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 cannot 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 has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It 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.
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.
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 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view
Please remove the word "pseudoscientific" from the opening sentence because that implies malicious intent on the part of the Intelligent design movement. They are using the same darwinian method as all other science does to propel their ideas within the academic and scientific communities. The only difference is in how one interprets the data or evidence. They are not making up the science, they are reading the same data as everyone else. Who ever edited that opening sentence may have a different philosophical view of the world but intelligent design is far from pseudoscientific, and the editor needs to read the data and evidence before hurling insults and stifling honest research. Secular science and the intelligent design movement both deal with the how. Where they differ is the darwinians stop at the how, where as the intelligent design movement goes one step further and asks WHY. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan batke (talk • contribs)
- Not done We have had pointless discussions on this long enough Darwinian Ape talk 05:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ryan, current consensus on the talk page for this article is to have the word "pseudoscience" in the lede. If enough people come to this talk page and object, at around the same time, to that word, and therefore change the current consensus, then it can be removed. Consensus (numbers) trumps everything on Wikipedia except WP:BLP. Cla68 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Question
Troll bait, hatted in accordance with WP:TPG. . dave souza, talk 18:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is there a proven scientific method that shows, unequivocally, that the universe, the planet earth and the living animal species therein have NOT been created by Intelligent Design? If so, what is it?Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have undeleted this section, and suggest folks Talk be to discuss it reasonably re potential edits or else not really WP useful to TALK. In my case I will say I am aware of no cites to speak to this so the due WP:WEIGHT is not a mention. The lack of a published topic is not a reportable section by WP guidelines, it makes no sense to try and have article content talking about where there is nothing ... Markbassett (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Davidbena, your question is both malformed and contrary to talk page guidelines. The answer was perhaps best stated at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." . . . dave souza, talk 13:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Support hatting this section as it does not appear to be an attempt to improve the article nor does it appear to have any chance of becoming productive. Hy Brasil (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
Deletion by others is inappropriate
Hat off topic posts per WP:TPO |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A section for the other topic of folks deleting others TALK just to remind folks that is contrary to WP:Talk page guidelines at WP:TPOC. If it's stupid y'all don't have to respond. If you want to say Off-topic, fine. If it's off-topic to extensive length the admins are guided to collapse it, not delete it. Markbassett (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2016 (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 Creationism articles
- Top-importance Creationism articles
- FA-Class Intelligent design articles
- Top-importance Intelligent design articles
- Intelligent design articles
- WikiProject Creationism 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