Jump to content

Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Intelligent design

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swmeyer (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 5 October 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

REMINDER

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


Random subheading: falsifiability

(What is most ironic is that many of the greatest scientists -- Newton, Einstein, et al -- believed they were studying God through science.) But the number one flaw of this article is the criticism leveled at ID that evolution is never subjected to. Take falisfiability. There is no way to conclusively falisfy the claim that the Cambrian explosion was the result of evolutionary processes. There is no way to run experiments on the Cambrian explosion. You can't run experiments on the bulk of geology, archeology, cosmology, astronomy, and any number of long-term processes studied in science. It's all about studying the evidence. Theories of origins are built upon historical evidence, logical deduction, in the context of philosophical presuppositions. That is the ID perspective, that opponents of ID get it wrong in their logical analysis of the evidence, and they get it wrong in their philosophical presuppositions. That case is being buried in the endless tit-for-tat challenge-every-statement-in-every-paragraph editing done by ID opponents in this article. Stuckerj 30 September 2005
But it has never been disproven that the Cambrian explosion was the result of evolution, even though, had the world been created by a deity, there was every reason to assume it would have been. Had the world been created 6000 years ago, there should not have been fossils. That there are fossils may not be proof of evolution, but it is supporting evidence. And that most, if not all, evidence is in support of evolution supports the validity of evolution, not as an indiputed fact, but as a rock-solid and time tested scientific Theory (mind the capital T).
There is always room for other concepts, such as the concept that a deity (or FSM) created the world. But when those concepts are unfalsifiable (which evolution is not) they are not scientific, however true they might prove to be, in the end. -- Ec5618 16:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Singular vs plural

I notice that a recent change to allow (within this concept) the possibility of multiple designers was 'rev'ed back to a prior version. Is it the opinon of this august body that this concept precludes multiple designers as a consideration? If that is the case, then it may be useful to be specific about "a single designer or agent". Of course the other phrasing raises theological arguments ... begging the issue of who 'owns' the discourse in this area. JimNH 21:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Natural selection "undirected"?

The first sentence in the article reads:

"Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

As I understand natural selection, it isn't entirely accurate to say that it's "undirected." Although natural selection doesn't depend on direction in the sense that employees depend on managers, it is goal-oriented; the "goal" of natural selection is to sort living organisms into ecological niches. To call it "undirected" sounds to me a bit too close to calling evolution itself "random chance," which of course is a characterization no biologist would agree with. Considering this, perhaps "unguided" works better here? Moreover, because Intelligent Design sees nature as the product of purposeful planning, "unguided" seems (to me) to better communicate their contentions as well. Avertist 00:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Unguided" sounds fine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
"Undirected" was part of the Discovery Institute's own language describing ID: "The theory of intelligent design holds 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." [1] We were trying to intentionally use their own language as was reasonable as they are ones who've driven the movement. FeloniousMonk 03:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, well, I can understand why the DI would use those words. If the goal is to preserve their words (which seems reasonable to me as well) then maybe they should be quoted on it. I'll leave the final decision up to you, just throwing my two cents in. Avertist 06:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, interesting you want to do that here, but not when it comes to understanding the development of the intelligent design movement.
Swmeyer 16:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
When it comes to understanding the intelligent design movement, I take all of their statements into account, not just those tailored to further their agenda. Anyone who claims to actually understand the movement in its full social context will have done so as well. FeloniousMonk 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, I tend to think that those who have an idea should be given the opportunity to speak for themselves. Your a priori judgment that this is a religious movement without legitimate implications for science, not one in the philosophy of science with scientific implications, serves as the social context in which you interpret the movement.
Swmeyer 00:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
ID has yet to produce an actual hypothesis. ID offers no testable, verifiable alternative to the widely accepted model. What it does offer is a collection of polemical critiques of evolution and the methodology of science and some debatable mathematical proofs from which we are to infer design, but no positive evidence of design. As such, ID has little in the way of a relationship to the philosophy of science, except as a criticism. Any actual implications to science from ID have yet to demonstrated, except as an attack on its epistemic underpinnings.
The article, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, presents all relevent and significant views on the topic. ID proponents have their say here. No one is denying them that. Your suggestions would deny their critics their say. Yours has been a common objection by ID proponents here. FeloniousMonk 00:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ID not Creationism?

Just removed this addition and put it here for discussion:

Although Intelligent Design supporters do not limit themselves to the Christian God. They should not be confused with the Creationist movement. Creationism acknowledges the God of the bible and the genesis story and then uses science to prove biblical claims. ID is a movement that looks at the science purely and comes to no other conclusion then there must be intelligence.

