Talk:Intelligent design
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID). To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism?
A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[1][2]
Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject. Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god.[1][3][4][5] In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".[6] Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q2: Should ID be characterized as science?
A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[7]
Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID?
A3: According to Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept.
The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim.[7][8][9][10] In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.[11][12] Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons:
Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID?
A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one. Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source?
A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source.
The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute can not be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"?
A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s,[13] Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People.[14] Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations.[15] For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references
|
Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Intelligent design Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 |
Philosophy sources |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Suggest removing the acronym ID
Can I suggest the removal of the acronym ID, if not from the entire article then at least from the introduction? It's sparsely used as is, only a couple of times in the first paragraph of three and not so much throughout the rest of the article compared to the term intelligent design, and I don't see how its usage enhances a readers understanding of the topic. If the acronym genuinely sees usage in broader discussions of the topic then I understand this article introducing it, but not using it to introduce the article. 121.218.46.42 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's drop the word "pseudoscientific"
Despite the rationale given at the top of this page, I suggest we drop the word "pseudoscience" from the lede since it is perceived as a pejorative by a wide swath of the public, thus setting a POV tone for the article and causing endless reverts and discussions.
Please read the article in the Skeptical Inquirer cited to in footnote 9 of "Pseudoscience". The opening sentence reads, "Pseudoscience is a pejorative term that is bestowed upon a set of ideas, not used by choice by the holder of those ideas" (emphasis added). The blurb at the top says, "Pseudoscience is what one might call a two-dollar word. Skeptics often throw it around because of its weightiness and the values it transmits. We need to talk about this word, where it came from, and why we should be cautious about using it." Indeed we should be cautious. YoPienso (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yo, you're talking to a wall. It doesn't matter to them that the term "Intelligent Design" has a history of usage long before there was ever a Discovery Institute or Of Pandas... or Kitzmiller. It doesn't matter to them that the word pseudoscience was placed in the article without consensus to begin with (it's just that those opposed to that prominent placement had no status in the minds of the article's owners). It doesn't matter that, evidently with Wikipedia, intelligent design is more decidedly pseudoscience than is Hitler evil. NPOV tone does not matter to these people. They don't care. They are convinced their POV is the NPOV and they demand that their POV is the POV of the article. It's shameful and they are shameless. 76.118.23.40 (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- But 1) that's how our sources describe the topic, 2) it accurately and uniquely contextualizes and describes the topic, and 3) WP:NOTCENSORED. Our policy, broadly, is that pseudoscientific topics can be described as such as long as the label is adequately sourced - see WP:PSI - so this isn't a conversation to have just here, it would be appropriate to have it at a broader venue. — Jess· Δ♥ 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, and I've supported using the word on just those bases. Nonetheless, since the term is often perceived as a pejorative, and seeing the history of reverts and discussions in this article, (hence this venue), I suggest we drop it to achieve stability and stop the endless wrangling. Why poke people in the eye?
- Using Velikovsky as an example, Sharon Hill noted in the SI, "The primary blunder made by scientists was their attempt to demonize a person or idea. This backfired and made that person/idea more popular. Every negative review of his books enhanced the controversy and made people curious to read them to see what the fuss was all about. In their haste to prevent some outsider from destabilizing their establishment, they disregarded the importance of being civil and collegial."
