelligent designer in its causal history. It is equally true that “all lightning bolts issue from the hand of Zeus” is inconsistent with there existing even one Zeus-less lightning bolt (Pennock 1999). These points fail to address how observations could refute either claim.

It's conclusion is:

It is one thing for a version of ID to have

observational consequences, something else for it to have observational consequences that differ from those of a theory with which it competes. The mini-ID claim that an intelligent designer made the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, but that does not permit it to be tested against alternative explanations of why vertebrates have eyes. When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other. No such auxiliary propositions allow mini-ID to do this.

It is easy enough to construct a version of ID that accommodates a set of observations already known, but it also is easy to construct a version of ID that conflicts with what we have already observed. Neither undertaking results in substantive science, nor is there any point in constructing a version of ID that is so minimalistic that it fails to say much of anything about what we observe. In all its forms, ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory.

Thanks for all the above info, Hrafn. The part of the article that's from goes through arguments that are then reiterated in the Defining science section. In my view both need to be severely trimmed to reflect newer sources directly concerned with ID and remove more general sources and discussion about the nature of science.

It would clarify things if the section directly under Creating and teaching the controversy were stopped after the statement of the 3 issues, and the remainder merged into the subsections of moved into a new subsection. Thus the paragraph concerned would move into the Defining science section, merged into the existing opening paragraph to give more there about the "theistic realism" issue.

The sentence you find unsupported should be cut out, perhaps replaced by a simpler statement based on Expelled Exposed "The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested...." etc.

The whole attempt to define science from "This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where..." to "...any meaningful sense of the word." is superfluous and should be trimmed out of this article, possibly merged into another article if it's useful. The Peer review section is useful for the specific peer review claims, but seems to go over the "is it science" question again, and that aspect should be trimmed or merged into the Defining science section.

Just a suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Expelled exposed looks like a good source for a blunt rebuttal. As an alternative/addition, I've attempted to summarise Sober's more subtle point:

Philosopher of biology Elliott Sober states that ID is not falsifiable, because "[d]efenders of ID always have a way out" as they can push the influence of the purported designer to an arbitrarily early time that predates the period for which scientists have a "mindless physical" explanation for, and that "[f]or a proposition to be falsifiable, it is not enough that it be inconsistent with a possible state of affairs; it must also be inconsistent with a possible observation." He concludes that to be a scientific hypothesis ID must "have observational consequences that differ from those of a theory with which it competes."

RE: restructuring, Kitzmiller definitely deserves its own top-level section, 'Intelligence as an observable quality' & 'Arguments from ignorance' can probably go together as subsections of some, yet to be named section (as they seem to be reasonably related to each other). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How does 'ID and empiricism' or similar sound as a section title to place 'Intelligence as an observable quality' & 'Arguments from ignorance' under? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a "Criticisms" or "ID as science" section? That'd be quite concise, and could probably house broader scope of potential material. Maybe. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the world "science" in the section title. But "ID as science" may imply supportive as well as critical statements. But if we want to keep this article readable (and it's really not, it is truly a religious/philosophical article, and it's hard to read), we should stick with simpler section titles like "Criticisms" or "ID as science". I'd accept either, but I"m just one lonely editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"ID as science" would, indeed, be a misleading title. Though I assume it could amended by starting the section with "ID is not Science". I'm sure readability is an important point for any and all articles, as long as no crucial information is lost. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a style guideline somewhere against such wording ('principle of least surprise', or some such). We clearly should not title ID "as" something that the overwhelming majority unequivocally states it is not (which quite clearly cuts down the list of appropriate "as"s considerably). This was why I was proposing an "and" title -- originally 'ID and empiricism', but 'ID and the evidence', or even at a stretch 'ID and Science' or something similar might be valid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added in both Expelled Exposed & my Sober-summary on falsifiability and given Kitzmiller its own top-section, as those changes don't seem to be controversial. We can leave off splitting off 'Intelligence as an observable quality' & 'Arguments from ignorance' until we can come to a consensus on the collective title (I must admit that I've yet to find a title that I do like, and have been simply advocating ones that I dislike least. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)