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.

Split the article

Okay, it's been a while since this motion has been presented, so I'm going to rehash the case all over again. I want to see how much support we have for splitting the article into two: Intelligent design and Intelligent design and science. The latter article would consist of information within the current "Creating and teaching the controversy" section of this article, as it contains a lot of information, not much of which is necessary here. This section currently contains 1) a very brief introductory paragraph about the "Teach the Controversy" campaign; 2) descriptions of tangentially related beliefs (neo-creationism and theistic science); 3) a couple of paragraphs about Christians, who comprise the vast majority of ID supporters, reaching out to other religions and faiths for support; 4) a "definition" of science which details attributes that bring an explanation closer to the ideal scientific theory; 5) six paragraphs stating that ID proponents haven't published work in reputable scientific journals(!); 6) three paragraphs on whether or not intelligence can even be detected scientifically; 7) and two characterizations of ID arguments as logical fallacies (arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps).

Whew. So that's the information within the "Creating and teaching the controversy" section. As you can see, there really isn't much to do with the "Teach the Controversy" campaign, but instead an heavy emphasis upon ID's relationship to science and the scientific community. This is the reason the title Intelligent design and science has been chosen to represent this information, though suggestions are most welcome. Also, this article's size is 181,895 bytes (177KB) and the rule of thumb states that articles over 100KB "[a]lmost certainly should be divided." I think this simple change will greatly improve the article, so... how much support do we have for this? Thank you, everyone, for your time! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with the split, though if possible this should comply with WP:SUMMARY leaving a brief mention of the main points. The title suggested wouldn't cover all of the topics, as some are more about religion or theology. Perhaps split these to form two sub-articles, or possibly relationship of intelligent design to science and theology. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I took a closer look at the material in the section and you're right, we have a variety of material here. Referring to the numbers in my previous post, we have 1) an ID campaign to teach religion in public school science classes, 2) related religious beliefs involving science, 3) religious outreach, 4-6) science, and 7) logic. It seems to me that 1, 2, and 4-6 could go into a new article (Intelligent design and science), but I don't think there's enough information in 3 and 7 for another new article. I guess we could make a stub article from it(?). Or maybe we can leave those within this main article? The subsection on religious outreach could be moved to the "Movement" section, and the logic subsections could be moved to... a new "Criticism" section?

Oh, and I absolutely agree with the WP:SUMMARY bit. Actually, maybe that could be summarized within a "Criticism" section as well? Here's what I'm thinking...

• Rename "Creating and teaching the controversy" to "Criticism"
• Move subsections related to science into a new article titled "Intelligent design and science" (1, 2, 4-6)
• Briefly summarize the newly created article within the "Criticism" section, as a subsection entitled "Scientific criticisms"
• Move "Inter-faith outreach" to the "Movement" section (3)
• Leave "Arguments from ignorance" and "God of the gaps" as their own subsections within the "Criticism" section (7)

This should keep the section limited to criticisms of ID and cut the overall filesize down substantially. What do you think? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to removing the scientific take on ID from the main ID article as it would then leave a pseudoscientific article with undue weight, though I'm not sure if that's what being proposed . If that's not what's being proposed, would you mind elaborating what the ID umbrella article will look like? Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it sounds like it may become a POV fork. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of the size is due to the references, notes and further reading (they contain full quotes etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation and IRWolfie, we do not want to remove the scientific perspective and leave only the ID perspective. Instead, what we're proposing is a removal of excess, non-vital material. At the moment, we're talking about the "Creating and teaching the controversy" section: the title suggests the contained information will be about the DI's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, but the information has little to do with this campaign. Also, note that we're not talking about removing anything from other parts of the article, which means the scientific perspective will not be removed. Instead, we'd move both the scientific and ID viewpoints within this section only to a new article and summarize that information here, again preserving both perspectives (i.e. no net change in weight). I hope this makes the proposal and our intent clearer. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@ MisterDub, your comment at 15:52, 2 November 2011, looks good to me. It's a sensible way forward, with the clear and obvious understanding that care will be taken to properly summarise any sections that are removed, thus maintaining the due weight in the article. My feeling is that there's a lot of detailed discussion and repetition that can be concisely summarised to give a clearer article, with ready access to the linked detail for those interested. . dave souza, talk 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Support as well now that it's been clarified. POV fork was what I thought at first as well but it's clear that's not the case here. N^oformation ^Talk 02:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the proposal seems to be well supported this time, I'll begin drafting the new "Criticism" section in my sandbox so everyone can view and comment before the change is made to the article. Thanks, all! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I've got a draft in my sandbox worked up that I think is a pretty good start. Please read and comment. Also, I've copied the information from the main article's "Creating and teaching the controversy" section and placed it in its own article in my Userspace. This page needs a well-written lead, though I'm not sure what kinds of standards I should follow for it (e.g. do we bold "Intelligent design and science" as the first phrase of the lead, as in other articles?). The good news is that the WP:SUMMARY version is less than half the size of what is currently in the article: 25,773 bytes (25KB) versus 59,364 bytes (58KB). Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I must say I have a knee-jerk reaction against a section named "Critisism" in an article as good as this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not particularly fond of it either. Do you have a suggestion for a title that better represents the information within the section? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I´m sorry, I can not come up with a good name for this section.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard any criticisms or objections to the proposed changes, so I guess I'll make the change at the end of this week. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New atheism

I reverted this edit by user Stephfo due to the following concerns:

• The topic of new atheism isn't mentioned in the article, and therefore does not belong in the lead section, which should be for providing an overview of the article.
• The edit appears to take a quote from Dawkins out of context to imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID (that the existence of an intelligent designer is a scientific question). Dawkins' views are well known.
• The edit references a source by a neurologist that appears to be a self-published work, not peer reviewed.

If I misunderstood anything above, I apologize, but those were my justifications for reverting. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur totally with with point one

As for point two, Dawkins has stated "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice- or not yet- a decided one." However, this can in no way be construed as an endorsement of ID as a valid scientific approach to the question. The use of the source here is thus misleading, and irrelevant to the article.

As for point three, the source has indeed been published in a peer-reviewed journal, Science and Eduction. Nevertheless, it also does not support or endorse ID as a valid scientific approach to the question, as is thus irrelevant to the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The central part of lead section brings up a topic of relation between science and supernatural explanations, not topic of New Atheism. It specifically mentions attitude of mainstream science towards such supernatural claims ("The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations"). Thus, you really misunderstood the topic, IMHO, article is trying to push a POV that supernatural claims are per se scientific oddity, but hiding that members of scientific community often regarded as so called mainstream, namely New Atheists, commonly declare supernatural claims for unequivocally a scientific questions, what is then highly controversial as it was also correctly mentioned in the text. This is evidence for a bias in article, IMHO. Please advise if you suggest to move the text to the body of article in case you oppose its presence in the head part on grounds that it is not mentioned in there.
2. Please explain how in your opinion the original context affects the validity of claim by New Atheist Dawkins that in his opinion "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" that this article IMHO referrers to as "the hypothesized intelligent designer", believed "to be the Christian God", is "unequivocally a scientific question", if you believe so. Are you trying to suggest that he was not honest in this proposition? Do you suggest that there is a difference between "creative super--intelligence" and "Intelligent Designer"? In what sense? The article claim and claims by mainstream scientific New Atheists are in direct contradiction and I believe WP should correctly advise WP reader about this controversy. IMHO, to state "The edit appears to ... imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID" after reading "Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature" is clearly impossible, unless a strong bias would be applied against the given edit. We can use stronger wording like "although completely rejecting the idea of ID" if you wish, pls. advise.
3. If you accept argument by D.V. below [on peer-review status --Stephfo (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)], pls. note contrary to his claim the text does not suggest whatsoever that given source endorse ID, but addresses the article bias wrt. controversy in attitude of scientist towards supernatural claims (in line with "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." WP:DR), what is a topic present in the lead section.

Thanx for your understanding--Stephfo (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I first want to say that the edit was rather poor and extremely POV ("Controversially", "so called New Atheists", attributing the second source to New Atheists when atheism isn't even mentioned other than in the bibliography and keywords). Even if we decide to keep the information in the article, this would need one hell of a rewrite. Second, if the point of this is to show that science can test supernatural claims, then perhaps this would be best placed in the new Intelligent design and science article proposed above.

That said, we already have sourced information in the last paragraph of the "Defining science" section which addresses the same topic, without mention of "New Atheists." Furthermore, this section, and others discussing the relationship of ID to science, is to be moved into a new article, so it wouldn't exist here anyway. In light of this, I find the new information superfluous and easy to drop, though perhaps others would like to amend the section I mentioned previously to account for these sources before the section is moved. The latter is fine by me, the former preferred. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Pls. explain your point: "extremely POV ("Controversially", "so called New Atheists", attributing the second source to New Atheists when atheism isn't even mentioned other than in the bibliography and keywords" in more detail: What is actual POV that you identified as "extreme"? Do you deem that there is no controversy between:

• the claim that "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question" and
• that "the hypothesized intelligent designer" as in fact supernatural claim referred to in sentence: "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations"?

Please explain how these two claims match together w/o driving the discussion to distraction, if possible.

• Add. "attributing the second source to New Atheists" - what source? What is actually wrong here in your opinion?

