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.

Improving the lede

I've been asked to start a new section for some suggestions I made above wrt the lede.

• Eliminate "is a form of creationism" from the first sentence, changing it to.

"Intelligent design is the proposition, presented as a scientific theory, that 'certain features . . .'"

• Put disclaimers in the last paragraph of the lede, for two reasons:

1. The lede first should describe the subject of the article before refuting it, and

2. The casual reader will read the first paragraph and skip to the last.

• Change the first two sentences of the second paragraph to,

"The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents privately believe the designer to be the Christian deity."

• Split the 2nd paragraph between "evidence of design.^{[n 4]}" and "The scientific community . . ."

The topic of the new third paragraph is that ID is rejected by the scientific community.

Change "overturn" to "modify," "alter," or "expand."

Change "replaced" to "augmented."

• Delete the old 3rd paragraph; it belongs to Intelligent design movement. Yopienso (talk)

I have copied the article lead to my sandbox and made most of the changes Yopienso proposed here. Two differences:

1. I added the claim that ID is creationism to the third paragraph
2. I have highlighted proposed word changes in the third paragraph with DEL tags

I'm not quite sure I agree with changing the words in the third paragraph, hence why I have not made that change in the sandbox. I think overturn and replaced give a far more accurate description of the centrality of methodological naturalism to modern science than the proposed terms. I also think that the last sentence in the second paragraph (beginning, "Their concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity...") needs grammatical revision, as it seems to break the flow. I think a simple change, such as changing the structure from "Their concepts" to "ID proponents have proposed concepts...", would be a step in the right direction. In any case, thank you, Yopienso, for producing a viable suggestion! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso - Somewhat astonishingly, for me, I agree with every one of your suggested changes. However, I can also see MisterDub's point on Para 3, but this is kind of a minor issue for me.

Kudos also to the clear/concise presentation of what you want to do and why. Was able to read through it and digest your suggestions very quickly. Ckruschke (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks, guys. MisterDub, I like your draft. I had not realized my suggestion totally eliminated the word "creationism." It's imperative to include it. Suggested tweak:

"The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscientific form of creationism^[5][6] because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable testable [or falsifiable] hypotheses.^{[7][8][9][10]} The premise of intelligent design that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design has been criticized as a false dichotomy. Scientists have rebutted in detail ID's anti-evolutionary assertions. [Etc.]"

My rationale against "overturn" is that ID proponents agree with the scientific method except when it limits their ideas on design. "Undermine" is another possible alternative.

I would happily endorse your version without my tweaks. Yopienso (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Yopienso for putting this forward, while it may well point a way forward I'm concerned that this overbalances the NPOV structure of the opening paragraph by presenting an unchallenged fringe viewpoint as though it was fact. The current opening paragraph does have an acceptable balance, but I'm certainly willing to review how best to make it flow more clearly while clearly showing the majority expert view of what ID is. . dave souza, talk 16:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this debate for years and have for the most part avoided posting here, but I simply cannot let this pass without comment.

By removing "is a form of creationism" without some appropriate replacement you are removing one of the characteristic descriptions of what ID is. This does not better informs our readers, it is likely to mislead them. The first sentence of the lead should be the "article in a nutshell", and ID is most certainly not valid science and we should not use any form of words that might allow a casual reader to think that it is.

I suggest that (if it is to be modified and given that some editors here seem allergic to the use of the word creationism) the first sentence be changed to:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific theory, that proposes that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

It is completely misleading to word the lead in any way that might allow the reader to draw the conclusion that ID is in any way accepted by the scientific community. The proposition that the casual reader will read the forst sentence and then "skip to the last" is entirely without foundation and nonsensical.

- Nick Thorne ^talk 16:21, 9 April 2014‎ (UTC)

dave souza, I don't think NPOV policy requires every paragraph to be balanced, but that the article itself be balanced. The entire lead should be neutral, but the exact structure is amenable. I think Yopienso's proposal retains this NPOV while addressing common complaints.

Nick Thorne, perhaps you started writing your comment before Yopienso's latest post, but I want to make sure you realize that the claim of ID being creationism isn't being removed, but moved. I have it in the last paragraph of my sandbox, and Yopienso suggested a similar placement. Maybe you'll also object to moving the claim to the last paragraph, but I just want to make sure you know that it is in the proposal. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, the point of layout policy is that placing the mainstream view of ID distant from the fringe claims in this way effectively gives the fringe viewpoint credence: Nick Thorne is absolutely correct about this, and his proposal would certainly be one way forward. The issue of ID being anti-evolution creationism relabelled is central, and there may be a better way of highlighting this at the outset. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't see that this proposal gives any more credence to ID than the current article, but I'm open to suggestions, including Nick Thorne's idea of labeling it a pseudoscientific theory at the outset. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this, the central issue is that the first paragraph should describe what ID is according to reliable third party sources. Per WP:WEIGHT we "must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." Certainly describing ID as pseudoscience is one way of clarifying the majority perspective, as is making it clear that ID is creationism relabelled. . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Very basic problem with the logic here. Sources say all kinds of things that we want to fit in the article but they can not ALL be in the first sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested first para

To clarify the majority and minority perspectives on the topic, a suggestion for the first paragraph:

Intelligent design (ID) is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, defined by its proponents as proposing that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." They present it as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea", but it has been shown to be a form of creationism which does not meet the accepted standards of a scientific theory.

Or something along these lines. . dave souza, talk 17:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see the point. Changing "proposition" to "pseudoscientific theory" corrects the problem. Let's please keep "creationism" for the rebuttal paragraph. Yopienso (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, I think this simple swap is more clarifying than inserting the teleological argument. Yopienso (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, that goes some way to resolving the problem. However, creationism is a well attested expert third party description and not a rebuttal: in my view it has to be early in the lead, if not necessarily in the first paragraph, to put the remaining description in context. Will think over some ideas of how this could be done, . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would still prefer to start with the definition of ID provided by the DI, instead of defining it in relation to the teleological argument. Maybe something like the following?

Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but the scientific community considers ID a form of creationism because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

You'll notice that I moved the sentence referring to methodological naturalism to the first paragraph, which I think may sate Andrew Lancaster's concerns. Anyway, just some more ideas. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We should describe ID the way it is described in expert third party sources right off the bat, not as it is described by the fringe group that promotes the idea. Not to do this is a direct and obvious failure to follow NPOV and FRINGE. Either state in the first sentence that ID is a form of creationism, or that it is pseudocience, anything less is simply counter to policy. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that why the Astrology article mentions pseudoscience in the third paragraph??? I'm willing to concede the point if consensus wants to have "pseudoscientific theory" in the first sentence, but failing to do so is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, other stuff exists, but that is not a reason to do the wrong thing here. Maybe the astrology article needs its lead edited, rather than repeating the same mistake here. The proposed changes seem more about giving wriggle room to the creationists, rather than informing our readers, which should be our primary aim in building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. Nobody is denying that ID is a form of creationism. If there is an intelligence involved it is creationism, regardless of whether it is dressed up as bad science. This should be made clear at the outset to avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories. The present lead does this adequately without any need for change and should be kept.--Charles (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That something is sourceable does not mean it has to be in the first sentence. We can not put everything in the opening sentence, or the opening paragraph. So can we please avoid making this a basis of an argument for any version? Also it is equally illogical to claim that moving something away from a first (or second or whatever) sentence means we are now saying the opposite. Please lets only use positions which make some logical sense?

@MisterDub, concerning your draft above I note that you have the IDM having two positions, if you see what I mean, which is indeed accurate: one is their "scientific" position (irreducible complexity etc) which is often presented (wrongly) as being consistent with normal modern science. The other one is their more "philosophical" position which admits they are questioning modern science. My concern: by placing these two positions in two different places we break the flow of discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, no one is suggesting that we have to "put everything in the opening sentence". On the contrary, what I am saying is that we should put the core idea in the first sentence. ID is pseudoscience and there is no reason why we should not say that right at the start, in fact there is every reason why we should say it right there. Not to do so lends undue weight to ID and may fool the uninformed, casual reader into thinking that ID has some sort of respectability. What is your problem with simply stating the facts of the matter - at the very outset: "Intelligent design is a form of pseudoscience that..."? This position is well supported by the sources and provides a succinct description of ID without a lot of elaborate wording that looks to me like an attempt to hide the real facts in a lot of unnecessary, complicated and jargon filled verbage. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick and Charles, as I said, I have no problem with stating that it is a pseudoscientific theory in the first sentence. I am merely objecting to the claim that it somehow violates Wikipedia policy if we don't. It may be consensus, but it's not policy.

Andrew, I'm not quite following. This latest draft was written with the intent of keeping definitional statements in the first paragraph, leaving additional information for the rest of the lead; I don't think IC or CSI meet this bar. Of course, I'm open to suggestions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Misterdub, I am happy for us to agree to disagree on the question of whether or not it is policy, as that is not the main point. I am basically fine with the proposed wording as you have now modified it with "pseudoscientific theory" in the 1st sentence. That sets an appropriate tone at the start of the article and I have no strong opinion on the rest of the lead so long as it begins this way. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally I'm happier with this paragraph with "pseudoscience" at the outset, however it's not just scientists that have identified ID as creationism, for more reasons than indicated, indeed these are the reasons identifying ID as pseudoscience. We could change "but the scientific community considers ID a form of creationism because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses" to "but educators, philosophers and the scientific community have shown that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses". . . dave souza, talk 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The shortened second paragraph works for me. Agree that IC and CSI are supplemental information which should have a concise mention in this paragraph, and with the "challenge" to methodological naturalism in the first paragraph, the "theistic realism" or "theistic science" issue can be left to the body text. To make the issues clearer, I suggest that we remove the "criticism" section header as that approach is deprecated, and have instead two sections, "relationship to science" and "theological implications". The latter could include the claim that ID is a bridge between science and theology, and the assessments of Miller and Ayala. dave souza, talk 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne. No, no policy or source tells us what to put in the first paragraph, not even that we need to put a "core" there. And secondly I think that sources as per WP:RS do not generally take the tone set by our article at all, which is far more similar to the tone one can find in the blogosphere. The tone I read is "people must be warned about this scam!" And if you look through the history of this talk page this is exactly the intended tone. It is written from the heart, not from the sources.

@Nick Thorne. Maybe helpful to note something we have discussed previously here which is that "creationism" is not a word with one simple definition, so it is not in itself a good word for clarifying. I have previously noted how the philosopher David Sedley says that he basically sees the terms creationism and intelligent design as meaning the same thing, and as being about the same thing, going all the way from ancient Greece to modern America.

@MisterDub. I was not clear I think because I tried to keep it short. :) I did not mean to say that IC and CSI should be part of the definition. My point is that ID kind of needs a double definition: is it science or is it a "philosophical" questioning of science (using the word philosophical in a very broad way)? It has aspects of both, and it does not like the boundaries most people put between the two. IC and CSI are just examples of the aspect of the IDM which is that it sometimes claims to be science. In a nutshell the IDM claims to be scientific, at least in the sense of doing research, while at the same time not really following the normal definitions of what science is. (But I do not think all of them do this dishonestly, because at least some of them are very happy to be open about their questioning of the orthodox boundaries of modern science. And so I do not see dishonesty as definitional. Also the question of whether "ID" is a term applied to all people with such beliefs is not one with any possible simple answer. There are clearly narrow and broad usages of the words, and our sources do not treat "ID" like a mathematically defined term.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, first, I think you really need to reconsider WP:FRINGE, especially the second sentence "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." I agree that it does not say exactly what we have to include any particular thing in the first sentence, but not including some form of words like "Intelligent Design is a pseudoscientific theory that..." does accord the idea more credit than it deserves, based on the available and appropriate (ie scientific) sources. We are writing this article with Wikipedia's voice and when dealing with fringe theories like ID, we need to be very careful how we craft the introduction to the topic. The sources are very clear, ID is the epitome of pseudoscience, it is one of its main defining characters and so this fact needs to be introduced at the outset, before introducing the concepts promoted by ID supporters. As for the word creationism, I am happy with committing it from the first sentence so long as "pseudocientifc theory" is there, I agree that it can be included later in the lead or even in the article body. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I have no problem with what you say here. It is just that we can do it in several different ways. We can choose from a range of different words, and we can put our sentences in different sequences. In fact we are not allowed to simply reproduce our sources. My concern is to avoid us heading once more down a path where people are saying that there are WP policies which force us to make very specific editing decisions. (Such discussions have happened here before I notice.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

