Talk:Intelligent design movement

Beginning Intelligent design srticle split

This article began as a split from Intelligent design, as that article had grown to 65kb.--ghost 15:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Did a restructure, and it seems coherent enough for now. Will need references, etc.--ghost 18:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to tip my hat to FeloniousMonk for helping with the article split. It's alot of work, and I appreciate the results.--ghost 12:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. But as I said on my talk page, you've actually done all the heavy lifting here. And seeing the two articles now broken out, I admit you were right to suggest the split, and my reluctance for it was not warranted. The thanks here go to you. FeloniousMonk 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice URL

Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Shorten intro

Any chance someone can shorten this intro? Maybe move some stuff to the body of the article? FuelWagon 06:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

ID is intended to detect design among biological information. The philosophy behind it and the nature of the source of intelligence(s) is beyond the scope of ID. See the history:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=526

--Swmeyer 23:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Really? You might want to consider reading the article again and follow some of the links to read the supporting cites. Also, the Discovery Institute makes dissembling its agenda a matter of policy. Just as it also makes obfuscation of that policy a matter of policy as well. This is covered in the article and supported by many, many credible cites. You should consider reading them. The NPOV template is unjustified. FeloniousMonk 23:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Let me give an example. Atleast Discovery's response should be included. Probably more of a description of how the movement got started should be included. The assertion that "the Discovery Institute makes dissembling its agenda a matter of policy" should not be the interpreting lens through which all else is discussed. We should leave that up to the reader.

Swmeyer 13:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

More reason this is should be marked as not of a NPOV:

The movement's Teach the Controversy campaign is designed to portray evolution as "a theory in crisis" and leave the scientific establishment looking close-minded, that it is attempting to stifle and suppress new discoveries supporting ID that challenge the scientific status quo. This is made with the knowledge that it's unlikely many in the public can or will consult the current scientific literature or contact major scientific organizations to verify Discovery Institute claims and plays on undercurrents of anti-intellectualism and distrust of science and scientists that can be found in particular segments of American society. In doing this, the movement claims that it is confronting the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and a secular, atheistic philosophy of Naturalism. The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US.

This whole paragraph, while attempting to provide ID proponents' perspective, actually gives it in the context of a conclusion that ID proponents know there is nothing to their doubts of Darwinian evolution or their hypotheses about design and are really after power. They clearly do not believe this:

• Dembski's math is foundational to ID and makes up the basis of the hypothesis

And has been roundly criticized. What's the point of saying this? We all know that Dembski does some weird probability calculations and believes he is above criticism. Joshuaschroeder 15:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it has been roundly criticized (mostly by people who don't get it), he legitimately there is something substantive to it. And using the argument that we all know it is akin to playground mockery.

• They believe that their perspective goes back as far as Aristotle.

Irrelevent. In the history of human thought, there is nothing new under the sun. Joshuaschroeder 15:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant to bring in this point because ID proponents believe they are consistent with a history of thought associated with design in nature. It shows they do not think they are putting forth a false argument in order to win political something, but rather fit within a legitimate lineage of thought.

• They attempt to engage the data as evidenced in Meyer's latest publication that cites 148 sources.

Not an attempt to engage the data, but rather an attempt to write a "critical review". This is like claiming that a follower of modern geocentrism who writes a review is attempting to engage the data. Engaging the data is responding to a specific research question, not writing a survey piece. Joshuaschroeder 15:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

While I did use data in this sense as the articles, etc., what you put forth is a legitimate but different approach to what he did. Yet, he still attempts to put forth conclusions based on past studies. And to equate this with modern geocentrism proves my whole point--your anti-religious bias gets in the way of you actually engaging ID ideas as they are, not as they are set up as straw men to be. It's unfortunate.

Swmeyer 19:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Swmeyer 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As demonstrated above, your evidence for this does not pass the muster. Joshuaschroeder 15:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You dismissed my evidence without giving it a chance. There is nothing that could "pass the muster" that you would require because there is no argument that can be put forth to convince a skeptic. Also unfortunate.

Swmeyer 19:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is accurate as it stands. Any accurate and fair article on ID cannot rely solely Discovery Institute statements as being definitive. This is because the institute and its leadership have explicitly stated that obfuscating their agenda is matter of policy, as stated by Johnson and as outlined in their Wedge strategy. Outside observations as well as the Discovery Institute's statements are what is the article. You and I have discussed this already, and you know that the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia do not demand that articles assist their subjects in their dissembling. Stop trying to spin this as an NPOV issue. It's a specious claim that wastes the time of other good faith editors. FeloniousMonk 16:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that they are dissembling what is a religious conspiracy. Please read this post that describes their take on what happened with the "wedge document". Is this dissembling or bringing the appropriate context to the document (rather than the context you want to impose on the document and the movement).

--Swmeyer 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read already. And their explanation itself serves as evidence they are dissembling. If someone has been shown to dissembling, then their protestations they are not are not just dubious, but disingenuous. And it's not just the Wedge document that indicates that they are dissembling, but Johnson and others call for dissembling explicitly outside of the document. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 Bryan controversy

The Bryan controversy needs to be updated IMHO. It doesn't really exactly explain how exactly Bryan was able to have such a great influence in the selection of this thesis reviewers. I'm quite surprised by this. I believe in most countries outside the US, the candidate has little if any say in the makeup of the reviewers...

The rules for OSU allow student particpation in the makeup of the panel:

Upon completion of the [candidacy] examination, the student may reorganize the committee to reflect the expertise needed for the dissertation. The dissertation committee must have at least three members: two from the science education program area and one from outside the science education program area.

I added the emphasis there. It's been implied that Bryan selected those on the panel who he knew to be pro-ID, and there the rule requiring a public announcement of a thesis defense may have been subverted [1] [2]. I'll roll this information into the article. FeloniousMonk 15:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)