- Now you may well say that we just repeat what the scientists say. That's true, but no harm is done to them, to the article, or to our readers if we omit that word in the lede. We should retain it in the body. YoPienso (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- There certainly is harm is omitting it from the lead. Many readers will skim, which is why we have a summary (the lead) in the first place. One of ID's principal tactics is to represent itself as science and to "just teach X, and let the reader make up their own mind." Under no circumstances can we give in to that, and in so doing, fail to represent the scientific community's opinion accurately. ID is the very definition of pseudoscience. It certainly belongs in a neutral summary of the topic. Sure, I get IAR, but I see no reason it should apply here; the same justification could be used on any other article (and it is, often). — Jess· Δ♥ 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Jess - calm a bit on the dramatic 'the very definition of pseudoscience' (not literally what's in Webster's, Oxford, and Britannica) and with 'Under no circumstances'. Please simply consider some factoids: the article for years did OK without this in the lede; the preponderance of external cites and larger players do not use this label; that frequent objections by editors is objectively evidence it lacks WP:CONSENSUS as well as just being a practical nuisance. I'll suggest it might be more generally accepted if it reverted to the more neutral wording 'claim' -- or if a label is wanted, then 'creationist' seems more satisfying of cite frequency, party identification, and acceptability among both advocates and opponents. Whichever, meh Markbassett (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Describing ID as pseudoscience is only pejorative in so far as ID claims to be a science. That is the way it is used in the lede and the way it is used in the sources. I believe there has been a strong consensus to keep pseudoscience in the title and I see no indication that this consensus has changed. I am One of Many (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't even mean lede--I mean the first sentence. YoPienso (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Describing ID as pseudoscience is only pejorative in so far as ID claims to be a science. That is the way it is used in the lede and the way it is used in the sources. I believe there has been a strong consensus to keep pseudoscience in the title and I see no indication that this consensus has changed. I am One of Many (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is faulty on its face: we don't remove a disagreeable word because it is pejorative, if the word is also accurate and widely used to describe the topic. ID is precisely pseudoscience, as it attempts to bring creationism under the mantle of science. One of the signifiers of pseudoscience is that a conclusion is assumed to be correct, then the evidence is tailored to fit the conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Binkster - In this case the disagreeable wording seems just seeking to enjoy snarkery and to advance editors personal agendas, rather than conveying what is common in RSS or summarizing the article. Just sayin what it looks like from TALK ... meh Markbassett (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. The term "pseudoscience" is wholly accurate and exactly descriptive, despite it being unpleasant to some readers. It's widely used and well-sourced. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Binkster - if you are not going to follow RSS preponderance then it's just your want/logic against their want/logic and WP:OR failure of WP:CONSENSUS. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Binkersternet, we do remove a disagreeable word because it is pejorative, per policy:
- WP:IMPARTIAL: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone," and
- WP:SUBJECTIVE: "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)."
- I do not dispute that ID is a pseudoscience nor that we should hesitate to so inform our readers that it is; I dispute that we should so define in in the first sentence. In the reasoned opinion/conclusion of many scientists ID is a pseudoscience, and we need to properly include that position.
- I am One of Many, you are right that the consensus has been set for a long time; I was hoping we might change it for something more in line with policy. Such a change would end the continued reverts of the first sentence. But maybe the editors who watch this article enjoy the fight. If so, how sad. YoPienso (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- We are not endorsing or rejecting a view by describing the topic accurately. Nor are we violating policy by biasing our coverage toward the scientific opinion ("providing due weight"). I don't think those snippets of policy say what you think they do, but even if they did, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are quite clear, and would take precedence. To reiterate, the arguments you're using would equally apply to every pseudoscientific topic; if convincing, we could never describe anything as pseudoscience ever again. Our coverage would significantly suffer as a result. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Binkersternet, we do remove a disagreeable word because it is pejorative, per policy:
More sources for "pseudoscience"
- UCLA anthropologist Joseph Manson writes "Intelligent design is pseudoscience" in the Anthropology Newsroom at UCLA. September 27, 2005.
- University of Kansas anthropologist Leonard Krishtalka says that intelligent design is "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo"[1] and "Intelligent design is religion thinly disguised as science and does not belong in the science classroom."[2]
- Journalist and medical writer Mark Greener writes "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?", published in EMBO Reports in December 2007. Describing how ID comes from creationism, and that ID is not science.
- Donald E. Simanek, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, wrote "Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy".