dave souza, I have incorporated your suggestion into the proposed lead in my sandbox (or see below) and agree that we should remove the "Criticism" section. I also want to suggest removing some of the citations in the lead, as there are a couple sentences with 4+ REF tags. I think we can reduce these to, at most, two citations per sentence. I figure now is as good a time as any to do this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have shown that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity. Arguments in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Concerning idea to make the first sentence say "pseudoscientific theory" I unfortunately think it is not helpful. I do not disagree that ID can be called both pseudoscientific and creationist, but both terms have the same problem which is that they are going to be read as deliberately emotive words (perhaps they are meant to be) and not as neutral words. Indeed I think creationist is better. To try to explain what I mean, Aristotelian physics is also pseudoscientific in the exact same was as ID is. But if this was the opening sentence of an article on Aristotle's physics, then people would surely find that very odd word choice. Fact of the matter is that Aristotle's science is different to normal modern science, in conflict with it, an alternative to it, etc. Same with the ID's people conception of science. So in a way you are calling a pear a fringe type of apple, which would kind of miss the point from a pear's point of view. This wording is also by no means any sort of source based wording suggestion, because real RS sources do not write like this either. I am sure there are good intentions all over the place but to be very honest this still looks bloggy, adolescent and pointy to me, and it is hard to believe it is not intended to come across a bit that way. Even if I am just being over-negative, you know many readers will very understandably read it this way. Concerning footnotes, please prune more than this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I disagree that creationism is a better word; I think pseudoscience accurately reflects the scientific air with which proponents present ID. I also disagree with your argument about Aristotelian physics. Again, I think you are making personal justifications not present in reliable sources. Do you have sources saying that Aristotelian physics is pseudoscience? I highly doubt any reliable source would. In contrast, ID is very well-known for being pseudoscience, as sources illustrate. It is our duty to represent the sources, not institute our individual judgments.

Also, could you explain how you think this suggestion is bloggy, adolescent and pointy (read, editorialized)? I think the tone of this proposal is an improvement over the current lead. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, you can find sources that say anything about Aristotle, and also about ID, but to use them properly you do not just cut and paste but you should actually look at the context. My point about Aristotle is that what people criticize his science for is the same thing that people call ID a pseudoscience for, ie it is something being presented as science which is not matching the normal understanding of what science is today (an understanding which the people doing the presenting do not however happen to agree with). Like I said to you, words can have different meanings in different contexts, for example "science". Ignoring that leads to distortion what our sources really say. But even accepting your outward argument, it makes no sense to say that you are just following sources. We can say that in all our best sources about ID there are many common themes, including that it is presented as a science, and that it is not following the norms of modern science. But we can not say that one of the most common themes is the term "pseudoscience". This is quite occasional. It is much less common for example than the use of the term Intelligent Design to refer to teleological arguments in general. Note once again that I am not saying the word is altogether groundless under certain understandings of what it might mean. But not every sourceable terminology can or should be used for the first sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Aristotle never claimed to be doing modern science, which is a defining characteristic of ID in the modern sense. Some sources state that ID is pseudoscience, multiple sources state that it is presented as science but is not science. Which is essentially the definition of pseudoscience. So, it's a well justified description.

We have even more good quality sources for the description of ID as a form of creationism, creation science relabelled, which is both the origin and immediate source of the arguments put forward by ID. Including a specific variety of the teleological argument.

So, I don't have a problem with the current wording and so far think MisterDub's revised version is good, likely an improvement. What I would have a problem with is Andrew's suggestion of showing an "in-universe" description without the majority expert view context at the outset. That goes against WP:WEIGHT and seems to propose giving "equal validity" to this pseudoscience. As for the teleological argument in general, that belongs in the article dedicated to that general topic. Obviously we make reference to that where sources show a relationship between the TA and ID. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not follow the logic Dave. Aristotle indeed did not claim to be doing modern science. But our article is not making a distinction between different definitions of science. That's one of the very points. And yes we have sources saying X, and we have sources saying Y, so how does this prove we must say X? Concerning the "even more sources" I already said that I find creationism preferable to pseudoscience. I also already agreed that both words can be interpreted as correct by me, if you define them a certain way, but again this is not a reason to use those specific words. So nothing you say really makes any case for any option. OTOH...

• I raised a concern about why we would choose words that are obviously going to come across as emotive when plonked in the first sentence. Nothing you say addresses this. As far as I can see, the aim is to write emotively, and "warn people" or am I wrong?
• Your sarcasm about "in universe" citations is just sarcasm about WP policy as far as I can see, as was explained in the FAR. And you know very well that I am not asking for neutrality in all things, but only in the way we report specific real world opinions.
• Concerning the links between this article and the TA one, not sure what your point is, but you seem to be arguing against making the link clear in the lead? So you think the link is not very important to understanding what ID is? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, unless you are arguing the ID is not pseudoscience I fail to see the meaning of your argument which reads like an attempt at obfuscation. We should be aiming at simple and direct description of our subject. stating the fact that ID is pseudoscience at the very beginning does this. It is not emotive language to state the simple unadorned facts. The only people that are likely to be upset are the followers of ID and we are not writing the article for them. Frankly, I couldn't care less if the facts upset them. Any article on a fringe subject is likely to upset its followers if it accords the subject the weight it deserves. Too bad. Adherant's inability to deal with reality should not be our concern. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that my point is so hard to understand. If we are aiming at simple and clear why use fuzzy emotive words? If something is not modern science, then "pseudoscience" is not the only word we have to describe that state is it? This word can be understood in different ways, but I think its most common use is as a sort of insult. I get it that there is an argument here that it has a neutral definition, but I think there is no way that readers will get that subtle point. Indeed I am not sure I have ever seen the word used that way except on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing fuzzy or emotive about it. It just states plain facts. Anything that is claimed to be science when it is not science is pseudoscience. If some people have a problem with that they can either go to other websites that may support their entrenched views or they can read on and learn about reality. Continuing to push this futile line of argument is beginning to look disruptive.--Charles (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, you are right: pseudoscience is not the only way we can describe ID. Terms that spring to mind include bullshit, nonsense, unmitigated clap-trap, woo, a lie, deliberately misleading politically motivated garbage, take your pick. Would one of those better suit your apparent agenda? No, I thought not. Let's just stick to the plain unvarnished fact that ID claims to be science when it fails even the most basic test of what science is and the combination of those two things is what makes it pseudoscience. End of story. It is not that I do not understand your argument, it is that your argument is nonsense like the ID that you seem to be defending. Wikipedia treats subjects that are claimed to be science according to the way they are described in the relevant (science) sources and they agree that ID is junk science. If you don't like that, perhaps you would be better editing at conservapedia, I'm sure they'll welcome your "arguments" with open arms. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The version proposed by MisterDub above (or in his sandbox here) is a perfect replacement for the current lead: shorter, more concise and clearer. The current lead is entirely too long and whatever is not covered by this version should be moved into the article's sections if it's not present there already. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was focussed mostly on the first paragraph, the third paragraph is also important: I'll raise suggestions for tightening it up in a new subsection. . dave souza, talk 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank Nick Thorne for being clear about what is intended by the use of the word pseudoscience. It is intended, it appears, to be an emotive word, for example like "bullshit". That's my point. I think it is obvious that this is in direct and clear conflict with some of the most clear policies on Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong about my personal opinions concerning ID, wording used for polemics might be correct and true, but it is not encylclopedic. So not all sources which we use should be used also for our word choice. Clearly we now see that we can not use this word, or this style in general. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, pseudoscience is an accurate and sourced description and should definitely be included. Are more editors here in agreement that MisterDub's version of the lead should go into the article? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am in agreement. "Pseudoscience" comports with WP's mainstream stance; "creationism," however, does not, because there are many instances in which both proponents and critics deny that it is creationism. Yopienso (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MisterDub's proposal as amended to include pseudoscience - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, once again you produce a nonsensical argument. Had I actually been suggesting that we use "bullshit" or one of the other rhetorical alternatives in my previous post you would be correct that this would be using emotive words. However, your insistence that emotive applies to the word pseudoscience, which is an accurate and concise term well supported by the sources, is arrant nonsense. I have been lurking on this talk pages for a number of years and I have seen time and again your apparent tactics of trying to water down anything you see as a criticism of ID, usually with spurious arguments like the one you are using here or trying to insert weasel words if you cannot get agreement for your position. I have decided that it is time to call you out on it. The only people that could possibly construe the word pseudoscience as being emotive when referring to ID are ID supporters themselves. Thank you for finally showing your hand and revealing your true position. Now I think it is time that you drop this particular stick and allow the rest of us to get on with building an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MisterDub's proposal as amended to include pseudoscience.--Charles (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree subject to including the substance of the third paragraph: proposals below. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne. 1. Can you please explain what you intended by using the word bullshit to begin with then. It seems to me that by saying that this word is a rhetorical equivalent to what is being said with the word "pseudoscience" then it means you admit that the word is not being chosen for its neutrality. If not, why not? It seems impossible to read it any other way. 2. You mention my true position above in a key and concluding part of your post. What is my true position according to you? Apparently you are accusing me of being an ID supporter who is pretending not to be. Please confirm if this is correct, and on what basis you have written this here. One thing I notice a lot on this special talk page is a lot of attempts to distort the positions of good faith editors who try to work according to normal WP norms.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew: 1. Your reading comprehension is not my problem. 2. I don't know what your actual position is, I have just seen over the years that you often seem to be arguing to water down any form of wording that could in any way be construed as critical of ID. Your arguments generally seem contrived. I don't know that you are a creationist/ID supporter, but the way you argue your case and the particular lines you seem to take raises suspicions. In other words, I'm just using the duck principle and it seems to me that there is a bit of quacking going on. I could be wrong, maybe it's a goose, not a duck. Meh. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

I understand your frustration, Nick, but a straight answer would be more helpful.

Andrew, when Nick said "BS" on April 12, it seemed evident to me he was NOT saying it was a synonym for "pseudoscience" but that he was pointing out "pseudoscience" is an accurate descriptor rather than a descriptive insult. Yopienso (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Yopienso, if so then I remain unconvinced, and it becomes a question of the English language as it is really most often used, and not a question of my opinions about ID (which may very well be identical to Nick Thorne's). I have seen one or two sources which used pseudoscience in a formalized and arguably neutral way, so I do not deny that they exist. But in the opening sentence of this article, people will read it as it is normally intended, as a derogatory value judgement which is rather grating and can be avoided easily. If we are saying ID is something presents itself as science but is not, then why don't we just say that? (OTOH, I think it is slightly less simple than that. I would say Intelligent design presents itself as science but is not orthodox modern science. That is also much closer to what all sources really say. We are currently being unclear by saying that the IDM both present themselves as science and also question the normal definitions of the boundaries of science. These two things are possible, but then the word science is being used in two different ways. Science can mean orthodox modern science, which ID is not, or be a broader term for all rational attempts to explain nature, such as Aristotle's and other teleological efforts. Orthodox modern science deliberately avoids proposing formal causes in nature, as explained originally by Francis Bacon. His reasoning was that this is one of the types of explanation that humans always tend to mislead themselves about, and secondly that it is not needed. Aristotle and his ilk were already aware of this argument and disagreed with the second point, as do the IDM folk. By ignoring these points, we ignore the basic history of science.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(Different) suggested opening sentences

No one really listens to me (probably for the best), but I thought I'd throw this out here anyway: I would suggest these as opening lines for the article:

Intelligent design is the doctrine that living things or the universe as a whole were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent. This intelligent agent is normally identified as God. There is no substantive difference between intelligent design and creationism. The term "intelligent design" was popularized in order to evince an image of scientific respectability and obtain legal permissibility for creationism within public education. The scientific consensus is that intelligent design is baseless. According to this consensus, the existence of living things is to be explained by modern evolutionary theory including abiogenesis, and the existence of the universe as a whole is to be explained by Big Bang cosmology. The few natural scientists, philosophers of science and other writers who defend intelligent design are considered to be fringe thinkers.

Note, I don't say this should be the whole of the lede, just the first sentences. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, thank you for the proposal. It reads fairly accurately, but I think it is a step backward from what we are trying to do. I think it's important we show that ID is a purportedly scientific theory, not just a general doctrine. I find it interesting that you've listed (some of) the scientific theories that conflict with ID, but I don't think this is necessary. ID contradicts many scientific theories, and we needn't produce an exhaustive list here. I think it's more important to illustrate ID's challenge to methodological naturalism, which is missing from your proposal. And, on a grammatical note, the paragraph seems quite punctuated. Not that these issues can't be addressed, but I think Yopienso's proposal is a better starting point. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that it looks good to me. Probably would be good to add something that the most notable form is the modern initiative, the form which Misterdub is mistakenly treating as the only form, and implicitly asserting to be the only form. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

ID is a specific form, as shown by good sources, the broader design argument commonly uses the phrase: see my suggestion for the third paragraph, as below. . . dave souza, talk 10:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, provide a source which says that ID is limited to that specific form; the core foundation assertion of one "side" of this debate. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is no such source. Intelligent design is not a technical term with a standard clear technical definition in any field. It is used in both narrow and broad senses even in Padian and Matzke. Ayala's book review, discussed here many times, clearly could give a reader the feeling that he feels the broad sense is dominant and more correct.

@Dave. Problem is our sources frequently inter-mingle the broad and narrow meanings, without ever giving us a clear mathematical style definition of what ID "really" means. So it is WP editing judgement which has selected the narrow meaning for this article, not the sources and we should not present it as if it were otherwise. As a result, probably the best practical solution to your concern is to simply insert words like "broadly" or in a "broad sense", and/or "in a more narrow sense" or "more specifically" into sentences where appropriate. There is nothing stopping us doing this, and it gets around your concern.

@Atethnekos, perhaps a point of detail given the fact we are dealing with a reasonably loose popular term in this article, but I think Aristotle might create an issue for your third sentence, depending upon definitions of terms. He certainly sees nature, and therefore science, as involving final causes (intelligent design as per your first sentence?) but he is not a creationist according to most definitions given that his "creator" had no specific moment we could call creation, but is rather constantly creating or causing nature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course "intelligent design" has several broad senses, but the term is most commonly recognised as referring to this particular version of creationism which incorporates a specific variant of the design argument. In accordance with WP:NAME. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We have no consensus on what the most common usage is, nor any source which clearly gives one. But that is not my main concern. Simply the fact that there are several well known meanings, combined with the fact that these meanings overlap and are not always followed in any strict way even within one source, tells us that we need to at least alert our readers to this. Where in our article are we admitting what you admit in your , that there are several meanings? Please respond.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The current third paragraph covers a lot of important context, but can be reworded more concisely to fit with the proposed first and second paragraphs. One good point raised above is that starting it with the IDM seems to divert it from the main topic: I've trimmed it to focus on the meaning and origins of ID. The new opening words aim to meet the requests to point to other usage of "intelligent design":

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This isn't the only way to cover the points, but I think it works better than expanding the first paragraph. . dave souza, talk 10:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a new section where I merge together the first two paragraphs proposed by MisterDub and this one to see where we are regarding consensus to replace the current lead. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential RFC

There is one question that has been going on forever with no progress. In essence it is whether there should be wording which implicitly or explicitly states that ID is limited to the modern initiative or limited to variants claiming to be science (= pseudo scientific variants). Since (IMHO) fixing this aspect would require only a few minor wording tweaks in a few places, if folks would assent to that we could skip the process, but otherwise this has gone on too long with no resolution or progress towards such and I think that an RFC is probably needed. Since this question takes a bit to understand, I think that a very brief (like 2 sentence) explanation of structural arguments is needed as a part of defining the question. Since we want to make sure that the question is asked in a neutral manner, I'll be running that wording up the flagpole here. In the meantime I'll be working on it at User:North8000/temporary North8000 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What "few minor wording tweaks in a few places"? Please use this talk page to state specifically the wording you propose, the position where the wording is to go in the article, and the sources for this proposed wording. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 15:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Demanding sources for removing unsourced assertions is a blockade to any such fixes, which has been the situation here. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be getting complaints that the article is too well sourced, please be specific, and propose any article changes on this talk page. . dave souza, talk 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Too well sourced"? huh? My complaint is lack of sourcing for assertions that are in the wording. But either way I'll propose those tweaks to see if we're really at an impasse. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, what change, specifically are you proposing? We cannot comment on the merits of the proposed change unless you are more specific. What statements, specifically, lack sourcing?Farsight001 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First fix, change the first paragraph of article from:

• Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism, the belief 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," presented by its proponents as a scientific theory. It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than a religious-based idea.

to:

• Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism, the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". It's most prominent form is presented by its proponents as a scientific theory; a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than a religious-based idea.

North8000 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Source, please, for the implied "less prominent form of creationism" using that definition and called by that name. (Note the general use of creationism these days to refer to 20th century anti-evolution, as made explicit by the reference to natural selection). . dave souza, talk 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I just dialed back a far-reaching unsourced claim. Saying it needs a source to do that is backwards and a blockcade. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How can you have "It's most prominent form" without its less prominent form? Please explain. . dave souza, talk 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The current statement is that it is the exclusive form. That is a much more far-reaching unsourced claim than any implication created by dialing it back. If you have better wording to dial back the claim of exclusivity and are willing to do it, then we might have a solution. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If I were to make a statement about ID, I'd start with the first sentence in the lead proposed recently: ID is the name of a purportedly scientific theory that claims to see evidence for a designer, thereby falsifying evolution and other naturalist, scientific explanations. Philosophers of science and the scientific community—the relevant authorities—find the claims of ID to be baseless and, due to its historical development in the American creation-evolution controversy, conclude that ID is a pseudoscience promoted by creationists (mostly Christians associated with the Discovery Institute) in order to circumvent court rulings in the USA prohibiting the teaching of creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for lead

Ok, I've put together the proposal by MisterDub for the 1st and 2nd paragraphs and that by dave souza for the 3rd paragraph. This is the combined new lead proposal:

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have shown demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which each assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I say we gauge consensus with a straw poll to see where we stand on using this as replacement for the current lead. I'll open a section below. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Support inclusion of new lead. Gaba ^(talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of new lead, we can continue to discuss minor refinements and improvements. . dave souza, talk 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of new lead. NathanWubs (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Support. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment That's about 30 changes. Most of them good, but there are also steps backward on the main problem. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like an improvement to me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support, with one exception (see below). Yopienso (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support minor suggestion below. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until Yopienso's suggestion below is incorporated. Cla68 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss new proposed lead

I think the proposal a good example of quality crowd-sourced content. It defines the topic dispassionately from the mainstream view while faithfully presenting the proponents' assertions. It acknowledges past use of the term while showing a historical discontinuity between early and present usage. After reading only the lede, a person would have a reasonable understanding of the ID.

One exception: "have shown" in the first paragraph is too conclusive and borders on scornfulness. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists differentiates between creationism and ID. I suggest changing "have shown" to "argue" to maintain neutrality. Yopienso (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, when it came to an impartial judgment, the point that ID is creationism relabelled (more specifically creation science relabelled) was shown conclusively. We can't use "argue" as that gives "equal validity" to discredited pseudoscience. Perhaps "have demonstrated that" which leaves a little wiggle room for the minority who find the demonstration unpersuasive. By the way, more reliable sources still find a differentiation between creation science and ID, e.g. Scott & Matzke 2007 discusses how they overlap, and notes "creation science remains the larger of the two movements and generates much grass-roots activity" . dave souza, talk 22:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So why do we accept a primary source from a lone U.S. court case (that the NCSE has stuck as a feather in its cap) against the views of Scott and Matzke, the U of CS, the Gallup poll, and everyone else who understands the difference? There's a range of opinions from good sources as to whether ID is creationism or a form of creationism or a horse of an entirely different color. That's not "demonstrating." Barbara Forrest wrote, As this paper demonstrates, the ID movement is the most recent version of American creationism. In promoting “intelligent design theory”—a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator . . . Yet, "American creationism" is specifically biblical, while ID, at least as promoted in public, is specifically non-biblical. Forrest isn't demonstrating anything more than her opinion (and that of her think tank).

Well, that's how I came to make my suggestion, which I still stand by. I'll settle for "demonstrated" over "shown." :) Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, your reasoning is appreciated and we can agree on "demonstrated" – I'll make that change in the above draft, anyone can revert it if they want to discuss it further.

On the question of creationism being specifically biblical, Scott and Matzke's peer reviewed paper notes that even in Morris's 1974 book biblical quotes were optional (two versions of the book), and the Louisiana bill deliberately left out explicit mention of the young earth and global flood. When that came to trial, "Kenyon's expert witness affidavit showed that creation science was scientific and nonreligious". Of course he later co-authored Pandas. . dave souza, talk 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the word "put" or "proposed" be added after "arguments" at the beginning of the second paragraph. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How about changing "Arguments" to "Pseudoscientific theories"? Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Since noticing that Kitzmiller has the more nuanced statement that "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God" rather than "ID is... an old religious argument..." I've found that Scott and Matzke's paper clearly makes the point that both ID itself and specifically IC/SC present detailed arguments against evolution, together with a vague positive argument: "The ID movement's negative arguments against evolution are numerous, but its positive argument for design consists of variations on an analogy between biological systems and human artifacts." Will try to think of how best to include this point, preferably with a concise modification to the first paragraph. . dave souza, talk 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"offered in support" might split that hair effectively, since that's the way they were presented - as things that were supposed to buttress ID (although Behe makes it clear in DBB that ID needs to put forward its own positive arguments within a decade or so if it wanted to be seen as credible, something that it failed to do). Guettarda (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft: negative and positive arguments

As above, the Scott & Matzke 2007 paper is a good source for showing that ID isn't just the design argument, it's largely a group of negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, together with a vague analogy from human artifacts. So, I've incorporated the previous tentative amendments into a revised draft, added "ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This positive analogy is a version of the theological argument from design..." "ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and in positive support of ID an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This analogy is a version of the theological argument from design. ..." to the first paragraph, and changed the first sentence of the second paragraph to "Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, each of which presents detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design." . . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC) On second thought, tweaked wording, as below. . dave souza, talk 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and in positive support of ID an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts. This analogy is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although this version of the argument purposely avoids assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

Arguments proposed in support of ID include irreducible complexity and specified complexity, each of which presents detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents therefore conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Any suggestions for improvements to the wording? If commentators feel these changes are constructive, they can be incorporated into the proposed lead above or could be the subject of a new straw poll. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't like "pseudoscientific theory", and would prefer something plain like "claim". ID does not offer any account of, or explanation of, how things happen, or have any of the characteristics of a theory. "Pseudoscientific" - that is a contentious word, and perhaps does not mean the same thing in regard to phrenology, astrology, alchemy, ESP - let alone tell us something about ID other than that scientists don't like it. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi TomS TDotO, that's part of the #Proposed replacement for lead which you can !vote on at #Straw poll and comment on at #Discuss new proposed lead. This section is about the additional changes to cover the negative and positive arguments, it's worthwhile keeping discussions together until there's a change of topic or sections get too big,, . dave souza, talk 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

dave souza, I'm not all too enthused about the position at which you've placed this addition. It seems that, if IC and CSI are the negative arguments being discussed, this sentence ought to be moved down to the second paragraph. If you want to keep this sentence near the introduction of the teleological argument, I'd suggest moving that to the second paragraph as well. Other than that, I'm not too concerned about this particular edit. I don't think it's crucial information, but wouldn't stand in the way of its inclusion. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest moving it into main space. It's crowd-sourced, so we'll twiddle with it indefinitely; we'll never get it "perfect" here on talk. Happy that this is one of the most collegial and constructive discussions I've been involved in at any article. Yopienso (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TomS TDotO that the term "pseudoscientific theory" is problematic. (This is a separate concern from my concern about the term pseudoscience.) Concerning straw polls, I do not see that this specific point was the subject of much discussion or voting. But BTW also remember WP:NOTDEM. The question has been raised many times in the past I think concerning whether this article is about a theory. If it is, then I think the article name should be changed to "Intelligent Design Theory", but I did not think there was much support for that because some editors wanted this article to be seen as covering a broad range of uses of the term "Intelligent Design"? OTOH, if we could limit the article down to Intelligent Design Theory, (which is a redirect for this article) it might resolve some dab issues frequently mentioned by editors such as North?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft: negative and positive arguments Mk. 2

Thanks for these suggestions in the section above, I've tried moving the teleological arguments and negative arguments into the second paragraph and think it does actually work quite well. I've slightly modified the remaining wording of the first paragraph to include the point that ID is a religious argument, and that leading proponents state it is not creationism. See what you think, . dave souza, talk 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific theory 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." Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, but educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although they state that ID is not creationism and purposely avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of its proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.

ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents then conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Thanks for moving this forward, do you think this is nearly ready to be put into mainspace for normal editing, after checking the citations? . .. dave souza, talk 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a faithful synopsis of the subject. Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Looks good, dave souza! I'd say it's an improvement over the last draft. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, on that basis I've tried to sort out the references, and having done that have moved it into mainspace so that editors can see how the citations work. Normal editing can resolve any remaining problems, dave souza, talk 09:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is looking good, I have enjoyed reading the new lead so far. Too me it feels better flowing then the old oneNathanWubs (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments on this draft, just focusing on the opening words for now:

• First sentence. I think the biggest concern people will have is obvious: the word pseudo science does not add much except a sort of feeling. Removing it would not change meaning but would give a more encyclopedic tone. To the extent that pseudoscience has a neutral meaning that is something for the body. We can not force every type of thing into a lead. If people really think this word is needed, then surely they can explain why information it adds? But I have not seen this attempted. If it just means "presented as science but not normal science" then we are just being repetitive.
• Second sentence. This really does look like a committee-made sentence, with bits added on and then bits are added on to the added on bits. Apart from style, the connections between the pieces give implications about the connections and contrasts between the key terms that I think are questionable but probably just a result of the editing process. To explain, here are the components and the connector bits:

Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"

that

challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,

but

educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.

The first link "that" implies that there is nothing unexpected about someone having such a scientific theory which is not methodologically naturalistic. The second link "but" actually then makes the opposite point, showing how it is not normal. Furthermore this is actually one point where all our sources agree, i.e. that ID can only be science if science does not have to be methodologically naturalistic, and yet we are quite clearly trying to give the impression our sources do not agree and are divided into parties. Proposal:

Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"

but admit it

rejects the methodological naturalism inherent in normal modern science

. [Full stop.]

Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community therefore argue that ID is not science, but a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks real empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.

This is deliberately just minimal moving the deck chairs around. I would also question the general wordiness and repetition, and the practicality of using jargon such as methodological naturalism this early, before we have defined it, especially when there are common English ways to say the same thing. For those who do not realize, it is not as if this is a really dominant term in philosophy of science itself. In philosophy of science lots of terminology is used. As I understand it, the point editors are trying to make here concerning methodological naturalism is that ID does not only use empirical evidence when developing hypotheses, and as we already use the terminology "evidence based" and "empirical support", we could even consider removing it or saying this in a simpler way.

Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins"

but admit that

its hypotheses are not limited to what can be observed in nature, which is the method of modern science

. [Full stop.]

Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community therefore argue that ID is not science, but a religious argument, a form of creationism which is no real tenable empirical support.

In other words, why say the same thing three different ways? I have tried to say each thing once. If my proposal removed an important piece of information, please let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain this. "presented as science but not normal science". Since when is there anything other then "normal science"? You are not going to try and pull a Ken Ham right? NathanWubs (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't read the sentence as you do. The first link (that) sounds better than but admit it, and doesn't imply that the proceeding clause is somehow "business as usual"; it merely presents additional information about that particular subject. No one denies that ID challenges methodological naturalism. And why not use that term? And wikilink it? Is this not the Internet? Is it that hard to click once to find out what a term means? If needed, we can explain the term here instead of removing it entirely; that's just a terrible solution. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with MisterDub, IMO the second sentence reads far better the way it is presently structured: Andrew, your proposal adds nothing and simply unnecessarily complicates the sentence, obscuring the meaning. As for the word pseudoscience in the first sentence, we have heard all your arguments about this before, Andrew, we do not need to go over it again and again. You have lost this argument, the consensus has been established to use the word. Drop the stick now, before you exhaust the ability of others to AGF. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@NathanWubs, the exact words to use can be discussed, for example maybe "orthodox modern science" might be better, but there was recently extensive discussion on this talkpage about the fact that the ID people present themselves as practicing science but are not doing this in a way most people would normally understand by that word. That there are things called science which are not orthodox modern science is not, IMHO, a controversial statement. Consider Aristotelian science. If we do not admit this much discussed point (and admit it clearly) we distort not only the ID movement but their most respectable critics as well.

@MisterDub. Concerning whether to use wikilinking to justify a relatively obscure bit of jargon that would be easy to avoid, it is a matter of editing judgement, but I feel a concern that you do not couch your response in terms of how your proposal communicates better, but rather in terms of how it is allowed. And a point I did make is that this particular terminology, and therefore the wikilink you would use, is not necessarily the main one which would send a reader to an explanation about how this debate fits into a bigger context of various similar arguments about the definition of science, and what subject matter it should be limited to. Indeed, your proposed wikilink sends readers to an article which is within the "WP:walled garden" of intelligent design related articles written in very similar terms to this one. That in itself is an issue, and not a preferred solution on WP for the aim you describe.

Anyway in terms of WP neutrality policy we should try to start with terminology consistent with that used by both sides of published debates about this matter, if it exists. I think that would not be difficult.

@Nick Thorne. I asked someone to explain what the word pseudoscience adds in terms of meaning. Any kind of convincing answer might help convince people that its intention is not simply to add emotion (Which BTW goes far beyond the style of our better sources). If it is difficult to give a clear answer, the opposite impression is given. Please also remember that local consensus, even if there was a clear one, does not over-ride Wikipedia's core content policies such as the well known one about neutrality. You may want to look at this article's old FA reviews, which represent broader based community comments. Eventually this article will be reviewed again, and I believe the community has become much more clear and strict on this type of thing.

@everyone. I see no feedback to the most simple part of my proposal, which is to use a full stop to avoid a "run on sentence". I think this can be done independently of all other aspects of my proposal can't it? A simple way is just the classic rule of replacing a but with a full stop and a "however".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@everyone. A second separable proposal which remains uncommented upon is the change from "challenges" to "rejects". ID is not well known for publicly challenging methodological naturalism as such. Arguably, some members of the ID movement actually avoid clear mention of their rejection of this approach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I am open to different terminology, but to the best of my knowledge, methodological naturalism is the most precise and accurate term denoting modern science's commitment to physicalist explanations. If the article on that concept needs improvement, please do so. I don't really care if we say ID rejects or challenges methodological naturalism; sounds like semantics at this point. And assuming we don't incorporate your first change (changing that to but admit it), we don't have a run-on sentence. I still don't think these suggestions improve the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, the Oxford English Dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method". This is about as clearly appropriate a term to describe ID as I can think of. It is concise, to the point and accurate. It means exactly what the OED says, a perfect description if what ID is. I get it that you don't like it, but Wikipedia is not constrained by your personal preferences. You seem to be the only one here who see some sort of emotional overtone for the word. Get over it.

Andrewm you seem to think that your opinion of what the wider community might think is in any way convincing. It is not. If and when this matter comes before the wider community we will see what is said then. You'll have to excuse me if I am not particularly interested in your opinion of what that might be.

Andrew, part of the reason your proposals have received no input is that they not offering any improvements to the article. The "problems" that your proposals fix do not exist. Please stop endlessly rehashing old arguments that have already been put aside, it is becoming disruptive. As I said before, drop the stick. Now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick it is clear there are a lot of editors who feel excluded from discussion on this talk page, and your aggresive and ad hominem style of posts (typical of several editors on this talk page over the years) shows how that works. Simple logic: You (and others) keep talking about how every thing has been discussed many times in the past (as if that is an answer). How is that possible if I am also always being told that no one else agrees with me? Anyway, I would prefer it if we would just quit having discussions about editors. Can you please do that? I asked what the word is adding that would not be explained by spelling out what our sources mean by "pseudoscience" (as we did in past versions of the lead). You have not answered. You have cited the OED back at me, but the definition you cite does not match the sources which have been cited on this talk page as the justification for using the term on this article. Previous discussions about the sourcing justifications for using the term have seemed to make it clear that the idea being communicated, and which was found in reliable sources, was that in this case ID is pseudoscience because it CLAIMS to be science (not because it is misunderstood to be science), but does not meet the normal requirements. Previous versions of our lead said this more clearly. Your citation of the OED definition shows that you are yourself no longer familiar with the sourcing rationals behind this term that have been stated many times on this talk page. So my question is open.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I am not interested in attacking you personally or otherwise, however, for so long as you propose changes to this page that I consider to be detrimental to the encyclopaedia I will oppose those changes. I cannot help it if you see those criticisms of your proposed changes as being ad hominem, I have no control over your perceptions of my posts, just as I have no control over any apparent inability to understand why the word pseudoscience is entirely appropriate in this article. Frankly, I don't care whether you understand or not, I do care however, what happens to this article. Continue to make similar proposals like the majority of the ones you have been making lately and I will continue to oppose them. This is not ad hominem, it is all about content of the article. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit on new lead

All, I think the new lead could use a copy edit, especially in the second paragraph. I was planning on being bold, but I'm not sure the edits I've made are that much better. Any suggestions? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, including irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. The positive argument ID offers is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, which proponents employ to conclude that these features are evidence of design. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.

Possibly I am naive in thinking I will be listened to on this, but a point I keep making to the editors of this article is that you really should try harder to imagine a reader who is not as interested in this subject as you are. Any kind of ID-debate-specific terminology or shorthand phrasing should be avoided in the lead and discussed in the body. This concept of the problem of "negative arguments" is, I have learned, one with a long pedigree of discussion on this talk page, but it is not so easy for an outsider to this talk page to pick up quickly. Please note that I am not at all questioning the interest value and notability of this point. After spending time to try to understand editors of this talk page my understanding is that this negative arguments problem is a corollary to the more critical problem of ID not having "positive arguments" i.e. not having its own tenable and testable hypotheses which are based on empirical observation alone. I do not want to shock people by questioning a traditional belief that has developed here, but do we really need secondary concerns mentioned in the lead, or should we not focus on the primary issues, and move complications to the body?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly excited about introducing text about negative/positive arguments, but I'm not really opposed either. Consensus is a give-and-take. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ID is not creationism

Other than courts, whose view is not binding on scientific matters in ANY way, no scientific organization has ever referred to it as such. Please stop with the anti-religious propaganda here.