Talk:Intelligent design

	Please read before starting
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. Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: 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: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) NPOV: Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) NPOV: Making necessary assumptions (WP:MNA) NPOV: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL). 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). 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#Theories and hypotheses. 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 nauseam 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 FAQ and the partial index of points that have already been discussed, and use the search box below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Denialism category

Should the article on intelligent design be categorized under denialism?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose While some editors have argued that this refers to ID's alleged denial of evolution or other scientific questions, the category does not come with such caveats. The subject as defined in the lede is clearly indicating the view is claiming a divine entity created life and the universe in some manner. By categorizing this article under denialism it implies the latter view is denial. I recognize that may not be the intent of including it here, but it is the effect of including it here. This does not preclude the term denialism from being mentioned in the article, even in the lede if it is clearly of merit, but that should be done with the appropriate caveats not in a way that implies all belief in a creator is denial as this category does.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Although in some cases I'd prefer a category-like designation be used to point to a more general "See also" group of related articles and thus narrow the scope for sets labeled "category" (and help minimize any tendency to overuse it, as a "Badge of Shame" for instance), per the current guidelines this article clearly qualifies. It may be unfortunate that the term is used in two senses--one of them being the conjectured psychological motivation underlying the "denial" rather than its immutability against all evidence. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is one in a series; for "See also," the infobox has a number of articles that can be accessed with a click of the mouse. Please see Denialism, which isn't in the infobox :-) for more about how the word is used at Wikipedia, and presumably in academia and by the informed public. Here's one sentence: In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial. Evolution is a basic concept that is an undisputed and well-supported part of the scientific consensus; ergo, to call it false is denialism. Wells not only calls it false, he titles a whole essay "Why Darwinism is False," defining Darwinism as "the modern theory of evolution." Yopienso (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As defined as in science denialism, ID obviously qualifies. Let's label it "Denialism A". "Denialism B" as defined as some kind of psychological pathology...as a "why?" diagnosis for the "denial", well, that's best reserved for categorizing the "why" theories rather than naming and shaming the "why's" by example. I don't think the "why" business is well enough understood yet to justify taking that angle, even when isolated sources are offered as backup. So to me, ID qualifies as defined, "Denialism A", and WP needs to be careful not to insinuate ID qualifies as defined "Denialism B". imho. Professor marginalia (talk)

• Support: this is an typical example of denialism. Actually, I see no reason for RfC here, as I can't think of any valid arguments against such categorization. And as I se from the discussion, nobody can. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comments below. Briefly, the common meaning of the word is POV pejorative. The noted guideline even explicitly lists it as a POV word to avoid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose North8000 makes a good point, it does seem a bit of witch hunt. I'm no fan of ID but feel inclusion in 'denialism' for only a subset of believes categorized in ID is a bit much. Pseudoscience sounds like a better option.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, based on these reliable sources Denying AIDS: conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and human tragedy science Denialism: evolution and climate change which clearly label ID as a denialist philosophy. Again, it doesn't mean that ID or its proponents are really denialists, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it just means that this article is grouped with other topics which have also been labeled as such in reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: while there are RS that suggest ID is denialism, I do not think the threshold of WP:CAT has been met. I do not see reliable sources commonly and consistently defining ID as denialism. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support ID is denialism at its very core: it is entirely about the denial of science and then denying that it is itself a religious argument. Both propositions have been roundly rejected by any number of RSs. Even the arguments presented here against including the ID article in the category are themselves a form of denialism. Finally, this is not the place to argue whether the category itself should exist. It does, and thus this article sits fairly and squarly within the ambit of the category. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - If you look around at how ID is used in the context of discussions of denialism, you'll often see it used as a illustrative example of denialism - like Kalichman does in the source cited below. In trying to explain to his readers what AIDS denialism is, he quotes (better known) examples...like ID. If you do some digging for sources, you'll find several cases of this kind of usage. The idea that intelligent design is evolution denial is fairly standard. Guettarda (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per my arguments in section above, which I don't feel the need to repeat ad nauseum here. Yobol (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Guettarda (especially below). Since ID is the illustrative example used in the literature, it would be a large omission to exclude it from the category. Many arguments to omit it are actually votes against the category existing at all, and if so, this isn't the right venue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - not encyclopedic. Just ensure NPOV article and let the reader form their own conclusions. Nobody Ent 21:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support ID is just a reformulation of creationism. It is an attempt to circumvent laws preventing the teaching of a purely doctrinal statement. As ID is co-equal wit creationism it is denialism and should be categorized as such.--Adam in MO Talk 06:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Adamfinmo, I think you probably meant to put "oppose" - the proposal is to remove the article from the denialism category. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. The RfC reads "Should the article on intelligent design be categorized under denialism?"   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Must have had a brain explosion or something! - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support This seems like a no-brainer to me. Not only is ID clearly within the category as defined, but it is also widely and strongly labelled as denialism by RSs. Several objectors seem to think that we shouldn't label ID as denialism because we'd be implying that proponents of ID are dense or dishonest. This argument doesn't wash with me for two reasons. Firstly, causing offense shouldn't trump facts. Secondly, and more importantly, it's a non-argument because proponents of ID are either dense or dishonest.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Inherently POV, implies the premise is false. Categorization is intended to be neutral and uncontroversial, something that does not require discussion, partly since the application of a Cat is not in and of itself cited. Should not be categorized, should be discussed and cited in the article as Denialism. Should the category even exist under these standards of uncontroversial? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I hear the opposes based on it being POV, but please think about it for a second. What's the neutral position for WP to take? That intelligent design is supported by science? FormerIP (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, the neutral position is simply to take no position at all, and instead, let the facts speak for themselves, and let the reader decide how to interpret those facts. Bwrs (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, on articles about pseudoscience and/or fringe theories, the neutral position is the scientific one. Please see WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:DUE. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The basic property of denialism (" the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality.") is simply not present in Intelligent Design. They accept all empirically verifiable reality, they just think that there is a plan behind it. (Full disclosure: I don't underwrite any of the ID thoughts.) _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You're confusing ID with theistic evolution. Guettarda (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see the point of diluting the meaning of denialism by applying it to every bit of pseudoscience. Keep it for straight well documented denialism like the tobacco companies did or those nazis denying the holocaust. The pseudoscience category describes intelligent design well and accurately. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's patently denialism. They deny the scientific consensus regarding the origins of life, the species, and the universe. That's a textbook definition of it. Mkemper331 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Nobody Ent. Bwrs (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as violating neutral POV... It would follow that all of the Evolutionary Theory articles would also be placed under the category "denialism". That's the faulty logic being applied here. Just because the article quotes someone who describes it, in their opinion, as "denialist", it does not follow that the editorial judgement of the editors should fall into line with that person's quoted opinion and categorize it as verifiable fact. Pick any topic on any subject, you can probably find a quotable source that will label it as "denialism" -- global warming? Global cooling? Do we put everything with a contentious debate connected with it under the category "denialism"? Opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one. LOL. OttawaAC (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the article in the Category:Denialism. However, it might, maybe, be more appropriate to include either the Category:Intelligent design or some other related category, as there seem to be multiple articles relating to the subject. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Comment: This was already discussed, above, with a large number of editors weighing in. The overwhelming consensus (every editor except the proposer) supported the category. Unless there are other considerations which haven't been addressed, it seems to me this is pretty much settled. Obviously, outside opinions are welcome if so, but please scan the discussion above first.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is unnecessary; clearly there's editorial consensus, based on policy, that the category "Denialism" is appropriate for this article. This whole section needs to hatted and forgotten; the two dissenters just aren't listening. Yopienso (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It's just a deadhorse argument. Hat it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did, and he reverted it. Yopienso (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree this is a case of WP:IDHT, but I don't see any major harm leaving it open. When an editor "isn't getting it", I typically tell them to post an RfC or on a noticeboard to get outside opinions, and TDA should be free to do that if he thinks we aren't representing policy well. That said, he's gotten a lot of outside opinions already (9 by my count), so when he doesn't get much support here he should be expected to let it go. Until then, I think we can just ignore it; no use edit warring, and it's not time for ANI or RFCU yet.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the history or even the context of the current question, but "denialism" is a pejorative bordering on an attack and should not be a classification. And that is a scientific atheist (me) speaking. North8000 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, every editor commenting above supporting the cat is a regular contributor to the article. Outside opinion traditionally refers to people who have not been heavily involved in the article and who may thus have a more objective perspective as a result.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming any categorization for myself, I was weighing in on the question at hand. North8000 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As already mentioned, please read the above discussion first before commenting. DA is confusing the scope of the article and is assuming that the reader will likewise do the same. His questions have been answered repeatedly and the consensus is quite clear, yet he repeatedly makes the same argument ad nauseam. No recognition of other arguments, no changing of stance, just the same argument over and over again. Classic WP:IDHT.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually edit this page although I do keep an eye on changes and discussions here. On the subject of this RFC, it is blindingly obvious that ID is the very epitome of denialism - if it does not warrant inclusion in that category, nothing does. As others have commented, those opposing inclusion in the category are indulging in some industrial strength IDHT. The overwhelming majority of editors support inclusion of the article in the Denialism category - a very clear consensus. This RFC is unnecesssary and should be closed and the Cat applied forthwith. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The cat is still very much there. It is a question of whether it should remain. Were you to look at WP:CAT the exact wording there says:

“ Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. ”

Most of the individuals above are arguing that it is acceptable to include because it only applies to a certain aspect of the subject. However, such explanations being necessary is exactly what WP:CAT is talking about. Basically, if you have to explain that the category is only negatively labeling one aspect of the subject then the category should probably not be included even if you have a thousand sources using the label.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Then this is not the place to be having that discussion. If you want to adopt that line of argument take it to the category talk page (good luck with that). In the meantime it is about time you accepted the concensus here and dropped the stick. The category does exist and it plainly applies to this article. Practically everyone here seems to accept that, I would call that a concensus. Move on now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the category itself is perfectly acceptable in some articles. This is just not one of them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No. It applies to the defining aspect of the subject. The belief of a designer is the minor aspect of ID, one it shares with numerous other religions and ideologies, only a few of which are similarly denialist.

And again "need to maintain a neutral point of view" means we do have to follow the thousand reliable sources using the label. Not avoid anything for fear of offending someone or in the misguided sense of retaining outward harmony. NPOV != equal validity. How many times must you be told to read NPOV in its entirety? And I'm pretty sure I'm still talking to a wall. You'll reiterate the same argument in 3... 2... -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to talk about NPOV how about what it says right at the top?:

“ Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. ”

Again, if you have to explain that it only refers to one aspect of the subject, then you probably haven't satisfied WP:NPOV with regards to the cat.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the entire thing, ffs. Right beside the passage you conveniently quoted out of context are two far more relevant passages. Not to mention the first sentence of WP:NPOV itself and entire subsections WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA, WP:PSCI, and WP:RNPOV. All of which make it abundantly clear that the category is both appropriate and neutral (in the "this is how reliable sources see this as" kind of neutrality not the "this is how someone who takes everything at face value without ascertaining reliability" kind of neutrality). WP:NPOV is married to WP:V, whether you like it or not.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do people keep citing "equal validity" and "due weight"? I said very plainly that pseudoscience is a perfectly acceptable category for this article (making the PSCI mention odd as well) and that satisfies such concerns. MNA seems to be another odd mention as it does not pertain to the question at all. RNPOV is certainly relevant, but it is more favorable towards removing the cat as causing "unnecessary offense" since we already have the much clearer pseudoscience category.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why indeed. If you can't even understand that, then we have no hope of ever moving forward from this. What's stopping you from making the same arguments for the removal of pseudoscience category for example? It's also offensive to people who might not realize that ID is not the same thing as teleological argument. Come to think of it, given that Christianity is also an aspect of it, it might be offensive to Christians too! Or religion in general! Or humanity! The very same arguments you are using now is the same arguments that won't work for the removal of the latter category. Context and scope is what you should be looking at, not hypothetical reactions of people who might misunderstand that the subject of the article actually does not refer to every single religious person out there.

And what's with the sudden U-turn. Didn't you just argue passionately a few hours back that reliable sources don't trump NPOV? Now you're saying something completely different (also don't oversell it, only one book is Wikipedia derived actually, lol). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, looking further I am being way too charitable in suggesting this label is even used very often. While statements that they "deny evolution" do occur a little more than a trivial amount of times in opinion pieces, the exact label of "denialism" is rarely applied. Thumbing through the Google Books results reveals even fewer actual connections, save for Wikipedia-derived books. Only some of the sources provided in the discussion above this show any mention of this label at all, and those mentions being very trivial or tenuous. This just adds on to the issue of its usage here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

First, if you are worried about my POV, I'm a scientific atheist who 100% believes in evolution thinks that ID and creationism are in error. And I don't want ID taught in public schools. ID might even have a significant "political maneuver" aspect amongst those promoting it. But I have to say that the whole tone here seems like a witch hunt against ID rather than coverage of it. This impassioned insistence on applying a pejorative term to it seems a part of the pattern. A category by that name probably shouldn't even exist, it itself appearing to be a maneuver by taking a term which has a common meaning that it pejorative and using a second supposedly-dispassionate meaning to try to justify its use. There is nothing to say that it needs to be applied here. Manual of Style/Words to watch even explicitly lists "denialist" as a word to avoid. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, you said, "[m]ost of the individuals above are arguing that it is acceptable to include [the category] because it only applies to a certain aspect of the subject." In this you are wrong. There is no other aspect to intelligent design other than the outspoken denial of evolution:

“ Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state. ”

(from the 3rd paragraph of the lead, see citations there)

ID proponents define ID to specifically call into question evolution; they have a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" which falsely claims that the scientific community is divided as to whether or not evolution occurred; they help political organizations draft legislation which requires students to be read disclaimers about evolution (see Academic freedom bills); their only research to date centers on irreducible complexity and complex specified information, both of which are used to suggest evolution could not happen; and, in their most famous court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III wrote:

“ The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter “IDM”) and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy. ”

(source)

I hope it is now obvious that ID is nothing more than a political movement to teach creationism in US public schools by denying evolution. Their very essence is denialism, and Yobol has already presented sources which make this connection explicit.

North8000 and Cla68, you should review the policies on WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSCI. This is not a witch hunt against ID, nor an article biased against it: it is an article giving due weight to a pseudoscientific, fringe "theory," in adherence to Wikipedia policies. Please try to keep this in mind. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, however, is a perfectly acceptable category as ID does commonly get described that way and it is clear to what the label applies. Your response here demonstrates that the denialism category is not nearly as clear in its application to the subject. It is not about whether it causes offense, but whether the message being communicated by the category is clear and objective.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hwhaaa??? How the effing eff does my response demonstrate "that the denialism category is not nearly as clear in its application to the subject"??? All that information is in the article... have you even read it? And please stop trying to move the goalposts here: first you claim that it doesn't belong here because WP:NPOV, and now "it is not about whether it causes offense"? You also claimed earlier that WP:V isn't sufficient justification for the inclusion of this category, but now the sources don't even count? This is just absurd. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response demonstrates it by going to great lengths to try and explain why you think ID is really just about evolution. If it is so clear you shouldn't need to cherry-pick a court case (another quote from that same case ties it in with general belief in a creator god), rather it should be apparent from how Intelligent Design is commonly defined, but I have already pointed out that the very first sentence of the lede suggests it goes beyond evolution and even on evolution may only address an aspect of the theory. Saying the category violates WP:NPOV for not clearly communicating that it refers to the evolution aspect is not the same as saying it should be removed for causing offense. As to my position about WP:V, that was based more on me deferring to the arguments from editors like you that this is supported by a preponderance of reliable sources. When I looked into it myself I realized it was only supported by a very small number of sources. That is not moving the goalposts, because I still think WP:V would not be good cause for including the category.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have had to explain all that if you had read the article. It's easy to say that a subject is incorrectly categorized if you don't know jack crap about it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, I agree with you that the article is biased and I believe you when you say that many, if not most, of the followers of the ID philosophy do not consider it to be a denial of the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, it appears that a number of reliable sources claim that ID is a denialist philosophy. We go by the sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"We go by the sources" is not entirely accurate. It is more like we consult the sources and we don't say something unless it is supported by the sources. Sometimes the sources say things that Wikipedia should never say. For instance, we don't say Hitler was evil at any time in his bio and the word "evil" only occurs once in the body of that article. That is certainly not due to some lack of sourcing for the claim, but because we recognize that some things are just not constructive to building an objective encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to cast judgment on one's opponents, even though it is often used for just such a purpose. Denialism fits in some articles because it is a common description and clearly communicates what is being denied, but this is not at all true in this case.

If you want something a little more substantive, we have one occurrence of "deny" and another of "denialism" throughout the entire article with both being very poorly sourced. One of the instances is about creationism as a whole and neither instance includes a claim that Intelligent Design denies evolution, and one actually specifically says it only denies part of the theory of evolution. Clearly the purpose of the denialism category here is not to categorize it in a way that is helpful or supported by sources, but just to smear the subject based on what opponents think of the idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If that's true, then the denialism category is inappropriate. Could someone please list the sources here which support the label of "deniers"? Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is describing (and evaluating, to be sure) ID as a concept according to policy while TDA is criticizing the Hitler article for not making a judgment value on Hitler's character. Those are two very different things.

A look at the Adolf Hitler article shows an objective description of his deeds:

• Hitler is commonly associated with the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust.
• Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including nearly six million Jews.
• Hitler's policies and orders resulted in the death of approximately 40 million people. . .
• Historians, philosophers, and politicians have often applied the word "evil" to describe Hitler's ideology and its outcomes.
• He became adept at using populist themes targeted to his audience, including the use of scapegoats who could be blamed for the economic hardships of his listeners.

Yopienso (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's an archived discussion of the Denialism category. Yopienso (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If no one can show some reliable sources claiming that ID is a form of denialism, then I will be opposing the addition of the category to this article. Cla68 (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the one I gave above, Jonathan Well's essay, "Why Darwinism is False. And here's another from Michael Behe's blog: "One of the most important results of ID theory is that it effectively falsifies Darwinian theory." (A blog is a RS for what the person in question says.) Yopienso (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick google scholar search also turns up Denying AIDS: conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and human tragedy by Seth Kalichman (pg 8) and science Denialism: evolution and climate change by the NCSE.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check Yopienso's refs yet, but those two by MannJess clearly label ID believers as denialists. By putting this article in the "Denialism" category, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is saying that ID is denialist philosophy, it just means that we are grouping it with topics that have also been labled, in RS, as such. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

One of those books makes a very weak connection. It says denialists employ their tactics in subjects like creationism and intelligent design, but that is in a long listing of numerous other subjects including animal rights activists opposed to animal testing. The other source does say "science denialism" and mentions evolution, but it mentions creationism right alongside it. Also, with a bit of digging one finds that the author of that paper is a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. In other words, he's a debunker, which is different from citing some regular scientist or academic.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I read through both refs fairly thoroughly, and I'm convinced that they were labeling ID as denialism. It doesn't matter to me what the authors' suspected motivations were, because to me what only matters is that the label is backed-up by reliable sources. What we need to concentrate on here is making this and other theistic science articles more NPOV, so that our readers can read them, check the sources, and decide for themselves if the proponents' and/or critics' arguments have any merit. Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Any time when the establishment detests an idea or person you will be sure to have little trouble finding an assortment of sources supporting whatever negative wording you would like to insert. The inclusion criteria is not limited to "I have some sources saying this" but whether its inclusion avoids skewing the article towards a certain POV. Were it really just a game of "find the source" then none of the other content policies would exist. WP:NPOV exists for the cases where there is no question that a claim is verifiable, but there is a question of whether it is included in a manner that skews the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this conclusion. Yes, one will have little trouble finding an assortment of sources saying which ever supports whatever argument. But NPOV says that WP isn't to become one of them, lending disproportionate weight to one side or another.

NPOV does not mean "slap happy face stickers" to hide content that might cause discomfort to a reader of the encyclopedia.

The "skewing" is addressed in WP:Undue - if wikipedians act as if it's their job to correct the sources, that's not what NPOV is about. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Again with this talk about a "cause offense" argument that I have never raised. It has nothing to do with whether it offends people, but whether the category's inclusion pushes a bias.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@ TDA, your use of "the establishment" indicates that you're arguing against the clear majority expert view. As an aside, as well as denying evolution, ID proponentsists deny that their religious argument is a religious argument: they often remind me of Mark 14:30. . . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to quickly point out that, when this issue first arose, I asked for RSs to support the connection. Yobol responded with four: NCSE, book about HIV denialism, book about general denialism, book about climage change denialism. So yeah... sources aplenty. And thanks, Yobol, for your apparently overlooked work. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If that were a mere sampling it might mean something, but from what I can tell having searched myself those are the results. So far, I don't think any other sources have actually been presented with these sources being repeated several times.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If one finds some wp:"RS" sources that classify Obama as a socialist, does that mean that someone can put his article in the Socialism category? (And again, sourcability is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion.) The answer is no, even if it met the verifiability requirement it would violate other policies and guidelines. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, how many sources do you want? Aside from Yobol's four five (from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the NCSE, a psychologist whose research exposes him to denialism, a journalist of science and technology, and the Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium), Yopienso has provided another two sources from ID proponents: Jonathan Wells (on the DI website) and the contributors to William Demski's blog Uncommon Descent. I also mentioned Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution which explicitly identifies ID proponents as history-deniers for their denial of evolution. This is in addition to the findings of the Kitzmiller trial, which states, among other such mentions, that "[d]espite the scientific community's overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence." So, how many sources do we need to find?

North8000, I agree that sourcability is not a force for inclusion. But the facts are that ID was developed to skirt US law regarding the teaching of evolution, that their research and political maneuvers are relegated to denying and attacking evolution, and their definition of ID explicitly states that evolution did not occur. There is no question that they deny evolution, nor is there a question that this denial is a the defining aspect of ID. I honestly cannot fathom how one could say this doesn't satisfy the criteria for category inclusion. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I looks to me like the objections all boil down to 'I don't like it' and the rest of the supposed issues with using that category are simply pretexts for that. Raul654 (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

North & TDA: the issue here isn't whether we can find some source that describes ID as denialism, but rather, that sources which describe denialism broadly are likely to include ID as an example. To compare this with North's example - if scholarly works on socialism used Obama as an example, then yes, it might be appropriate to include him. But your example is usage that lies in opposition to the usual definitions of socialism. In this case, what we have instead is (a) the fact that ID is consistent with the normal usage of denialism, and (b) scholarly sources using ID as a prime example of denialism. As I mentioned above, Kalichman uses ID as an illustrative example of denialism when he's trying to convince his readers that HIV/AIDS denial is an example of denialism. The key here is the direction in which things flow. Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would ask each person to ask yourself not "what is a basis to trying to assign this category?" but "what is your reason for making such a big effort to assign the word "denialism" to ID?" If it's actually "I don't like what the ID people are doing, they could use a good smack-down, and getting themlinked to this negative sounding term sounds good in that respect" then I would say that you are probably going to inadvertently make a witch-hunt or smack-down article, to the extent that that can be done within Wikipedia rules. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"what is your reason for making such a big effort to assign the word "denialism" to ID?" - I think you have that backwards. The article has been in the category for years. What we have is "such a big effort" to remove the article from the category. So maybe you need to ask yourself why you're making "such a big effort" to remove the category from just this one article. Guettarda (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

{ec} North8000, please assume good faith: no one here has said anything remotely like that, and one could certainly make the same statements from the opposite perspective (as has now occurred). This gets us nowhere.

I have a couple of questions for everyone here: is the Denialism category itself POV? If so, would it be worthwhile to Cfd it? I ask because, as has been mentioned before, it seems like a lot of people are opposing the category inclusion because of the connotation of the word "denialism," which is obviously inseparable from the category title. Also, I'm curious to know, for those of you who think the category should not be deleted but should not include ID, which topics could exist in this category without being POV. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To Guettarda, with me being a scientist/atheist who doesn't believe in creationism or ID, and doesn't want them to be taught in public schools, I'm just out to try to help it be a good article. Also, whenever I see what might be something not quite right and lopsided going on I tend to jump in on the side of the "victim". That's about it. MisterDub, I think that the category should be deleted. The common meaning of the term is pejorative, and the guideline even explicitly says to avoid characterizing by that word. But I've said my peace and would be happy to leave this article if not wanted. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "denialism" is a negative category title and, to be honest, I suspect that at least some of the sources are using it pejoratively in an effort to, perhaps unfairly, denigrate ID and other philosophies. Remember, however, that placing a Wikipedia article or topic in a category does not mean that we (Wikipedia) is deciding that the label is true, we are just going on the sources. I respect your opinion and hope that you will continue to contribute towards improving this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I think that's a discussion of a different issue then. I'm not trying to take anything away from your opinion, but it's logical that if you think the category itself is POV, then no article should be within it. And I definitely don't want you to leave: this is one of the more contentious articles on Wikipedia, and I'm glad we have a diversity in editors to keep each other in check and ensure this article is high quality and NPOV. Discussions here can get frustrating at times, but I think the article would be worse off without the stringent criticism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to your earlier comment Dub, the problem is most of those sources do not actually support the denialism category. You are interpreting most of them like you have with the Kitzmiller trial opinion as meaning this, but that is not an appropriate way of verifying it. Also, the Council of Europe source you mention is only labeling creationism as denialism, which definitely shouldn't be labeled as denialism (guess what category is currently included in that article) because it is chiefly a religious belief that does include theistic evolution. Now, as to that point about the general category, I have already said I see areas where it can still be applied. Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism are some obvious ones. Other articles where it gets included I am more shaky about, but there are some cases where I think it is appropriate to include. Perhaps there should be a general discussion about its usage, but that can be looked at later.

My issue here is that the category's inclusion could easily be taken as implying belief in a creator is denialism given ID's broader meaning in society and so far the editors wanting to keep the category have not satisfactorily addressed that concern. Saying "well the category is definitely, definitely referring to its denial of Darwinian evolution and that should be obvious to anyone who reads the article" does not really mean much to me, because I think quite a few readers seeing that category here will read the first sentence of the lede and more likely get the impression that Wikipedia is saying "if you think flowers being pretty means there is a god, then you are in denial!"--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FFS, when you have something new to say, then by all means say it. Until then drop the effing stick. You have said the same thing here multiple times. That does not improve your argument and if anything makes it less likely that you will succeed in convincing anybody of the correctness of your arguments. Continually repeating the same arguments in slightly different words not only does not work, it is counter productive to your aims because it pisses people off. The more you say the same thing over and over the more I feel like I want to oppose you, regardless of what you say. Please just stfu and allow some others to have their say without you responding to practically every point raised by making the same argument you already have ad nauseum. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick, an angry diatribe that presumably was posted in response to your comments here has been reverted. I almost undid the revert because I thought if it were removed from the page yours should be, too. You have crossed the line from addressing the article and policy issues to making it personal. Please do not make editorial decisions based on your emotional state toward another editor. Refactoring--as in striking everything but the first five sentences--would be in order. I agree it's good for him to know his style is annoying, but your reciprocal annoyance doesn't help. After that, you're getting personal and repeating yourself. Yopienso (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I don't agree that I have crossed any line, but I do agree that I was repeating myself. Since the thrust of my post was an objection to unnecessary repetition, I have stricken the last part as suggested. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As my grandfather would have said, "You're a prince of a fine fellow." Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To CLa68 & MisterDub. Thanks. I'll stick around. I'm kind of talked out on this particular question. I gave what I think are solid policy and guideline reasons to not include it in the denialism category. I still stand by them even if I don't discuss this particular item further. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, you really need to read the sources before commenting:

“ The theory of evolution is being attacked by religious fundamentalists who call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of it. From a scientific view point there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth.

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.

”

(Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, emphasis added)

And, if the current state of the Denialism category is evidence of anything, it's all the more justification to keep ID in there, not less. Articles within this category include Creationism (ID is creationism), Creation science (from which ID evolved), Critical Analysis of Evolution ("a proposed high school science lesson plan promoting intelligent design"), Louisiana Science Education Act (an anti-evolution law), Politicization of science (which includes ID, among other topics), Strengths and weaknesses of evolution (which has no direct tie to ID, but also denies evolution), and Young Earth creationism (which describes some, though not all ID proponents). Your arguments boil down to "people don't know what ID is, so we can't make statements of fact that would contradict their misconceptions." That's why this article is here, so people can learn about the subject. If they don't know why it's in the Denialism category... they can read the article! You wouldn't try to get AIDS denialism out of the category because "aids" can be interpreted as "helpers," would you? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to more than deletion discussions. Saying "these articles are included in the category" does not mean much. Creationism and YEC should not be included in those categories because they are focused on the religious beliefs. The others I am more hesitant about. "Politicization of science" is a very problematic article that should be refocused, for instance, so the category's placement there is one thing that would probably get tossed out as a result of such refocusing. Some of those, however, have a clear focus that will allow the denialism category to be understood as referring to the specific claims about evolution.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you've forgotten already, but you brought up the WP:OTHERSTUFF: "... guess what category is currently included in that article...". My response, on the other hand, was prefaced with, "... if the current state of the Denialism category is evidence of anything...". So let's just agree that this information has nothing to do with the discussion at present and drop it, yes? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed how one article is treated should determine how this one is treated so that does not apply to my comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Patent denialism. Just checked my inbox and found an article in The Scientist about Springer publishing--or maybe not--an ID book, Biological Information: New Perspectives, edited by R. J. Marks II, M. J. Behe, W. A. Dembski, B. L. Gordon, and J. C. Sanford. A link there goes to the NCSE; I'll paste in an excerpt here:

Sanford testified that he believes the earth is between 5000 and 100,000 years old, that he rejects the general principle of common descent and the idea that humans are descended from prehominid ancestors, and that he agrees that "the teaching of science as is currently practiced is an indoctrination in naturalism." Yopienso (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Show me the empirical data

Caution: Un-involved editor, saw the RfC and took the time to read the article. My concern is the "denialism" is a pseudo-scientific term in its own right. It is utterly subjective in its application. Moreover, it assigns nefarious motive to supporters of the concept. From the article, it looks all the world like a politically motivated movement to me, but I have no way of assigning such motive to any specific individual involved in it.

As a theologian, by profession, the lay-proponents I typically encounter excited about ID are in denial of nothing other than that due to a presumed simplistic view of both science and of faith. Most can easily integrate a more complex view of those two studies, once prompted. It is not usually denial which must be overcome, but laziness.

To the Fundamentalist, who claim the Bible as the primary authority for all things, I would say, "Show me in the Bible where it says the Creation story cannot be interpreted spiritually."

To those who support using the "Denialist" brand, upholding scientific method above all, I ask, "Show me the empirical data supporting that proponents of ID are in denial."

There, I have talked myself into a decision: Oppose.--cregil (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious why your decision is based on "show me" rather than on sources. After all, isn't our operational principle WP:V? As for the issue of "show me the empirical data"...can you explain why you consider the evidence presented in this article (and on this page) inadequate? I mean, take Icons of Evolution, a key book by an important ID proponent. Every one of his "icons" is a combination of misdirection and outright denial of the facts. Signature in the Cell is another case - the book not only denies evolution, it also misleads (like most of ID) by using probability-based claims that not only are incorrect, but that had been shown to be incorrect long before the book was written. In the Kitzmiller trial, Behe's testimony showed many of the holes in ID - and yet, ID proponents continue the advance the claims that Behe admitted were false. And this is just the stuff I can come up with in a few minutes (I'd much rather be asleep right now). So what sort of empirical evidence are you looking for? Why do you consider these few random examples inadequate? What sort of information would convince you? Guettarda (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Show me? Easy one to explain: The turnip truck off of which I feel was drawn by dinosaurs.

"Cherry picking" is reasonably expected on emotionally-charged articles pertaining to ideologies. So, to counter that, I expect empirical evidence that those who support ID do so because they are in denial. The burden of proof will be supported by clinical studies-- not pseudo-science.

A biologist's, or chemist's, or physicist's use of the term "denial" as an emotional response to a manifest reality is preposterous-- unless he interviewed his opponents in controlled therapeutic sessions-- in which case, we should have a diagnosis beyond merely "denial."

Which Axis? Are there other behavioral factors which are noticed? Are the ID proponents suffering from delusions or hallucinations? Is a type of paranoia indicated? Psychosis or Neurosis? What diagnostic criteria are used, and how many of them must be met? You cite hearsay, and I want sources-- professionally accredited sources using accepted clinical practice to indicate that denial is the cause for one to support ID. Otherwise, it is name-calling, and people who name-call are just stupid.

That was an inclusio-- I started with irony and ended with it. Clever of me, for 3 in the morning, wasn't it?--cregil (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

cregil, you asked for evidence of denialism, but the article has everything you need (as Guettarda already pointed out). First, please read the lead again. From the third paragraph: "Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings... which barred the teaching of 'Creation Science' in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state." Also note that, contrary to empirically verifiable reality, ID proponents deny evolution both by definition ("... not an undirected process such as natural selection," emphasis added) and in practice (e.g. recommending Of Pandas and People, an anti-evolution text, for classroom integration; running campaigns that attack/deny evolution, such as "Teach the Controversy" and "Academic Freedom"; authoring, or assisting with the authoring of, anti-evolution legislation). To recap, ID was born of the creation-evolution controversy specifically to skirt legislation that prevented creationism from being taught; it is defined by their proponents in a way that denies empirically verifiable reality; it has a research program whose only output has been attacking evolution; and it's other activities continue to falsely promote the idea that there is a controversy over evolution's veracity (accuracy?) within the scientific community. "In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, [the Council of Europe's 'Committee on Culture, Science and Education' issued a report that] described intelligent design as 'anti-science' and involving 'blatant scientific fraud' and 'intellectual deception' that 'blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science' and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism" (Council of Europe). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the points you make are exactly why I wrote that I suspected the ID concept was political at base. What I have not made clear, is that the "denialism" is not a scientific term-- but also a political one, and wholly subjective. That being the case, is not reasonable to view the the article with the healthy suspicion that the most appalling and least scientifically acceptable proponents of ID are included?

This is the ONLY wiki article on a controversial ideological subject which I have read, which includes criticism in-line (POV violation) as well as in a separate section (good and necessary). Thus the "Cherry Picking" flag waves smartly in the wind.

I agree with the criticism. What I do not agree with is the moniker of "Denialism." I don't want the agenda of the proponents to succeed, and expect a quick and natural death of the movement-- but that is no excuse to take editorial license (by Cherry Picking), or by criticizing the arguments in the same paragraph in which the argument is made, or by categorizing the entire article as an example of the subjective pseudo-scientific term, denialism.

For example, if a theory is rejected by peer review, one expects that the theory may be re-presented with changes based upon the criticism. That is engaging the criticism-- it is not pretending it did not exist.

Since it is not denial, but persistence, the term denialism seems certain to have no meaning other than an attempt to silence-- and that is my objection.--cregil (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your view about criticism sections versus in-line criticism is a bit off the mark. Criticism sections aren't desirable, and wherever possible, criticism should be woven in-line into the article itself. That's why we have Template:Criticism section to stick on articles that have them, although in some cases such sections are difficult to avoid. This article weaves them in where possible, and collects them in a section otherwise. That's hardly a POV violation as you characterize it. See also the essay WP:NOCRIT, which admittedly doesn't have the force of a policy or guideline but does have a fair level of community agreement. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Why is that always brought up. Does nobody actually read the policy page? Contrary to popular perception, NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to every view. See WP:PSCI. Given the overwhelming rejection of ID by every other reliable source, this is exactly how it should be discussed. It must be emphasized, otherwise you would actually be violating NPOV by giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated or unreliable viewpoint. And no, plenty of other articles with similar dubious statuses are treated in the same way. See Holocaust denial, Flat Earth Society, and Moon landing conspiracy theories.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you're saying half the time. Cherry-picking? What do you mean by this? And yes, with science you expect a theory to take criticisms into consideration and either refute or account for them. This is not what ID does. ID continues to make the same claims in spite of the scientific criticism. Other folks here have given you information regarding the in-line NPOV clauses and the scientific definition of denialism, so I won't rehash those. Needless to say, your reasons for your position are quite befuddling. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comparison to psychological disorders is itself preposterous. The term denialism (yes we have an article on it) encompasses behaviors that goes against widely accepted and proven facts in support of a rejected and unproven hypothesis, with the addition that in doing so, they also deny the wide acceptance of the former.

And I think you (like so many before you) are again confusing believers of the teleological argument (or creationists in general) with the ID movement itself. You do have a way of assigning motive to specific individuals. "Intelligent Design" is a distinct movement. It's not a church nor a religion, but an agenda by an organization. The leaders of the said organization do not have a simplistic view of both science and faith. Oh no no no. Most of them understand (to a point) the sciences they are constantly attacking. Which is why they're so effective in impressing those who do hold a simplistic view on science and religion. Whether it's nefarious or not, there is a (political) motive to ID rather than simply expounding on spirituality. They wish to reinstate Christian creationism in classrooms, and demote modern biology itself to the same level of acceptance as their stories.

Calling that "hearsay" is ironically denialist in itself. Tell, me what other activities does ID have other than denying the very foundation of modern biology itself? Do examine their books, their websites and the way they lobby politicians - what's their purpose, their goal? If you can't answer that, then your argument holds. But I bet you can. Very easily. Name-calling is stupid, but refusing to name something by that rationale alone is even stupider. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you just wrote. Where we differ is that I object to the term being tagged to any article. The article called Denialism, can mention all examples its contributors wish, but to give credence to the branding by tagging other articles with it... is a POV violation.

The construct of the word, Denial+ism suggests that the ID supporters subscribe to a philosophy or culture (or something) of denial. We can say that of them in the article only if they say it of themselves:

Surely we have all seen it done, and know it is wrong:

* Calling Democrats "Socialists."

* Calling a pro-choice supporters "pro-abortionists."

How is this different? --cregil (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Crews Giles, you appear to misunderstand categories: they're a navigational index, a way for readers to find articles related to a topic. If reliable sources link the subject of the article to the category topic, then it's appropriate to include that category. Of course calling Democrats "Socialists" is inappropriate as they're far too right wing and reactionary to merit being called socialist, but if reliable secondary sources describe them as being in that category then the category would be appropriate. Just as Republicans, rather more justifiably, are liberals. . . dave souza, talk 00:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Question: have you read the denialism article? It says right up front: In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial. Are you arguing that for a topic that purports to be about science, a non-scientific definition of the term should carry the greatest weight? Are you saying that we should be coddling the sensitivities of those readers who might be ignorant of the meaning of the term? I can understand where you're coming from, but your politically-loaded analogies don't hold up. If ID is a science, as its supporters claim, then it seems perfectly fair to categorize it according to a scientific meaning. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• The turnip truck off of which I feel was drawn by dinosaurs - I made a good-faith attempt to engage you in discussion. Not a promising start...
• I expect empirical evidence that those who support ID do so because they are in denial - denial and denialism are distinct concepts. No one is saying that "ID supporters are in denial".
• The burden of proof will be supported by clinical studies-- not pseudo-science - denialism is not denial. Did you not bother to familiarise yourself with the topic before you weighed in, or are you simply being tendentious?
• A biologist's, or chemist's, or physicist's use of the term "denial" as an emotional response to a manifest reality is preposterous-- unless he interviewed his opponents in controlled therapeutic sessions-- in which case, we should have a diagnosis beyond merely "denial." - again...are you unfamiliar with the topic, or are you being tendentious?
• Which Axis? Are there other behavioral factors which are noticed? Are the ID proponents suffering from delusions or hallucinations? Is a type of paranoia indicated? Psychosis or Neurosis? What diagnostic criteria are used, and how many of them must be met? - Surely you are familiar with WP:NOR? Demanding that other editors engage in original research, primary diagnostic work, before you would deign to support a category which is supported by reliable secondary sources - that is out of line.
• You cite hearsay, and I want sources - Sources have been provided.
• Otherwise, it is name-calling, and people who name-call are just stupid. - You're seriously calling your fellow editors "stupid" for citing reliable sources? Please remember that WP:CIVIL is policy, as is WP:NPA. You can discuss sources without engaging in attacks on your fellow editors.
• That was an inclusio-- I started with irony and ended with it. Clever of me, for 3 in the morning, wasn't it - You started by being rude and you ended with insults and personal attacks. And you filled the intervening space with angry remarks unrelated to the topic at hand. That's not irony, and it's certainly not "clever". Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot see the intended humor in the unexpected (ironic) statement, "name calling is just stupid" than I have no hope in explaining where you went off on the wrong path in anything else you wrote above. And, seriously, a reference to a dinosaur-drawn turnip-truck in an article on creationism is funny. It just is. You are just pretending not to get it. Admit it.

If the intended humor can be seen... We have a new pejorative term, Denialism, apparently leaping into our consciousness circa 2006. I have no problem with that term being used for the HIV and Holocaust deniers-- where it began.

But Thomas Aquinas? Really? Then so is the respected Prime Mover philosophical argument attributed to Aristotle? Asa Gray? No. You mean the movement-- a political organization-- begun with political ties. That has its own article: Intelligent design movement. Go brand it (along with every other political agenda organization-- they all deserve it). I would have suggested that from the very beginning, but I did not know it existed until a few moments ago.

I'm not passionate about defending the science of anyone who believes the heavens and the earth were created 6,000 years ago but to smear the rest with the absurdity of that movement is unfair.

But I fear you are going to do it anyway, and feign being the victim. So be it. But you would still be wrong.--cregil (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you cannot see the intended humor in the unexpected (ironic) statement, "name calling is just stupid" than I have no hope in explaining where you went off on the wrong path - To begin with, I've seen plenty of insults...intentional insults...around this place that displayed just that sort of lack of self-awareness. Sure, I initially took your conflation of denial and denialism as farce, but given the context of your entire comment, I saw no reason to take that comment at anything other than face value.
• a reference to a dinosaur-drawn turnip-truck in an article on creationism is funny - Admit it was funny? I would if I thought it was. Sadly, obscure comments devoid of context aren't funny. People rambling on about denial when the subject is denialism - yeah, that came across as a weak attempt at humour. Until I figured you were serious. Then it's hard to tell whether the situation is really funny, or just really sad.
• We have a new pejorative term, Denialism, apparently leaping into our consciousness circa 2006. I have no problem with that term being used for the HIV and Holocaust deniers-- where it began - I see, so suddenly you go from being ignorant of the concept to being an expert. And sources be damned - all that matters is your pronouncement on the topic. So this is another attempt at a joke, right? To begin with, the Hoofnagle brothers took a lead role in popularising the term, and by March 2007 they were talking about ID/creationism. And that's aside from the sources cited here previously, including one that used ID as an illustrative example of denialism to explain the concept in a book on HIV denialism.
• But Thomas Aquinas? Really? Then so is the respected Prime Mover philosophical argument attributed to Aristotle? Asa Gray? No. - You really need to work on you communication skills. I have no idea what your intent was with this name drop. The collection of names suggests that you're drawing from the Standard Book of IDist Spells, Grade One. Yep, I've tried chatting with the undergrads in the IDEA club...some were very bright kids, but others, sadly, often needed you to explain their arguments to them first. So, quite simply, neither Aquinas nor Aristotle could have argued that "certain elements of the world are too complex to have been explained by evolution"...Aristotle couldn't even have even used that argument for the motion of the planets, with their epicycles another other contrived motions that obviously could not be explained by purely "unguided" means. As for Gray - I'm tired of people who couldn't explain Gray's scientific contributions to save their lives try to claim him as a proponent of intelligent design when in fact he could best be described as a proponent of theistic evolution...except, of course, that it would be anachronistic. TE is, of course, one of the things that creationists (including IDists) love to rail against.
• You mean the movement-- a political organization-- begun with political ties. That has its own article: Intelligent design movement. - The ID movement was spun off from this article. Most of the content there was cut from this one because it got to long. This article, if you bothered to read it, is about the "science" produced by the ID movement.
• Go brand it (along with every other political agenda organization-- they all deserve it). I would have suggested that from the very beginning, but I did not know it existed until a few moments ago. - So what you're saying that you never bothered to read this article? Because that's what this article is about - the thing that the ID movement has created since the 1980s. No more, no less. This is all explained in the hatnote at the top of the page. You don't even have to read the article to figure this out - you just need to glance at it.
• I'm not passionate about defending the science of anyone who believes the heavens and the earth were created 6,000 years ago but to smear the rest with the absurdity of that movement is unfair. Now you're talking about Young Earth creationism. Granted, some IDists are, apparently, YECs, and while ID was at its height it attracted some common cause support from them. But the ID movement is (supposedly) a "big tent" movement, one that was going to use the "wedge" of intelligent design to bring down the scientific establishment. One that was dedicated to getting creationism into the science classroom...you know "cdesign proponentsists" and all that? Oh, wait, no, you haven't read the article. Or wait, are you joking now? When I pointed you to WP:TE, it was not meant to be an instruction manual... Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Excluded Middle problem

Is there anything in the reliable sources that talks about the Excluded Middle foundation the whole Intelligent design that Evolution has to be only Darwin's version? There have been many Theories of Evolution (Lamarckism, punctuated equilibrium, Quantum evolution and so on) and if Darwin was "wrong" in some respect then why does this have to be "proof" that Intelligent design is the answer rather than some other theory of evolution?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Could be sparse because the argument that you describe (essentially saying that some flaw in the Darwin-specific items proves the opposite) is IMHO a rare one. IMHO the more common one in this area is a saying that some yet-unanswered gap or question etc. implies that evolution in general has a problem and that that shows that a particular alternate (e.g. creationism) must be true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's addressed to some extent in the Arguments from ignorance section, where I've added the Kitz finding. At present this and God of the gaps both give rather undue prominence to the arguments of Bradley Monton's Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design which is questionable. The topic is included in discussion by Padian and Matzke and by Forrest and Gross, as well as Pete Dunkelberg. These could usefully be used as sources for clarifying various sections of the article. . dave souza, talk 10:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewritting Lede

Lead length

The lede is too long and needs to be rewritten. Should I apply the template at the top? I would like to see the lede to be about 300 words.

As it stands right now, the Lede is only 406 words long. What's the benefit of removing 100 words? The WP:LEDE guideline says an article of this length should have an introduction of 3-4 paragraphs; I think the length is perfectly appropriate, and gives a good overview of the topic at hand. Mildly Mad^T_C 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ascribing motive

Overall it looks like a pretty good lead to me with an OK length. The one area that I would critique is the first sentence of the last paragraph. It ascribes a motive as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine too. From the cited sources:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (link)

“ As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. ”

Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals p. 7, emphasis added (link)

“ As stated earlier, ID is the direct descendant of earlier forms of creationism. After Edwards, a group of creationists decided to adopt “intelligent design” terminology in an attempt to skirt this Supreme Court ruling (Forrest, 2005a, 16-18; 2005b). CSC fellow Charles Thaxton, co-author of the seminal ID book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin (Thaxton et al., 1984), chose the term “intelligent design” in 1988 to designate the product of the post-Edwards transformation of creation science (Witham, 2002, 221). Dean H. Kenyon, a CSC fellow who submitted a sworn affidavit as a creation scientist in the Edwards case while he was also co-authoring the ID creationist textbook Of Pandas and People, admitted candidly in 2000 that “Scientific creationism... is actually one of the intellectual antecedents of the Intelligent Design movement.” ”

-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

First, as clarification, I am talking about where it says that the motive is "to circumvent court rulings", and would argue that the rationale for that misses the mark by two levels:

1. At least with respect to what you have shown, the source doesn't even say that
2. Even if the source did say that, the text is still stating one side of a controversy as fact in the voice of Wikipedia.

I'd recommend dialing back that particular wording one click. I might try it if I can think of something. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, the bold text in the second quotation quite clearly states exactly what the lead does (circumventing = skirting). You could also continue reading the Kitzmiller ruling for more snippets like the following: "The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from 'creation' to 'intelligent design' occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled." It's quite clear from the sources that ID was created when scientific creationists couldn't use creationism anymore due to the Edwards v. Aguillard case, forcing them to adopt the "ID" terminology to continue their political efforts of teaching creationism in public schools. There is no controversy as to the history/origins of the ID movement. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right, somehow I missed that. That takes care of #1. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@North8000 What's wrong with #2? What leads you to believe there is a controversy about it? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It essentially say that intelligent design is just an invention, and that it was invented to circumvent court rulings. Believers in ID would certainly not agree with that. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the Discovery Institute's "intelligent design", and this is solidly documented. Are you just acting as devil's advocate or do you have sources that challenge this? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But perfesser, the title of the article is Intelligent design not Discovery Institute's intelligent design nor Intelligent design (Discovery Institute). There are other authors that are significant persons (they are physicists and astronomers of note) that have used the term and have disassociated themselves from the DI. ID≠DI and this article does an injustice to the facts when it exclusively makes that association. The problem is that the DI has done a bunch of bad stuff for which they have been "caught" in Kitzmiller. But it's guilt by association and the DI has no right to usurp the term for its authority and veracity to rise and fall along with the DI. It's like an article that defines Liberalism solely in terms of a particular party (like the Liberal Democrats or something) and then this party does some discreditable stuff that wrongly reflects on liberalism. Let the DI be discredited, but let the facts and other authors that have made use of the term speak for themselves. Do not let DI stain ID. 71.169.185.196 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. That this article is about the specific ID movement produced and promoted via DI is explicit (see below the article's title). Professor marginalia (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

@ North8000 , That's reading more into it than is there. It essentially says that ID is a form of creationism, which proponents would deny but which is supported by overwhelming evidence, and that it is a modern form of the teleological argument, which its proponents have agreed. Proponents have repeatedly asserted that it a scientific theory, rather than a religious-based idea. What's the problem? . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My point was simply about the statement of motive, not all of these other tings. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My question stands. The motivations as laid out in Forrest as well as The Creationists and Where Darwin Meets the Bible are cited to documents and statements made by ID proponents. Phillip Johnson's motivations are explicit in Darwin on Trial making clear those court decisions were a major impediment and emphasizing the openings left to them to introduce special creation as science. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar fixes

I think this is a run on sentence:

It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.202.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar looks fine to me: a complex sentence with an independent clause ("It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation...") and a dependent clause ("presented by its advocates..."). What do you see wrong with this? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is unnecessary. The same ideas can be conveyed:

It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God. Furthermore, it is presented as a "scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.202.85 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the sentence is also unnecessary, so why do you want to change it? I prefer the current version because I find it more fluid than reading short sentences like, "It is this," "It is also this," and, "Furthermore, it is this," over and over again. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One problem I see is the quote "scientific theory about life's origins." This is redundant also known as tautology because a scientific theory is defined as evidenced based. Why not use the scientific term to express the same idea: "Abiogenesis" or "biopoiesis" the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter ?173.66.202.85 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with using abiogenesis (or biopoiesis) is that "the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen." There is at least one other hypothesis as to the origins of life on Earth called panspermia, and intelligent design proponents would argue there is yet another option: an intelligent designer. In this light, origins seems more appropriate.

Even were it not, the quotations seem to suggest this is a direct quote from someone. I haven't found the source yet, but we can't change the wording of a direct quote. I suppose we could start the quote at the word "scientific," but I'm hesitant to remove information from a direct quote just for the sake of grammar. Otherwise, I'd agree: it is redundant. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

[Update]: The source has been found and added to the lead. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This definition is wrong

"It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, claimed by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"."

This description is wrong. it needs citation to show which advocates are presenting that idea and it must be proved that this concept is presented as ("an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"), (an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins) doesn't make sense!?! I think this statement is compeletly wrong and is presenting wrong information to the readers of this article, so it must be removed. please vote on it because there are users who want to keep this statement there. --Mindlogger (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove from lede' I agree with Neurosys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.202.85 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. What is wrong with it (other than your misspelling "calaimed")? What would you replace it with? A cite for "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" is in the following bullet.

• Meyer, Stephen C. (2005-12-01). "Not by chance". National Post. CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. as sold to Postmedia Network Inc. Retrieved 2012-03-24. Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challanges strictly materialistic views of evolution./

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeff G., where did you find that source? I was looking for it in the article and couldn't find it. If it is not already there, we need to add it to support the direct quotation in the lead. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeff G. National Post is a news paper. is there any scientific paper published about ID yet to show that it's a "scientific evidence-based... theory"? --Mindlogger (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Per that source, "In February, The Wall Street Journal reported that an evolutionary biologist with two doctorates had been punished for publishing a peer-reviewed scientific article making a case for this same theory." See also Stephen C. Meyer#Peer_review_controversy and Sternberg peer review controversy. I found that source via the "Original Article" link on http://www.discovery.org/a/3059 , which I found with Google.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The so-called "intelligent design theory" made its way into scientific sphere in a paper published in the peer reviewed scientific journal "The Proceedings" in 2004 by Stephen C. Mayer who is a member of Discovery Institute, and in no time was criticized for its holding *no scientific value* by several other papers and institutions (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml). The Proceedings declared later for the said paper that "[i]t was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings". Also, AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) seems to have long resolved on "intelligent design" once and for all in that it is not a scientific assertion, much less a "evidence-based scientific theory" (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml). I vote for the part of the sentence in question should be simply removed, or modified accordingly. Neurosys (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Neurosys, we already have that information in the article. The statement in the lead says, it is "presented by its advocates" as an evidence-based theory, which is correct and verifiable. This does not mean that ID is an evidence-based scientific theory, and you can read further to see how the scientific community and US courts reject it as religion and pseudoscience. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

MisterDub, then, that it was presented as such should either be mentioned elsewhere in the article - not in the leading paragraph for it may cause confusion or inappropriate significance to the claim but not to its refutation-, or immediately mentioned that the said presentation is resolved to be incorrect (by AAAS, "The Proceedings", etc. ). Neurosys (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I will either remove the whole part of the sentence in question, or add right after it that the scientific presentation is resolved to be incorrect by the very journal in which the claim was first made, as well as by AAAS. That sentence is simply out of place and confusing, if not incorrect. Neurosys (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This article gets enough complaints about WP:NPOV that I don't think that kind of change will be supported by consensus; personally, I think it's unnecessary to state it in the first paragraph if it's mentioned so closely already. The lead is divided into three paragraphs with differing topics: the first defines ID (first by its proponents, then by the majority view as per WP:DUE and WP:PSCI); the second presents the opinions of the scientific community; and the third presents the history of the ID movement, including the opinion(s) of the US courts. I mean, there is essentially two paragraphs to illustrate how ID is not a scientific theory, as its advocates present it. The latter two paragraphs are more specific and explain which features of ID lead the scientific community and US courts to identify it as non-science. I think mentioning that it's not science any more is just beating a dead horse. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is already agreed upon that it was not "presented", but "misrepresented" as science. But saying so would be not NPOV. I agree with you to some extent, and stand corrected. However, it should be noted that the average reader only reads the leading paragraph. Neurosys (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can definitely pursue this change if you want, but as I said before, I doubt it'll pass consensus due to common complaints about NPOV (and, recently, lead length). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

ID is NOT "an evidence-based scientific theory" because it's not falsifiable therefore it CAN'T be a scientific theory, plain and simple. — raekyt 22:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Raeky, please read my previous post. The statement in question makes no such claim. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove or Correct it I think ::Neurosys is right on that, this is very confusing. that sentence should be completed with "the scientific presentation is resolved to be incorrect by the very journal in which the claim was first made, as well as by AAAS." with a citation from AAAS, or be removed.--Mindlogger (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please review my reply to Neurosys: we already have that information in the lead. You just have to read the very next paragraphs. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• For info: a couple of previous discussions: [1] [2] . . dave souza, talk 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the step of editing this definition in a very small way. I have separated the proponents' view, "ID is science", from the scientific consensus, "ID is religion". I have added two citations to the scientific consensus' definition. While I, along with most of the scientific community believe that ID is not science, for NPOV, I think presenting proponents' POV in a coherent manner is important. This should allow us to sidestep the whole argument about weather ID is science or religion by just presenting both sides, and allowing the reader to decide. I understand this is a very sensitive topic, and I have tried to be very careful about how the article is worded. Forbes72 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your edit was not that small at all, and it violates the weight portion of WP:NPOV. More than anything else, ID is a form of creationism. Practically all the reliable sources agree on that. NPOV does not mean letting the proponents present their case in their own words, followed by the opponents view. We present everything as it appears in the reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that I may have found the problem

I've been mostly a lurker here. My real life POV (an atheist who doesn't want creationism or ID taught in public schools) is opposite my view as a Wikipedian on this article (somehow this article feels like a POV "let's beat up on ID" piece) Probably the best definition of ID is the first line of the dis-ambig page:

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And that indeed is the common meaning of the term. It encompasses a whole range of specific and vague beliefs (including those of many creationists), not just an invention by the Discovery Institute.

But then this article goes awry right from the start. It basically says that the top level Intelligent Design article is only going to cover the particular invention by the Discovery Institute, and that everything else covered by the above is sent off into obscurity under a different poor name, the teleological argument article. So, the remaining portion is something created by a conservative organization which is much more easily pilloried than ID beliefs as a whole. Further, the error is replicated throughout the article by accepting the erroneous definition of ID (= just an invention of the Discovery Institute) and essentially repeating it as fact. Thus, the article goes awry right from the start, dooming it to be overall POV regarding the broader meaning of ID.

A suggested solution would be to take the disambig line off of the beginning and start writing the other half of the article, resurrecting it from the buried and narrowed coverage under teleological argument. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The "other half" comes in two parts: as the second disambiguation line notes, For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument, and for the superset (of which ID is a subset) see creation science, or more broadly creationism. While all of these use the words "intelligent design" on occasion, the term intelligent design specifically refers to the version promoted by the DI. It's both unrealistic and unreasonable to try to shoehorn them all into this one article which would be far too big.
As a further clarification, the DI didn't create ID, they bought into it at an early stage as is clearly shown in the article. . dave souza, talk 12:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Instead of having an article on the teleological argument and an article on ID, you want two articles about the teleological argument? Doesn't it make more sense to cover each topic within its individual article, linking to the other where necessary? Otherwise we end up with several, disheveled articles repeating the same information. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It still does not speak to the obvious non-neutral POV in the article because it conflate ID with DI from the beginning. Every suggestion that this article represent other points-of-view of ID, from other authors than DI-affiliated authors, where this information is verifiable, every suggestion to do that has been slapped down by wp editors that WP:OWN the article. Because of Kitzmiller and because of other evidence of dishonest actions taken by the DI, that conflation consigns this article to being a "let's beat up on ID" piece. It is not NPOV and has not been so for at least 5 years. Despite FA status. ID doesn't look as bad when it is decoupled from DI. 71.169.182.235 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, please no WP:SOAPBOXing. Wikipedia is not a forum so if you don't have anything constructive to add, please don't add anything. Secondly, the article of "ID" decoupled from the DI is called the teleological argument. If you have something relevant to that subject, bring it up there. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly to the observation of Samuel Johnson: "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel", WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM is the cheap defense of obviously non-neutral POV editing in Wikipedia. I am not using Wikipedia to promote ID or even to defend ID. I am complaining about nakedly non-neutral editing in this particular article. It is the reason it draws so much complaints from others, some of whom I imagine are defenders of ID and even defenders of DI. I am neither. I am a quite liberal NPOV warrior who is as intolerant of naked POV from liberals as I am from conservatives. So, I might suggest that you deal with the issue rather than just denying that it's there. 71.169.187.254 (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

IP, I don't care about you or how you use Wikipedia; I care about Wikipedia's policies. Complaining about a POV issue is fine, but you have to enter into a constructive dialogue. Coming here to complain without offering any suggestions of improvement (or corresponding RSs) is futile and against WP policies. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

ID doesn't look as bad when it is decoupled from DI - let's start with some high-quality sources about this "ID decoupled from the DI". Then we can figure out what (if anything) we need to do next. Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done that many, many times. I have referred to notable authors, such as John Polkinghorne, Owen Gingerich, and Freeman Dyson, who have referred to the concept and called it "intelligent design" (Gingerich makes sure that the reader understands that it's with a small-case "i" and "d") and who do not associate themselves with the Discovery Institute. I have cited books and from some of them copied quotes. And all of this is on archives of this very talk page. Guettarda, I have no confidence that you are the least bit sincere in figuring out what "we" need to do about that. If I did, I might be motivated to go back the the archives and restate exactly what I cited back then. Then there are authors who refer to the concept generically (not DI's version of ID) and yet reject it (like Francis Collins).

I certainly do not want to see a puff piece on intelligent design, I just want to see an article that isn't so obviously biased in selection of facts and in tone. This article is a little bit better than it was in 2007, but the tone of it is still very bad, and it was never a particularly scholarly decision to base it totally on DI's ID. That decision was poor scholarship from the very beginning. 71.169.187.254 (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding to MisterDub. My "other half" was probably an overstatement. My recommendation would be one section at the beginning of the article which discusses the broader common meanings of the term with links to appropriate articles. Then it would segue into the meaning of ID that the whole current article is about. Then a similar change for the lead. Open with 1-2 sentences on the general common meanings, then segue into the DI version. As an aside, "telelogical argument" should probably get renamed. Describing an entire belief set as an "argumnent" is problematic, much less using a non-commonplace adjective for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Our current division of the topic is "the argument/position/belief, historically to today" in one article, and "the DI's formulation of the argument, today, in US politics" in another. That division makes sense to me. Their respective names are an application of WP:UCN. Mention of each article in the other seems acceptable, but we should not be devoting large amounts of content regarding one in the other, nor reformulating the lead such that both articles begin or are defined the same. This article's topic (the DI's political movement) is a large enough topic as it is in just the political arena, enough so that it has multiple full-length articles devoted to it; other issues aside, we shouldn't be expanding it further than it needs to encompass new topics too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

For those familiar, an analogy would be an article on "Chicago professional baseball teams" and start with the disambiguation: "This article is about the Cubs, for the White Sox, see the South Side argument article."

It sounds like you don't think the difference between ID and the teleological argument is made explicit enough here. Fair enough, but I don't see how your analogy is different from the hatnote we currently have on the article. Doesn't it already say that this article is about the DI's ID and link to those related articles? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@North, either your complaint is with the topic division (historical argument for design and the DI's current manifestation), or your complaint is with our application of UCN ("teleological argument" and "intelligent design"). If the former, please propose a new division of topics. If the latter, please present sources which show that different names are more commonly used for the two topics.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Guettarda. Nothing should be changed in the current article without coming up with the Sources first. Sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding to MisterDub, that was not my point. My point is that the major aspects of the named topic should be covered in the top level article. In my analogy, the structure basically implies that the Sox are the only Chicago professional baseball team which is both POV and in error. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Professor marginalia, do you mean that as a requirement for inclusion of material, or an effort to end a talk page discussion about scope of the article? North8000 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, what additions are you proposing that aren't already covered in the Intelligent design#Origin of the concept section? If you can find secondary sources discussing a broader "intelligent design" then that would be the most likely place for it. Also note the issue is raised in the lead by noting that intelligent design in its current meaning is "a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins' rather than 'a religious-based idea'.". . dave souza, talk 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that I did another a slow read for the content, looking past some of the characterizations in the article, I see that there IS material in there about the broader meaning of ID. Probably the first fix would be to take that "disambiguation" statement off of the beginning. Those are often problematic when they include the writer's definition of the scope of the article. And I'd suggest taking / modifying the out the statements that ID is exclusively the DI creation. Even this article itself refutes such statements. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The article should be written in such a way that the disambiguation statement at the top would not be necessary. The antics of DI can be a large part of the article. 71.169.187.254 (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@North8000: You are in error when you say "And that indeed is the common meaning of the term. It encompasses a whole range of specific and vague beliefs (including those of many creationists), not just an invention by the Discovery Institute." This is not supported by the reliable sources available to us.

When the term ID is used by recognized experts nowadays, it practically always refers to the DI version. The term was rarely used until the DI appropriated and popularized it. ID and the DI are inextricably connected to each other like white on rice. To the point that anything else that anyone may want to call ID (your "broader meaning") has to be disambiguated at the outset so as not to be confused with the DI version.

To treat ID as a philosophy is a categorical error. It was not developed (and never has been developed) as a philosophy, but as a political and legal strategem. This is where your concept of "broader meaning" falls apart. There is no "broader meaning" of the term of which ID as promulgated by the DI is a subset. The uses you refer to are a completely different kettle of fish altogether, and have to be handled elsewhere, not in an article with such a restricted scope as this one. The best place to do that is in Teleological argument.

As for expanding the scope of this article, I see no justification or practical way to do so. ID as promulgated by the DI is more than distinct enough to be a stand-alone topic. It is more than just a subset of the teleological argument, as it has political and legalistic history that sets it apart. The restrictive scope of the present article is well justified, and disambiguation at the outset is absolutely required. Yes, the term ID was appropriated by the DI, and yes, they have skunked it. However, like it or not, current usage within the scholarly community recognizes their appropriation, and individuals wanting to use the term in other senses are in the distinct minority by any measure. They, and you, may feel that this is unfair, but it is not our role to right great wrongs. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that ID shouldn't be treated as a philosophy. I can understand placing the view that it is a political strategy in the "criticism" section, but to have the article itself treat it that way means that Wikipedia would be taking a side on the debate about it. Unless, of course, DI's proponents themselves have acknowledged that it is a political strategy, not a philosophy. Have they? Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We treat the topic as do the reliable independent sources do, and they are practically unanimous that ID is first and foremost a political and legal strategem. Whether the DI agrees or not is immaterial. They have a long and sordid history of misrepresenting ID, themselves and their intentions. See Wedge Document and Of Pandas and People. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There are obviously at least two sides to this topic: DIs and their critics. If we take the critics' side, then we are violating NPOV. I take it you have answered my question, DI has not stated that the idea is a political strategy. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your conclusion is incorrect. My answer to your question was to point you to articles where you could start answering the question for yourself. Also, your understanding of WP:NPOV is faulty. Presenting the subject as it is presented by recognized experts in reliable independent sources is not "taking sides". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, wouldn't DI's opinions on ID be considered as also coming from "recognized experts" since they are the ones promoting the philosophy? Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not for our purposes, which generally require that sources be reliable and independent. The DI is neither. As for it being a self-published source on itself, it fails miserably as regards to reliabilty. The operative phrase in our policies is "unduly self-serving". Like I said, they have a long and sordid history of lying and weaseling about themselves, their beliefs and their motives, as amply demonstrated in reliable independent sources. Any information coming from the DI should therefore be treated with extreme prejudice, and used with extreme caution, if it is to be used at all. It's best to let that information be sifted, evaluated and interpreted by the experts, and use their interpretation as presented in reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable independent sources. Since the Flat Earth Society are the ones promoting the theory that the earth is flat, should we then use them as the most reliable source and disregard geology and astronomy? And recognized, i.e. corroborated, confirmed widely by various sources unconnected to the subject. The only ones who recognize DI as a reliable source are ID proponents themselves. If I go around telling everyone that I have a 50-foot fire-breathing dragon in my garage with a Martian riding on its back, but no one, not even the neighbors can see it, hear it, or in any way confirm it, will you consider me a "recognized" expert of garage-living dragons? No. Think.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, but your statements are a RS regarding what your statements are. For example, they would be an authoritative source for the following statement: "Obsidian Soul says that they have a dragon in their garage" North8000 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is not correct for the article to mis-state the scope of the term, using an improper disabig statement as justification. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Dominus Vobisdu and others, one need not look far to find sourcing that refutes the "ID is just DI" premise. There is much sourced material in this article which refutes that. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please be specific? Which sources? Guettarda (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, to start with, everything in the article about ID that pre-dates the DI version refutes the "ID is just DI" premise. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It just indicates that that material is out of place in this article. I've removed the first three paragraphs of that section before, but it somehow got restored. It just confuses people about the scope of the article. Besides, there wasn't very much to the history of the term "intelligent design" before the DI appropriated it. A few scattered unrelated mentions, at best, that did not really catch on in the philosophical literature. The term was no longer being used by anybody when the DI appropriated it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's circular logic, going like "Let's exclude non-DI intelligent design from this article. Then, since only DI is in the article, then ID must be just DI"— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)

"[E]verything in the article about ID that pre-dates the DI version refutes the "ID is just DI" premise" - Again - what are you talking about specifically? Refs 17-20 (DI fact sheet, two refs from Johnson, one from Forrest) talk about the "origin of the concept" prior to the "modern" ID, but I don't see any of them "refut[ing] the...premise". If you won't be specific, there's no way we can make any progress here. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The existence of ID outside of the DI version and predating the DI version inherently shows that the topic is broader than the DI version. Is that not obvious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)

No. It's not "obvious". What do you mean by "the existence of ID outside of the DI version"? What do you mean by "predating the DI version"? And, more importantly, upon what sources do you base these conclusions? It's really frustrating to try to have a conversation about specifics if you won't be specific. Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The things that are "obvious" inside your own head are usually the things are the most challenging to communicate clearly. Precisely because they're "obvious". Guettarda (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to fix this article. Tweak or add about 6 sentences, take the improper "disamig" def off the beginning. Sounds like a more pleasant life for the 4 folks than eternally fending off calls for repair by a large number of people. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, ID doesn't exist prominently outside of the DI. ID grew out of the teleological argument, so we need information regarding that aspect (the information that predates the DI version). That doesn't mean there are multiple prominent IDs. There is a prominent ID (a religious theory not-so-cleverly disguised as science) and a prominent teleological argument (a philosophical, a posteriori argument from design). These are the names most commonly associated with the two different concepts, and Wikipedia reflects this according to policy. As has been stated a few times in this thread now, where are the sources showing a separate, prominent ID? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the feeling that North is confusing "intelligent design" with "argument from design". The first is a DI creation, and the subject of the present article. The words "intelligent design" have rarely been used outside of that context, past or present, and never in a consistent fashion. The second is a well established and widely used synonym for the teleological argument, and is not synonymous with "intelligent design". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes just as Scientific American, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were "confused" when they used the term "intelligent design" long before the DI folks were even born. They would have to enter the alternate universe of this article to be "corrected". :-) North8000 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And you have the sources that describe these people using "intelligent design" in a context separate from the teleological argument? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what is needed to support what I'm saying. What IS needed to support what I'm saying is for them to use them term, which they did. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just horrifically wrong. Because ID and the teleological argument are related (the former stemmed from the latter), there is going to be some overlap. The teleological argument has been around for millennia and people referred to it sometimes as "intelligent design." If you want to learn more about this concept, see the article on the teleological argument. If you want to know about the purportedly scientific theory of ID, this is the correct article. I mean... how does this not make sense? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have stated my point, and you are basically ignoring and not addressing the core of it. If it is truly unclear, let me know. Otherwise I'll figure that you are purposefully avoiding it. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are examples of those sporadic usages of the phrase "intelligent design" being used as an exact synonym of "argument for design" and "teleological argument". Sorry, but that use of the phrase never really caught on, and is far from the first thing that modern scholars think about when they hear the phrase "intelligent design" today. There is no justification for expanding the scope of the present article to cover sporadic, and very divergent, usages of the phrase. The hatnote does just fine at that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the error in that starts with the noun. A belief is not an "argument". North8000 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stick to the point here! Right now, we're supposed to be discussing sources. Everything else is irrelevant to this page. If you just want to argue, use your own talk pages. Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We're talking scope of the article. Or more specifically, the unsourced definition of ID embedded within the disambig statement which conflicts with sourced material in the article. And then unsourced erroneous statements which are built upon / which rely upon the unsourced statement embedded within the disambig. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no definition of intelligent design in the hatnote. The hatnote says

This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute organization. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).
For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument.

You seem confused about what a hatnote is and what it does. More to the point, this all stems from what you said earlier that ID doesn't look as bad when it is decoupled from DI - you still haven't provided the sources I asked for. You need to demonstrate that your premise is correct before you get to debate how to implement your preferred version of the article. Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, it seems like you are arguing that there is another ID, one that is distinct from the DI's ID and the teleological argument. If this is the case, please cite your sources. Otherwise, you need to make clear what you are proposing. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the def on the disambig page has it right. By " the unsourced definition of ID embedded within the disambig statement which conflicts with sourced material in the article."

I was referring to the disambig statement at the top of THIS article. And MisterDub, one does not have to prove a negative on that arcane statement to assert that this artice handles it improperly. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, yes... you do need sources. Prove what negative? What are you talking about? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Amend the disambiguation page

I think North is referring to the definition given on the disambig page: Intelligent design (disambiguation), which is indeed misleading and needs to be repaired. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobidsu, what is misleading about the disambig page? It has the definition of ID directly from this article, and has other uses of the term. Are you suggesting that we need something that explicitly relates "intelligent design," "argument from design," and other such phrases to the teleological argument? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It gives the DI's definition of ID without clearly attributing it to the DI, and without specifying that the article linked to is about ID as promulgated by the DI. Furthermore, the DI's definition makes ID seem more encompassing than it really is. I'm not sure if including it at all is helpful at that point. On the otehr hand, mentioning the DI and creationism is essential.

Yes, I would add teleological argument and argument from design to the disambig page to help those who are not interested in the DI version. I don't expect there to be a lot of them, but why make them jump through a double disambig hoop, once on the disambig page, and once in the hatnote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, that sounds a fair proposal. Perhaps we should essentially include the hatnote on the disambing page as well? "Intelligent design, as promulgated by the DI, is the proposition..."? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That would expand the problem rather than fixing it. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@Mr. Dub: I would prefer "Intelligent design: a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute." and leave it at that.

I would also add in the may also refer to section:

Argument from design: Also known as the Teleological agrument, one of the main theological proofs for the existence of God.

What do you think? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I've edited my sandbox to illustrate my previous suggestions for the ID disambig page. Dominus, I don't mind your suggestion for the definition of ID, but I feel others will object to it. Let's wait for others' opinions, yes? As for the phrases such as argument from design, I had a very similar idea, as you can see on my sandbox, but I don't know the best way to format these phrases and link them to the teleological argument. I think we are on the same track, though, and I support any similar changes.

North8000, could you please enter into some constructive dialogue? We need specifics as to what "the problem" is and how we can fix it. I've tried to understand your position and respond to it, but your responses never seem pertinent. Are you saying there is another ID distinct from both the DI's "version" and the teleological argument? If so, we need sources. If that's not your position, please succinctly state your case again. Thank you. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@Mr. Dub: I like your suggestions on your sandbox page and will incorporate them. I see your point about the definition, and agree, relunctantly. However, we have to make it clear that it is the DI's definition, and not ours. Perhaps by adding: "The DI defines intelligent design as ......".

@North: I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Mr. Dub and the others that your lack of specificity is not constructive, and is quickly becoming disruptive. You'll have to alter your approach if you want to be listened to and be taken seriously. Right now, you're rapidly galloping through Dead Horse Country on your way to the Kingdom of the Trolls. Stay on topic. Be concrete. Be concise. Back up your proposals with solid reliable sources. Like someone else said above, remember that what appears to be obvious to you may not be obvious to others. It really is frustrating trying to figure out what you mean when your are vague and not specific. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, please quit the insulting crap. Just because you either don't want to understand what I'm saying or don't doesn't mean that those ridiculous insults apply. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

MisterDub, recappping. There is extensive sourced material (e.g. in this article) that establishes that "intelligent design" has related meanings outside of the DI creation. It is incorrect to exclude them from this article. Further, there is no basis from making statements that there are no other related meanings for ID outside of the DI creation. That is the core of it, and IS constructive dialog. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do these "related meanings outside of the DI creation" refer to the teleological argument? If not, to which sources are you referring specifically? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

intelligent design, n.

Deliberate design in the natural or physical world, attributed to an intelligent entity (usually identified as God); the appearance of this. In later use (freq. with capital initials): a theory which posits this. Cf. design n. 5.

The term is now used chiefly with reference to a modified form of creation science which promotes teleological explanations while minimizing the use of religious terminology. Its proponents typically claim that many biological systems are too complex to have evolved incrementally by undirected mutation and natural selection, or show evidence of patterns which cannot be adequately explained by the action of natural processes.

First cite: 1816 J. B. Sumner Treat. Rec. Creation I. ii. 21 We must oppose all the deductions of reason and daily experience, if we for a moment remove from our system the operation and agency of intelligent design.

—OED, Third edition, September 2003; online version March 2012. [3]

design, n.

5. Fulfilment of a prearranged plan; adaptation of means to an end. Chiefly in theological contexts, with reference to the belief that the universe manifests divine forethought and testifies to an intelligent creator, usually identified as God (cf. intelligent design n., argument from design n. at Phrases 3).

First cite: 1665 T. Manley tr. H. Grotius De Rebus Belgicis 141 Either out of Design, or Simplicity.

P3. argument from design n. Theol. an argument for the existence of an intelligent creator (usually identified as God) based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world (cf. sense 5).

First cite: 1802 W. Paley Nat. Theol. ii. 12 The argument from design remains as it was.

—OED, Third edition, January 2012; online version March 2012. [4]

creationism, n.

2. The belief that mankind and all kinds of living organism, or, more widely, the earth and the physical universe generally, originated in specific acts of divine creation as related in the Bible or other sacred book rather than by natural processes as described by science, in particular evolution. Cf. creation science n. at creation n. Compounds, intelligent design n., evolutionism n. (a).

First cite: 1860 Rambler Mar. 370 He [sc. Darwin] talks as if some extra-scientific, unknown, and arbitrary creationism was the only antagonist to his natural selection.

—OED, Third edition, November 2010; online version March 2012. [5]

Dictionaries aren't always good sources...but it looks like the same old "argument from design" to me. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a fundamentally flawed argument. By that standard, we can go to the Political parties in the United States article, add "disambiguation" that it covers all of the parties except the Democratic Party, and for "Democratic Party" say to see the "liberal arguments" article. #1 They should not be excluded from the appropriate article. #2 Just because "liberal arguments" relates to all of them does not mean that such justifies leaving them out of the appropriate article. #3 An article that covers the arguments does not cover the overall topic. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't. The Democratic Party is a prominent name for an organization and, assuming it has enough material, demands its own article with this prominent name. Here, we have two concepts with differing prominent names (intelligent design and the teleological argument) and, hence, two articles. Furthermore, the Democratic Party is a subset of "Political parties in the United States" whereas intelligent design is not a subset of the teleological argument, but a "contemporary adaptation of" it. So, to enumerate my responses as you have: 1) The Democratic Party would not be excluded because it is a proper subset of "Political parties in the United States"; ID is not a proper subset of the teleological argument. 2) "Liberal arguments" is a subject distinct from the Democratic Party with its own prominent name, conflating the two would be a big problem; conflating ID with the teleological argument suffers from the same issue. 3) Umm... not sure what you mean by this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been polite, but this seems more like sparring towards a set position rather than trying to figure out the best way. Parrying what I'm saying rather than seeing if it has merit. I think that this particular thread is becoming more painful than productive. If there is anywhere I've not done a good job of clarifying my points I would be happy to do so, but beyond that we're just repeating things in this thread and life's too short for that. BTW my point #3 was an "argument" is merely arguments for a particular belief set or way of viewing the universe, it's origins etc., it is not covereage of the topic, just as "liberal aguments" is not a substitute for coverage of the DNC. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this. I explained Wikipedia's naming policy to you after Jess had already done so, and you need to understand it. You don't get to write it off as meaningless debate and continue your cause. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well,when someone vaguely points to a 5,000 word guideline and tries to imply that it supports their cause with nothing more specific than that is usually a sign that "they got nothin' "  :-) North8000 (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can be more specific than WP:UCN; our articles are named after their common usage in reliable sources (thus "Use Common Name). I agree with all the others in this discussion, North. There has definitely been a lot of repetition, but I've mostly seen it coming from you. You have yet to provide a single specific source which supports your view, or answer many important questions directly. Other editors here have backed up their views with sources and policy, listened to the other arguments presented, and in some cases even changed their minds. You're failing to sway the opinions of others in that manner, so I think it's time to drop the stick. You need to provide sources, or discussion of your vague proposal will have to end. It's time to move on; this isn't helping anyone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider that to be an accurate characterization of the situation, but the end result is basically what I was saying, albeit for a different reason. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Since this discussion thread was derailed a bit, I wanted to call attention to the proposed changes on the Intelligent design (disambiguation) page. Dominus Vobidsu and I have talked about making explicit the link between the primary topic (this article) and the Discovery Institute, as well as adding synonyms for the teleological argument. I just wanted to call attention to these revisions in case anyone has missed the conversation and has objections to the proposed revision. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no one's said anything, so I went and done it. Thanks, all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterDub (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: the revision made to Intelligent design (disambiguation) has been reverted. For any interested editors, please visit Talk:Intelligent design (disambiguation). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Copy of my post from the disambig page. Swan song. MisterDub, I was going to suggest getting an involved third party to hear the arguments (here and at the ID article) and decide, and then I thought, hey that what I came in as. I am following what appears to me to be very obvious for proper coverage of ID. Being an atheist & dis-believer in ID, this position certainly doesn't come a pro-ID bias, it strictly from a sense of mission to have the article properly cover the topic and resolve the issues that visitors keep noting. To recap very briefly, the intelligent design article should cover the full scope of intelligent design. Sources and the article itself show that this is broader than the Discovery Institute creation. It's quite possible that the teleological argument is an argument used by most or all non-DI believers. IMHO such does not validate 1. Excluding intelligent design material from the intelligent design article 2. In essence saying that the rest of ID would get covered only at the "argument" article. I see structure and logic, and my arguments are based on that. Such arguments are sometime Greek to folks who look at things from a "general intent" framework or other frameworks. That may have happened here. I can see that the article has had many similar complaints, albeit most of the vaguer. I think that this could get fixed by leaving the disambig page as-is, and making just a few changes in the ID article. MisterDub, of those in opposition to my thoughts, you are the one who most clearly thinks they are doing the right thing (vs POV based) and has made the most detailed arguments in opposition to mine and so I've chosen to burden you with the decision. I'm going to stop watching and stop participating in the disambig page and the ID article. If YOU want me back to pursue the above debate, please ping me on my talk page. The best to everyone here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the point that needs emphasizing here is that disputes at wikipedia need to be resolved by dedication to research and faithfulness to the best quality reliable sources. It does not help to invite more wikieditors, be they atheists-believers-tinkers-tailors-beggar men-thieves, to weigh in with their own particular brand of "folk knowledge". Professor marginalia (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In the past I have convinced myself by nosing around the internet that the assertion that all major proponents of ID are affiliated with the DI was true. Sallying forth to collect some links to demonstrate that, I come back less convinced. First, I found, as expected, what Eugenie Scott had to say 10 years ago: The Seattle-based Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC) serves as an institutional home for virtually all of the prominent ID proponents, including Dembski, Behe, and Wells. The goals of the CRSC, as stated by the Discovery Institute's director Bruce Chapman, are explicitly religious: to promote Christian theism and to defeat philosophical materialism.

And of course, what the DI itself (under the name "Center for Science and Culture") had to say.

But then I found John H. Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network. Although he and his organization seem to interact with the DI, they seem to be distinct entities. (Calvert here claims to ID is teleology.)

The most pertinent site I found, that will be the most instructive for us, is the Encyclopedia Britannica entry written by Thomas F. Glick. From the lead:

Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82). Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God advanced by the Anglican clergyman William Paley (1743–1805), supporters of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are “irreducibly complex,” in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning.

Glick devotes the second paragraph to the controversy of identifying ID with creationism.

The third and final paragraph dispassionately explains why it is not accepted as science by the scientific community. The brief article is a model of NPOV and succinctness. (Hint, hint, hint.) Yopienso (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, that's the same subject though, made popular by the Discovery Institute. The DI doesn't have to touch everything related to ID for this to remain true. If this group is doing something new with ID (like a research program), then it's probably worth noting. Otherwise, I don't see it as pertinent. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote text

I've created this section because we have a couple editors going back and forth on the hatnote. In order to avoid an edit war, let's BRD. The issue appears to stem from how specific the hatnote ought to be. Is there a reason to specify who the DI is in the hatnote ("public policy think tank organization")? There's no disambig on the Discovery Institute article, so I don't see why this would be necessary. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@MisterDub: I'm the person who wrote the hatnote, and agree that "public policy hink tank organization" is unnecessary. But something is. Namely, a tip off that this is about a form of creationism, and not about a general system of belief or philosophy. I propose:

This article is about intelligent design, a form of Creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).

Likewise, the word creationism has to appear very early in the lead, because that is the most essential element of the definiton of the term. Right now, it is buried deeper down in the lede, so that readers may be mislead that they are reading about a general religious belief or philosphical concept. I propose:

"Intelligent design is a form of creatonism based on the proposition that...".

This will head off a lot of the readers who are expecting to read about the general religious or philosopical concept. Thoughts? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If we need to identify ID with creationism in the hatnote, I think your first suggestion is fine. Or similarly, "This article is about intelligent design, a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)" should do well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the end, "Discovery Institute," is that it can confuse some readers (such as myself) into thinking that it is an educational institution. When I clicked through the link, I was slightly confused and surprised at the the first sentence, which is why I specifically stated in the hatnote that it is a "public policy think tank," which it most certainly is. I propose: This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute public policy think tank organization." I don't think there's a need to mention creationism. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head: this article has been edited to death for a small group of WP editors who know all this stuff. It is not written to inform the general public. Yopienso (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point about readers mistaking the Discover Institute with a legitimate educational institution. But creationism does have to be mentioned, for the reason I have have given above. How about this:

"This article is about intelligent design, a form of Creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a public policy think tank. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)."

What do you think? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is a lot more clear, but now I think there is a problem with the specific reference. The disambiguation note should probably be more general; the fact that "ID was promulgated by the Discovery Institute" is too specific. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this hatnote's purpose is to distinguish ID from the teleological argument. So let's ask, "How would we do this in the simplest, clearest manner?" To me, the difference is stark: one is creationism, the other is philosophy. Maybe we don't mention the DI at all (and remove any unnecessary confusion about that organization), but simply say it's a form of creationism: This article is about a form of creationism. For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposal above is general enough to easily let readers know what the subject is about. And also, the other problem with referencing Discovery "Institute" is that: Is it really the only organization that proposed these ideas/thinking? I'm pretty sure there are many other organizations who have contributed to this set of ideas. Discovery Institute isn't the sole notable one. Should it be the only one to be specifically mentioned? There are other organizations as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are other organizations that support ID, but the leaders of ID (those who've advanced the theory) are all associated with the DI. Furthermore, the verb promulgate means to "promote or make widely known (an idea or cause)" and doesn't necessitate they be the only organization involved with ID; it is still true that ID is/was "made widely known" due to the efforts of the DI, even if other organizations support their cause. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks and comment on falsifiability

As someone who agrees with thearticle, may I thank the editors, who have put so much in and deal with so much on the talkpage ? (I think there is a sociology or psychology PhD thesis to be mined from the talk) As a practicing scientist,I think the reliance among - shorthand here as i don't know the right term - liberals on "falsifiability" is a bit misplaced. While it may be important in legal circles,and discussed by historians and philosophers of science, I don't think practicing scientists actually care that much. regards and again thanksCinnamon colbert (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Falsifiability is the corner stone that holds the idea of science together; without it a proposition can't exist in the realm of science. It's a huge aspect of the philosophy of science (and there aren't liberals or conservatives in any meaningful sense here, though there is positivism and post-positivism). I couldn't tell you if most scientists care about it, but I imagine the ones who understand it sure do. If you're saying that many scientists aren't educated in the philosophy of science then I sadly agree with you. It's an unfortunately state of affairs. SÆdon^talk 03:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the point that need be emphasized here is that this article needs to be closely aligned with how the topic is described by the most authoritative sources. And it does, in terms of the facts anyway. The "tone", which may be too pushy here, is probably more of a factor here to most of its more fair criticisms. I attribute the "tone" rather than the problems with its factual content for sending too many critics haywire intent to correct it by bolstering some mythic depiction they've formed in their minds about what ID is.

The task of writing with the appropriate tone is a more delicate business than putting the proper facts in order. That task has been made much harder than it otherwise should be here because a) confusion is no accident-DI explicitly promotes and exploits it, b) editors weighing in here are too often bringing these notions of ID from this ID "ethersphere" rather than reliable sources and c) other editors, as a result, are driven to reactionary overkill to create an environment where solid claims will actually stick rather than be weaseled by a million cuts into la-la-landishness. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine that someone who has gone through a doctoral program wouldn't fully understand the need of Falsifiability for a hypothesis, it's something that's taught in undergrad level, and something that would be absolutely necessary to know at grad level since that's when your formulating your own research and hypothesizes. To make that claim makes it very likely you have no science background and definitely not a doctoral background. — raekyt 07:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Undirected meaning in article

Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undirected or Undirected in the opening paragraph of the ID article redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics) instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness ? Undirected is they synonym for Randomness and random is the semantic opposite of non-random(Design), which is a pattern with a Purpose.

But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-random redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness, is the intention of the Wikipedia editors to assert that randomness is the same thing as non-random? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be careful with linking to the Randomness page anyway, as that term is used in different ways. For example, random can mean disordered, unpredictable (at least to some extent), or unguided by an intelligence. I think the best way to convey this meaning via Wikilink would be to link undirected to the Wikitionary definition of unintentional. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Random's majority metaphor is disorder or a pattern without a purpose. Dictionaries define the majority metaphor. There isn't such a thing as a literal meaning, all of language is an IC metaphor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The wording "an undirected process such as natural selection" is that used by ID proponents, but is rather vague and inaccurate, and we should not be trying to guess the translation of definition of "undirected" in that context. It's wrong because natural selection is directed by the environment of organisms, an environment that includes other organisms. What they are trying to convey is a lack of purpose in natural processes, the purpose they have in mind is the divine purpose central to teleology, but if we want to convey that we need a reliable secondary source making that point, not some dictionary definition of a word with multiple meanings. . dave souza, talk 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The ID and YEC premise are that all semantic objects can only be used to represent a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose. Those opposed to ID have the premise that this Platonic primary binary contrasts is incorrect and that there is an assumed third option. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design. Thus the issue is not what does Natural Selection mean but what is meant with this semantic construct,because its majority metaphorical meaning as derived from a dictionary is the oxymoron purposeless purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, I don't quite comprehend what you're saying. I understand binary pairs, which seems to be what you're getting at, but how do they relate to this article? How does the purpose-accident binary (or whatever you would call it), whether or not it is a true dichotomy, affect the term unguided as quoted from the DI? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Any changes to the article ought to be made because of verifiability in reliable sources or better conformance to Wikipedia policies. It would also be helpful to present one of them as your justification for amending this article, otherwise these discussions can continue endlessly. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design#Majority_and_minority_metaphor for what I mean with Platonic opposites and the book Tautological Oxymorons by John D. Brey - If deconstruction is easily absorbed into the apophatic behemoth supporting Western metaphysics, what would happen if Western metaphysics applied deconstruction to the modern scientific materialism which acts as the cornerstone of the worldview setting itself in opposition to Western metaphysics?Tautological Oxymorons is an attempt to deconstruct the language and logic used to present scientific materialism as though it were a viable alternative to pre-Enlightenment theology, philosophy, and mythology. By examining modern scientific materialism in the light of language (and proper language use) we can see that much that's taken for granted as 'obvious' and a mere 'given' (within the context of scientific materialism) is rather (when carefully examined in the context of precise language usage) nothing more than sheer unadulterated absurdity! http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tautological_Oxymorons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid all that is all off topic. Agree with Dave Souza that it's pointless to interpret what the DI means by "undirected". Semantic analysis of the type you are suggesting would be original research and synthesis. If you have CONCRETE proposals about the wording or contents of the articles, backed up with reliable independent secondary sources, then by all means start a new section and present your proposal there, concisely, clearly and on-topic. This thread has wandered far too deep into WP:FORUM territory, and should be terminated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The abstract authority Mr.ID does not exist, what you mean is that some leading figure in the ID movement such as Dembski has not defined what he means with undirected. There is no language without a motive, who is this person that has not defined his terms? If you don't know what Dembski means with undirected how could you then conclude that he is erroneous in his views.