I think this has been discussed at length here in the archives, but I didn't want to remove it without comment. It is certainly a form of creationism, which includes any creator beyond our abilities to see or comprehend. Jokestress 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is clearly POV and should be removed, but it is also POV to say that ID is creationism, since IDists claim that ID is not creationism, while non-IDists claim it to be creationism. --JPotter 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
ID by necessity is creationism; ID posits a creator... "The Designer" (formerly known as God). FeloniousMonk 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
This not the case. JPotter is on to it--ID proponents claim that it is not necessary to equate the designer with God. To quote Dembski's prepared testimony for the Dover case, "The nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview." To go from detecting design through patterns to the conclusion that this designer must be God is a leap not provided for by ID. In fact, it is possible to be a proponent of ID while not adhering to a creator in the traditional sense (a la Flew).
Swmeyer 12:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
That is exactly what we'd expect Dembski to say. It's part-and-parcel of the official Discovery Institute party line. Nonetheless, any designer that selects/arranges/fine-tunes/whatever for life by definition creates life. Hence, it is a logical necessity that ID is creation.
Regardless of whether you expect him to say that (I'd suggest using "I" rather than "we" because I and many others disagree with your extreme suspicion), the question still remains--is he right? Is it possible to maintain a view consistent with Discovery's published description of intelligent design and yet not believe that designer is the God of your hated enemy--creationists?
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
All of these semantic subterfuges that leading ID proponents engage in are easily and simply put to the lie by their own statements.
Hasty generaliation?
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll start with Phillip Johnson (I can quote Dembski too if I must).
Please do.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
He confirmed that ID is a religious belief in 1996, the year the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was established. Johnson stated, "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'-- or sometimes, 'mere creation' -- as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." He clearly wants people to see ID as an idea that can supplant naturalistic science with divine revelation: "If life is not simply matter evolving by natural selection, but is something that had to be designed by a creator who is real, then the nature of that creator, and the possibility of revelation, will become a matter of widespread interest among thoughtful people who are currently being taught that evolutionary science has shown God to be a product of the human imagination." He referred to ID's religious goals in a 2001 speech when he explained that Wedge leaders founded the ID movement to explain the evidence for "a Creator" and to "unify the religious world." In an interview that same year, Johnson predicted that "with the success of intelligent design," people would understand that "the Christians have been right all along -- at least on major elements of the story, like divine creation." That realization, according to Johnson, would forestall the argument that Christian ideas have "no legitimate place in public education, in public lawmaking, in public discussion generally."
I'd like to see the sources on these compiled quotes. Please provide them.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Some more quotes of Johnson's to consider:
  • Admitting that not identifying God in ID is strictly a strategic choice: "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 in Touchstone Magazine interview, June 2002)
I already dealt with this one--in context he is playing out the characterization and even if he is not, he is attempting to avoid contentious issues so that a legitimate one can be considered--a good strategy.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I explained this already as well. Even in context, you quote pieces that are about Johnson being at a meeting of Christians. Again, I ask you, is it possible that intelligent design theory (as explained by Dembski, etc.) can be separate from one's philosophical/religious point of view?
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Admitting that the entire purpose of the Wedge strategy is religious: "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the "wedge." ( Johnson in his book: Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, pp. 91-92)
This reveals your anti-religious bias more than anything about Johnson. Again, question-begging.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." (Johnson in LA Times, March 25, 2001)
I found no such article on the Times site. Could you point me to it?
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." (Johnson's foreward to the book Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, 2000)
I'd have to look at the source. I don't have it. Sounds like an interesting thought, and still question-begging. Is there anything to intelligent design? Dembski's math? Meyer's conclusions?
  • "The subject is not just the theory of evolution, the subject is the reality of God." (Johnson on Hank Hanegraaf's "Bible Answer Man" radio program, 12/19/2001)
Please provide context as I do not have access to this source.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" (Johnson in Church and State Magazine, April 1999)
I'm not sure what you think you are linking to, but this link does not contain the word sin or a number of other words as I mentioned before.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is attempting to reformulate the whole creation/evolution debate around the most important questions," (Johnson in Communiqué journal)
Honestly, this is the closest you get to good data. This source is compelling in that it shows Johnson thought the either/or to be evolution or creation. However, more recent statements by Dembski, who is spearheading up the math, make different claims. I also want to point out that there are agnostics on board with Discovery and the Darwin dissenters.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
So don't bother to claim that ID is not creationism/religion/etc., or attempt explain to us that these quotes are being misused, taken out of context, etc. It is, and they aren't.
Um, not so fast. See above. I put this to you--if intelligent design is merely about philosophy/religion, then so is Darwinian evolution.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The Discovery Institute claims ID isn't creationism as part of their Wedge strategy. A fundamental part of the Wedge strategy is the rejection of naturalism as unnecessary to science. The only alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism.
Really? The only alternative is supernaturalism?
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Claiming ID isn't creationism is purely a device for removing an objection to their promoting a certain religious point of view. Doing so is called for explicitly by Phillip Johnson, above. How to do it is spelled out in the Wedge strategy. Everyone central to the topic knows that. As I've shown, in their unguarded moments, the leading ID proponents make it explicit. Those in the scientific community know it, those in academia know it, the students know it. Every blogger commenting on this topic, from either side, knows it.
Wait a minute, I thought you said Johnson said ID was creationism. Which is it? And who is "Everyone central to the topic"? How about these 400 scientists? I'm not sure these are unguarded moments as moments in context of other discussions.
Let me make something clear to you--I think that the intelligent designer is the creator God of Israel. However, I do so for reasons not associated with intelligent design. Your assertion that ID = creationism is more of a theological point than Dembski makes about what ID can tell us. I'd say let's not jump the gun on that yet.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The only issue here that was in question here at Wikipedia was whether Johnson, Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et al had managed to be sufficiently dishonest about their religious motivations to slip it past us into an article. That is all. Have they buried their intellectual dishonesty under enough semantic subterfuge to sneak it into a article? They haven't. In fact, by making obfuscation part of their strategy, they guaranteed it will be part of their story as well.
And here comes the real bias. Look this definitely shows that this article, largely written by FeloniusMonk, should be question on its neutral point of view.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You're not going to get much traction here with arguments supported only by the Discovery Institute and Designinference.com (Dembski's personal website). They are less than credible. They are simply dissembling.
I thought I'd merely go to them to see what they have to say. That's all. You aparently don't like to hear all the data.
Swmeyer 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Disputing well-supported content in favor of content that is in line with the agenda-driven dissembling that the articles allege is 1) not contributing to wikipedia's goal, which is compiling a complete and factual encyclopedia, and 2) likely to result in your being viewed as having an ideological ax to grind, 3) and only going to be removed when someone more objective notices the error.
Your assumption proves your point more than the data do. There is no way to get out of this catch 22 you require ID to be in. You really should be more fair and sympathetic.
And BTW, Flew has recanted his support for ID. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Not so fast--he
FeloniousMonk, while I see that this would require greater efforts through Wiki's allotted means to speak reasonably with someone of an "objective" perspective, if that is at all possible in Wikipedia, certainly I am convinced that you are unwilling to take the arguments/positions/math for what they are. Is it possible you're wrong? What if there isn't a religious conspiracy behind this? Or what if there is and yet the math is solid?
I addressed a number of the points you made with your quotes--you didn't respond to me but instead just piled on more quotes saying more of the same. It is unfortunate. If I have the time, I hope to take this up. Until then, your role as an administrator and my own lack of experience with Wikipedia has made this a dead issue. From our discussion, I'd say Neitzsche's right, not Darwin.
Swmeyer 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I rely on the statements of the leading ID proponents themselves to tell me what they think ID is. Look at the quotes above, and then try to us how the article and I are wrong. Vigorous denials of the obvious are not going to change the facts. FeloniousMonk 19:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your strong conclusions, but I really think you are ahead of yourself. You actually only rely on statements made by Johnson as they pertain to his conceptions, some of which is out of context and some of which are more discussions of the implications of ID, not ID itself. Finally, you fail to incorporate others into the discussion.
Swmeyer
Two things:
1) Do not cut up my posts with your responses or otherwise modify them; it's very bad form. It dilutes my comment and makes my train of thought difficult to follow. Unless of course that's your goal. I will revert any modification of my comments.
2) Your rebuttals and excuses ring hollow compared to Johnson's statements I presented here. Johnson is clear that ID's basis is Christian theology. He is clear that movement's goal is religious renewal of society, starting with science and education. His statements are clear and unabiguous. FeloniousMonk 07:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, 66.213.198.226 :)

66.213.198.226, your first edit to Wikipedia was a pretty contentious and arguable edit. Assuming you're not an established editor who's been working on this article who just forgot to log in (well, actually, even then), could you please explain your edit? I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be included in the article without some discussion. Thank you! :) --Ashenai (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

numbskulls here

I would like it if the numbskulls who watch the ID article would stop erasing my section about the difference between ID and creationism. They are completely different movements with different focuses. If you continue to feed people bad information by infering false motives about ID, we know someone here is obviously feeling threatened by the truth...

Please observe Wikipedia:Civility. Your section was removed because it was unsubstantiated drivel. "Intelligent Design merely believes.." ID believes nothing. And we can't be sure what its proponents believe. We can say with certainty, that a great number of ID advocates are creationist. And that that makes their motives a little suspect. We can also quote ID proponents from speeches given to select groups of people, in which some of them suggest that they are sure the Designer is god. Which is what the article does. -- Ec5618 21:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparent partial violation NPOV policy

The present organization of the article seems to violate the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" section of the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which states the following:

"Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."

Each presentation of ID concepts is followed immediately by criticism. Moreover, the total space devoted to criticisms of ID is over three times as much as is devoted to the positive presentation of ID (by my reckoning, based on compiling separate files that contain each and looking at file size).--Johnstone 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with criticism throughout being unfair, however the amount of criticism does not violate the NPOV policy. - RoyBoy 800 00:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with both of these points. --Ashenai (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Haven't you been lobbying against having any criticism in the article for some time now? Criticizing the layout of the article under the pretense of NPOV is merely nit-picking and wiki-lawyering. Its only logical that each ID argument should be followed by scientific community's criticism of it; the assertions will still be fresh in the mind of the reader. To break them out into a separate section will require the reader to scroll up and down to reference what the criticisms are addressing. Furthermore, this layout was reached by broad consensus.
As for the length of the criticisms, they are in proportion to the criticisms made publicly by ID's critics. Contrasting them against the length of ID's claims is specious: ID's claims are largely comprised of criticisms themselves. ID criticizes a very complex topic, the scientific method, using overly simplified arguments. Defending it takes more space than shooting it down. And your suggestion that the criticisms are too long mirrors what ID proponents do: Exploiting the very technicality of the issues to their own advantage, counting on the public to miss the point in all the complex and difficult details.
Reading from the NPOV policy also, one finds the Giving equal validity subsection, which applies directly to this article and states:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

The criticisms are accurate, justified and make logical sense as they are, where they are. FeloniousMonk 03:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a good point, that ID is the minority. However, that does not mean there is no bias in this article. See my comments above and elsewhere. I think you do take a stand against anything that appears to be purely religious-political without looking at the merits that might make it seem legitimate independently with religious implications. That should be what this is about. Say it is controversial, so the arguments for and against, and let the reader decide.
The article is accurate and neutral, despite your vigorous claims to the contrary. ID's leading proponents own words demonstrate that ID's philosophical basis is Christian theology, its goal is religious renewal of society starting with science and education. Their words are explicit and unambiguous to readers here, regardless of your attempt to claim otherwise. Your claims that ID is independent of its proponents religious agenda is not supported by the evidence. FeloniousMonk 07:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What instructions?

I'm puzzled by this edit summary from Swmeyer:

per instructions to simply add it back in if it was removed--see talk page for debate, especially given fact that author is the one most strongly against considering NPOV on this

Whose instructions are those? --CSTAR 05:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

His. He's been campaigning to dilute the article for nearly a week now. General consensus from objective, regular editors has been for some time is that the article is accurate and NPOV. That the ID pushers here disagree is not sufficient justification for an NPOV warning. I've removed it. Long term contributors to this article have to tolerated disruptive editors in the past, but Swmeyer pushing the limits. He's already been cautioned about disrupting ID related articles with specious objections to well-supported content once before. FeloniousMonk 06:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's where I found the instructions I referred to. I now see that I read it incorrectly. Nevertheless, there are enough people here to question the neutrality of the article.
That ID proponents here share the same view, that the article's criticisms and content that connects ID to creationism and religion is POV, is not proof that the article violates NPOV. The article accurately reports both sides of the topic. It is one of the better supported wikipedia articles, with many links to credible supporting evidence. One more thing, I didn't write most of this article, as you claim. Just the movement and defining ID as science parts, and one or two other paragraphs. You need to stop trying to impugn me right now. FeloniousMonk 07:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Look, it's not that there aren't links between ID and religion. It is that the links are more implications. The purpose of the ID movement was to challenge what was thought to be false assumptions about philosophical issues that were leaking into biological sciences. This does not negate the merits of the project, which is what the critical tone that underlies the article implies (as others have pointed out). While I disagree with much of the way it is portrayed here, you must know that the issue is how unfair and unsympathetic the article is to ID and ID proponents (all of them, not just Johnson), even when supposedly quoting them. And by the way, the peer review was silly--there was nearly no evidence of fact checking (only twice was anything close to legitimacy of sources mentioned).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_23&oldid=24795413"