Talk:Intelligent design: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:48, 13 November 2012

Skip to table of contents

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:

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.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID).

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism?

A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.^[1]^[2]

Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject.

Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god.^[1]^[3]^[4]^[5]

In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".^[6]

Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document.

Q2: Should ID be characterized as science?

A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.^[7] Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment.

Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID?

A3: According to Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept.

The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.^[11]^[12]

Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons:

The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed
The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article
The article is not genuinely supportive of ID
The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID

If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field.

Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID?

A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one.

Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source?

A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source.

The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute can not be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"?

A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s,^[13] Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People.^[14] Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations.^[15] For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6.

Notes and references

^ ^a ^b Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
^ "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won
^ Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
^ Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
"[M]embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005.
^ "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005.
^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.
^ ^a ^b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
^ "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
^ Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.
^ Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical
^ "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
^ See also Sternberg peer review controversy.
^ Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog)
^ Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44
^ "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 2, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 9, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 24, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
December 14, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
Current status: Featured article

Alternative Views FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion FA‑class Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89

Archives by topic:
Philosophy sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Bill Nye

An editor has added a sentence to the lead relating some recent comments from Bill Nye to ID. I have moved this information to the "Reaction from the scientific community" section, where it seems more appropriate. I don't know if this information really needs to be in the article at all though: other than Nye's TV fame, we already elucidate the fact that ID is rejected by most scientists/scientific organizations. If someone else feels the same, feel free to remove this new material. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments - yes, I added the edit - I thought it worthy - or - at least worth a consideration - however, it's *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/adj/etc - no problem whatsoever - in any case - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reason to include him is that he is viewed as a "friendly" person, not hostile like some of academics and debunkers. I.e., some readers will find him to be a more reliable source because he isn't "one of them". Yopienso (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reason to exclude him is that he is viewed pretty much only in the USA. This is a global article in a global encyclopaedia. I say this even though I agree with him. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the subject matter--ID--is primarily a US phenomenon. (See edit summary.) Yopienso (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it started in the US, things spread quickly. I'm Canadian and I do follow what happens in the USA and yes, I am aware of Bill Nye. I say, leave the text in there. It is just 1 sentence. Vmelkon (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I so wish that was true. Unfortunately, bad religion and denial of real science happens in my country (Australia) too, and is aggressively fed from America. But we don't get Bill Nye on TV here. I only know about him because I'm a science teacher, and use his videos in class. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the pages of discussion here showing that the Discovery Institute, located in Seattle, is the source and promulgator of ID? I suspect Brian Houston and Hillsong Church do most of the ID-spreading in Australia. I don't watch TV; I know about Bill Nye from a book of his I read a long time ago and from a video my granddaughter was watching. But I'm not adamant about inclusion. We could always say, "American children's television personality Bill Nye said. . ." Clunky, huh? I'm just laying out facts, here, and will leave the conclusion to others. Yopienso (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Natural genetic engineering

Not that long ago we had a disruptive editor here who was blocked in fairly short order. During his brief tenure he created an article on Natural genetic engineering which was subsequently abandonded. I picked it up and took it as far as I could, but at this point I could stand having a molecular biologist take a look. I think the bibliography is in pretty good shape and I have pdfs of most of the 25-odd cites that I've managed to dig up and will be happy to send them along. Much of the criticism of Shapiro's work in on a level that can be understood by a non-specialist, but I've had less luck being able to summarize his work proper. If you're not a molecular biologist then you might want to have a look at the Intelligent Design section; that's in much better shape, but I'm sure it can be improved.

Thanks much,

Garamond Lethe 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the first article where I've been the majority contributor; no need to be gentle, but please be understanding.

Garamond Lethe 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and state that I highly doubt that any "peer reviewed" paper by this person makes the case for Intelligent Design, and are merely articles that support the current synthesis. Therefore any links this guy tries to make that his research disproves evolution and proves some magical sky daddy created everything is NOT peer reviewed and likely NOT worthy of it's own article. The article should be merged into Shapiro's article because of that. — raeky t 01:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro's work focuses on how cellular machinery changes DNA in response to environmental conditions. As such, he thinks the Central dogma of molecular biology is too simplistic and cellular-directed mutation has had a much greater impact on evolution than non-directed mutation. Scientifically he's a strict materialist and dismisses the ID folks on this basis. However, that didn't stop the ID folks from trying to co-opt his work, and as Shapiro is reluctant to admit that directed-mutation systems could have resulted from non-directed mutations + selection, the ID folks keep bringing up his name. (Shapiro's position is that we can't know yet how the direct-mutation systems arose, but he's certain it was a material cause and that we might figure it out eventually.)