- Mathematics and statistical mechanics emeritus professor Mark Perakh wrote Unintelligent Design in which he stated "My conclusion is that the intelligent design theory is an example of pseudoscience."[3] University of Minnesota Twin Cities biologist Mark D. Decker reviewed the Perakh book in Cell Biology Education, saying that "Although cloaked in the mantle of science, ID is nothing more than the argument offered by the natural theologians of the 1800s".[4]
- Observation - ummm look again, seems those mostly go 'creationism' -- at least #2, 3, and 4 predominantly say 'creationism'; #1 is kind of short but does say pseudoscience twice to creationism once so mostly pseudo, and the #5 book seems to be mixing discussion of ID and Creation Science so call that one as maybe for the moment. These five are not really big sources, like say Kitsmiller or Newsweek or Behe or AAAS or Pigglucci -- but they're still got a preponderance towards "creationism". Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Creationism is the father of Intelligent Design. ID is used to shoehorn creationism into school curricula. They are connected, and the above authors acknowledge the fact. If you are arguing ID is completely separate from creationism then you are not supported by these science authors. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Observation - ummm look again, seems those mostly go 'creationism' -- at least #2, 3, and 4 predominantly say 'creationism'; #1 is kind of short but does say pseudoscience twice to creationism once so mostly pseudo, and the #5 book seems to be mixing discussion of ID and Creation Science so call that one as maybe for the moment. These five are not really big sources, like say Kitsmiller or Newsweek or Behe or AAAS or Pigglucci -- but they're still got a preponderance towards "creationism". Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Easy compromise
The easy compromise here is simply to take the word "pseudoscience" out of WP's voice in the lede. Instead of saying, "Intelligent Design is the pseudoscientific..." change it to "Intelligent Design is [definition]. It has been described as a pseudoscience by..." That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience isn't in WP's voice in the lede. ID is by definition pseudoscience as defined in the second sentence of the lede. The lede as is accurately reflects the sources used and meaning of ID.I am One of Many (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is no need to compromise. If ID did not claim to be science we would not be having this discussion. However, ID does claim to be science and so it needs to be treated according to the prevailing scientific view, which is that ID is NOT science, it is pseudoscience. End of discussion. - Nick Thorne talk 23:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nick - that's misrepresenting the scientific community ... factually cites can substantiate "extensively rejected by the scientific community" and that community commonly says quote "not science" unquote -- but also substantiate they the word "pseudoscience" is basically not used by them. Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- And yet we somehow seem to manage to find more than enough references to cite that ID is actually called pseudoscience within the scientific community. I wonder why that is? - Nick Thorne talk 00:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:Nick Thorne -- Sure, that's ignoring the scientific community societies formal statements. Again, this misrepresenting the community position. Look, it's just a vague emotive slur without solid technical meaning so it just doesn't see use except as the occasional pejorative in the less serious context. The high prominence in the lede is beyond it's weight in the discussion, the article content, or any topic iteself. ... 'more than enough', not hardly. Markbassett (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cla68, your suggestion waters down the very broad scientific position against ID, as your construction "It has been described as a pseudoscience by..." would necessarily name a subset of the scientific community, while an overwhelming majority dismiss it. Your construction would make it appear that fewer scientists say that ID is not science. I am against any watering down of this sort. We should state plainly that ID is not science, that it is pseudoscience. I'm reminded of the quote: "Any compromise between science and not science is not science." Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Intelligent Design is [definition] - that's what the article currently says. Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] 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.". The idea that it's supposed to be science (but isn't) is what differentiates it from mere evolution-doubt. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Let it stand
I've laid out my argument as best I can. Several editors agree with me, but several disagree. There's no consensus here for or against the word, so let it stand. YoPienso (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- No there is clear consensus on strength of argument that the present description is correct. That is why it stands regardless of creationist trolling.Charles (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Charles - Suggest a read of WP:CONSENSUS in light of frequently editors edit that word, numerous attempts at the WP consensus-building methods failed, and serious editors like Yop mentioning it as ongoing bone of contention -- and seems it will keep going on at WP:NOCONSENSUS. Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Needs to stay in the article, front and centre. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Needs to stay because it's a critical part of what ID is. Intrinsic to ID is the idea that this is a scientific view. So we can either say "claimed to be science, but it's not" or we can used the more succinct "pseudoscience". Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is consensus, but whatever; it doesn't matter either way. "Consensus to stay in" and "no consensus to remove" are the same practically speaking. It was a good faith proposal, let's move on without turning this back into a protracted perennial discussion. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Needs to stay because it's a critical part of what ID is. Intrinsic to ID is the idea that this is a scientific view. So we can either say "claimed to be science, but it's not" or we can used the more succinct "pseudoscience". Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Needs to stay in the article, front and centre. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Charles - Suggest a read of WP:CONSENSUS in light of frequently editors edit that word, numerous attempts at the WP consensus-building methods failed, and serious editors like Yop mentioning it as ongoing bone of contention -- and seems it will keep going on at WP:NOCONSENSUS. Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class Alternative Views articles
- High-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- FA-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- FA-Class Conservatism articles
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- FA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- FA-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- FA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure