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.

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. [1]

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. [2]

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. [3]

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.

No, we mean that the source from which the definition is taken is the Discovery Institute, and it is published without mention of an author. Also, that Scratchpad wiki is not a reliable source (especially since, after reading most of it, it appears to be heavily biased, poorly written, and completely irrelevant) and cannot be used as justification for any change here. We prefer secondary sources over primary ones, and this book doesn't seem to have any reviews (after a brief Google search); Amazon doesn't even have a single, customer review for it! The next question on that DI's FAQ page, however, asks if evolution is incompatible with ID. The answer contains the following (emphasis added):

“ However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. ”

Additionally, Stephen C. Meyer has written the following article which also explains a bit of ID (emphasis added):

“ Why [is the appearance of design illusory]? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being directed by an intelligence.

In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed.

”

It seems from these sources that the term unguided is set against "a guiding intelligence," and unintentional is the intended meaning ( :D ). Assuming that this is not just my interpretation (is it?), I support Wikilinking the term unguided to the Intention article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

From these sources it would be more accurate to say that "unguided" means "undesigned", "lacking direction by a designer" or "unpredictable and purposeless", and while that exposes circular reasoning in ID, we really need a secondary source for interpretation rather than trying to fathom the DI's misdirection. . . dave souza, talk 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

MisterDub, in what way is unguided or unintentional the same thing as Intentionality or purpose? See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Purpose1 and after googling "meaningless sentence" we find http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence at nr.4 because if you view is that random/non-random , good/bad are the same thing we have Newspeak Orwelian doublethink: the power of holding two contradictory beliefs and accepting both of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, you are reading into this too much. No one is claiming that intentional is the same as unintentional, or random is the same as non-random, etc. The concepts represented by these terms have their respective articles, and the reader is left to apply any negating factors him- or herself. And again, that Scratchpad wiki is not a reliable source. If you want to make a change, please be clear about what you want and present reliable sources for verifiability. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

http://thesaurus.com/browse/undirected?s=t states that the synonym for 'undirected' is purposeless and the antonym is purpose. You disagree with the thesaurus on this point? Whenever I try to link 'undirected' to http://thesaurus.com/browse/undirected?s=t to its definition namely 'having no goal' you remove the link insisting that the thesaurus is incorrect. Would you mind elaborating why. Note that the thesaurus is only providing two Platonic binary opposites, there are no third options. In your world view Platonic opposites don't exist because they derive their authority from Genesis 1 and Revelation the last book. In other words you are using volitional type language to express a view where such volition does not exist to you. As a materialist you don't believe in volition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.189.117 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, no one is disagreeing with any thesaurus, and please refrain from commenting on your fellow editors. Your edit was reverted because linking these terms is publishing original research, unless you have some secondary sources making the connection explicit. I don't really think it's necessary to define terms tangentially related to the article anyway, but I tried finding sources for your change and, as primary sources from an entity known to be disingenuous, they were not strong enough to justify the edit. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.arn.org/docs/guides/stan_gd1.pdf and ID think tank asserts that natural selection is an unguided unintelligent process. Why then isn't it a stupid process?