All of which, properly cited to the peer-reviewed literature, made its way into the article.

You evidently had a different narrative that you preferred. Because of that, you wrongly condemned a scientist you knew nothing about, despite the relevant article being a click away.

So let's turn this into a teachable moment. What could I have done differently that would have caused you to read the article first before commenting?

Thanks in advance,

Garamond Lethe 03:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I assumed he was in the crazies boat, my bad. The question though is WP:N of this area of study, is his views widely accepted among biologists? Is his papers highly cited by others? I haven't really looked into it because I don't really have time at the moment, but if his views are on the margins of biology and not widely accepted or being investigated then again it probably doesn't deserve it's own page.... I'm just guessing that since this didn't have a topic before some creationist created it, and it's not linked from anywhere except his page [1], it MIGHT mean it's not notable... — raeky t 03:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. It was an evolutionist who created the article (here's his best contribution to this article [2]). I would say the community considers Shapiro to have a minority but still respectable view. His Trends in Genetics paper has been cited 90 times, his Gene paper has been cited 78 times and his Genetica paper has been cited 117 times. His book garnered at least nine reviews in the peer-reviewed literature, ranging from "He's wrong" (Larry Moran) to "This is important but he's probably wrong" to "This is interesting but don't bet the farm". Nice catch on the lack of links to the article; I might not be able to address that tonight but that definitely needs work. Thanks! Garamond Lethe 04:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the article's form before you started editing, which has some creationist buzzwords like "Darwinian evolution." But irregardless, I'm not entirely convinced it meets WP:GNG. I think the question is does the phrasing "Natural genetic engineering" appear enough in academic literature to merit it's own page as opposed to containing it within the author's article? According to a search of the phrase on Google scholar (exact phrase search yields: About 664 results) it may not... — raeky t 04:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to move this conversation over to talk:Natural genetic engineering. Garamond Lethe 04:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plantinga reviewed

Alvin Plantinga (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies. Science, Religion and Naturalism, Oxford University Press, USA. 376 pages; ISBN-10: 0199812098; USD27.95 Reviewed by: Maarten Boudry. An interesting take on the usual Plantingaisms. H/T Larry Moran. By coincidence, it's followed by a review of James A. Shapiro (2011), Evolution. A View from the 21st century. See also John S. Wilkins & Paul E. Griffiths, Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains: Fact, value, and religion, PhilPapers. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see Wilkins getting cited. I think I read a couple of his earlier blog posts about this paper. Looking forward to reading it on the flight home. Garamond Lethe 00:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Redefinition" of Science

The introductory paragraph to the Intelligent Design page states that the leaders of the ID movement wish to redefine science to include theistic explanations. In his book, Signs of Intelligence, Phillip E. Johnson makes a notable point on this issue. He says that the popular science of today, what he calls "naturalistic" science, rejects any theory that isn't entirely in agreement with a naturalistic worldview. That is, any theory that doesn't make sense in a world where the universe is all there ever was is labeled as religion. True science, "empirical" science as he calls it, makes the conclusions that are most feasible based on the evidence set before it. Johnson makes the case that biology bears the distinct hallmarks of design by an intelligent agent, and that evolution is not an adequate explanation for the development of life on Earth.76.17.165.40 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Err, let's say my name is staples.[reply]

Well, there's making a case and there's making a case successfully. Is there a particular change you wanted to make to the lead? Garamond Lethe 03:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment

1 - guys, again, congrats on a fabulous job in the face of tremendous anti encyclopediaism-nist (people who are opposed to the idea of a neutral fact based encylopedia)

2 - my impression is that the intro and other parts have grown in length over the last year and are now to long; my impression is that the length about a year ago was better. I know that each and every syllable is hard fought, so I'm not gonna say more.

[wedge2-1] Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson

[PJC-2] "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won

[dembski_logos-3] Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

[wedge1-4] Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
"[M]embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005.

[5] "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005.

[kitz31-6] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.

[kitzruling_pg87-7] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87

[aaas_pr-8] "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.

[9] Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.

[10] Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical

[11] "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.

[12] See also Sternberg peer review controversy.

[Wilkins-13] Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog)

[14] Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44

[15] "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 :Well, there's making a case and there's making a case successfully.  Is there a particular change you wanted to make to the lead?  [[User:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond</span>]][[User_talk:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe</span>]] 03:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
+==comment==
+- guys, again, congrats on a fabulous job in the face of tremendous anti encyclopediaism-nist (people who are opposed to the idea of a neutral fact based encylopedia)
+- my impression is that the intro and other parts have grown in length over the last year and are now to long; my impression is that the length about a year ago was better. I know that each and every syllable is hard fought, so I'm not gonna say more.