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.

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)

That is fine by me if you would live by it, but actually I asked you a straight question and you deflected away into ad hominem (again). Above I wrote: "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." Why not just give a straight answer to a straight question? Let's get a good rationale on record if there is one. I note remarkably little discussion of rationales in all the recent straw polls and so on.

As far as I can see, we have only a few cases of good sources using the word pseudoscience, and no sources at all which use it as one of the defining characteristics most essential to "intelligent design". To do that we need to synthesize from various sources, it seems to me (as you did above). So us putting it in the first sentence gives our article a very different flavor to our sources (unless our real sources are the blogs and online forums). What our RS sources all do agree on is that intelligent design is a term for "arguments from design". This is in fact a good neutral term, used in good sources, and covering concepts sometimes equivalent to fuzzy terms like "creationism". But the recent edits have moved this out of the opening sentences. Why? I did not see it discussed here. Do you say I am wrong in my reading of the sources? If so then can you help me out? (See WP:BURDEN.) Again, if there is a good explanation let's get it on record and try to clear up the concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 24 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.209.177 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, ID is so overwhelmingly associated with creationism that Barbara Forrest and the NCSE both refer to it as IDC, Intelligent Design Creationism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the anon IP doesn't see the contradiction in the two sentences s/he posted. First the anon attempts to distance ID from religion, and in the next sentence accuses the article of anti-religious propaganda. Can't have it both ways.

That said, I do think there's a valid point to be made regarding attribution of a consensus view, versus stating that view in Wikipedia's narrative voice, as if Wikipedia is taking a position on the issue. This, I think, is the underlying reason for the bulk of the voluminous archives of this talk page. Some slight tweaks of the wording could fix this without detracting from the information the article provides. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the word "creationism", it has several different definitions. So although I do not disagree with it is not ideal for us in the simple types of sentences most suitable for a lead. (Using the word pseudoscience is even more problematic.) One meaning of creationism, for example as used by David Sedley (philosopher and classicist), is a teleological understanding of nature, i.e. an understanding that nature is governed by something like a human craftsman, with intentions. He specifically says that this is exactly what divides modern creationists (and he refers to the intelligent design movement) and their Darwinian opponents. See for example here. Since at least Francis Bacon, modern science deliberately trys to avoid explaining nature in terms of formal or final causes (nature having aims or intentions), because according to Bacon, people are attracted to untruths of this type, and they are not needed. Indeed, as is frequently remarked, many scientists either deliberately or accidentally still use teleological words, so people clearly really are attracted to this habit like moths. The counter argument, famously associated with Plato and Aristotle amongst many others, is that ignoring one very common and natural category of explanations about nature will distort and bias the resulting explanations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Amatulić, I'm open to proposals along those lines, but I have serious doubts that it will pass consensus. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to check my understanding: you are saying that before any wording has been proposed? So actually you are saying that there will be disagreement with the idea that Wikipedia should write in a neutral voice?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I meant exactly what I said. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Misterdub, can you cite where Barbara Forest and the NCSE talk about ID as a form of Creationism? I'm guessing you guys can't provide these soures, because otherwise you wouldn't rely on the judgment of a court, which has no bearing on what a scientific theory is, in the pseudo-intellectual FAQ.92.236.209.177 (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)