General note: Pls. note you have not demonstrated whatsoever that any WP rule would be by given edit violated, what is the very basic requirement when revert is made. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT policy states: "Such claims [declaration of deletions as appropriate] require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion") Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, please don't slip into that habit. Just because we haven't "broken any rules" including the content doesn't mean we should include it, or indeed that consensus can't form that it shouldn't be. Users here have given a few solid reasons for opposing inclusion, which do not fit WP:IDLI. I'll also point out that quotes like this, particularly the one by Dawkins, are an explicit attempt to combat Non-overlapping magisteria, because Dawkins feels that supernatural claims have already failed investigation (either by being ludicrous, or tested and false). Therefore, to take the quote out of that context and imply that Dawkins is pushing for more investigation into the supernatural, as though there may be something there, is quote mining and OR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Mann_jess, please don't slip into habit of attributing me a position that I do not hold. When I declare that some response is not in line with WP policy, namely on removing content, I by no means suggest that consensus can't form that [certain content] shouldn't [be included], but rather make a call to keep discussion in a structured way, if possible, and definitely avoid such controversial claims as that "the edit was rather poor" not supported by any explanation, a fortiori if the text does not contained anything more than Dawkins claim 1:1 and stripped version of text already present at New Atheism page (so that it implies the given page is poorly written, what however, controversially nobody minds).

2. Pls. explain how "Dawkins feels that supernatural claims have already failed investigation" and at the same time declares that [supernatural claim] is "unequivocally a scientific question" that "is not in practice- or not yet- a decided one." If something is not yet decided it could not fail investigation already, unless Dawkins would be a prophet seeing the future, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Steppfo, please post responses to the discussion at the bottom of the discussion. Otherwise, the conversation will very quickly devolve into fragmented replies taken out of context. I will respond to you there. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have added a fourth objection that almost goes without saying. The passage I reverted ended with "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." Completely unsourced assertion.

The fact remains that the lead section of an encyclopedia article should provide a concise overview of the rest of the article, not introduce new claims or assertions that are not described later. The connection with New Atheism isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and therefore does not belong in the lead.

The question of whether it belongs in the body is a different matter. Probably not, as this seems only tangentially related to Intelligent Design.

The main objection, however, is the misrepresenting of quotations from scientists to push a POV that scientists "assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims." Jess is correct, this is quote mining. Nothing in the passage from Dawkins asserts "many" supernatural claims are scientific. If you read the quotation in the context of the entire section of that book, it is clear that he is simply arguing that science should not be excluded from addressing the question of the existence of a super-intelligent creator — and his consistent position as a scientist has always been that no such being exists. The selective quotation and positioning in the article imply that Dawkins somehow supports the notion that underpins the Intelligent Design movement is a bit far-fetched, constitutes WP:OR, and isn't relevant to this article.

I was mistaken about the peer-review status of the final source provided by Stephfo. However, Dominus Vobisdu is correct; the article doesn't support ID as a scientific approach to the question, so it is not relevant. It may fit better in a different article. Even so, minority viewpoints should not be given any prominent weight, especially in the lead.

Finally, balancing a perceived bias by what you think is neutral doesn't mean it's appropriate to introduce opposing bias, particularly when it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to what appears to be a decidedly minority viewpoint, and especially when taken out of context. As to rules that were violated by this edit, it seems to me that WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEAD were all violated. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I will continue with further points, I'd like to ask you regarding your point "I should have added a fourth objection that almost goes without saying. The passage I reverted ended with "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." Completely unsourced assertion." if this will cause the same zeal within you to remove the given claim from New Atheism page from which it was taken or if the claim becomes "Completely unsourced assertion" subject of your objection only when this claim is not serving right my follow atheist editors (hopefully unbiased and with good faith/intention). Thanx for clarification --Stephfo (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, the adjective "controversially" is unnecessary and implies that there is an actual controversy where there is none (WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT). As is explained in the final paragraph in the "Defining science" section, methodological naturalism is an a posteriori criterion, not an a priori one: the fact that supernatural claims have failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny does not indicate that they are inherently unscientific. If you read the "Defining science" section, you will see this supported by several sources.

The adjectival phrase "so-called" is also unnecessary and implies that the label is false or otherwise inaccurate. This is not supported by any source and is therefore WP:OR.

You use the second source to support the claim that "[t]he New Atheists believe science is now capable of investigating at least some, if not all, supernatural claims, ..." yet the source never mentions New Atheists or atheists at all. This is also clearly WP:OR. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But I provided a hyperlink to New Atheism#Scientific testing of religion page where this exactly same claim seems to be tolerated by our fellow editors and no one proposes to remove it on the same grounds like you here, does it mean it should disappear from there in your opinion per your reasoning presented in here?--Stephfo (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stepfo, a number of reasons have been presented as to why this content is unacceptable, but you've fallen back into the behavior of repeatedly asking that simple statements be explained over and over. It has been explained quite adequately why "the edit was poor", so suggesting that no one has explained their reasoning at all is unhelpful. I'll repeat a few objections, and I hope that if you wish to continue the discussion, you respond to them appropriately. 1) This content is not in the body of the article, and so is not appropriate for the lead, which aims to summarize the body. It simply cannot be included where you have proposed. 2) The text includes claims which are unsourced, including "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." We can't include controversial unsourced statements such as this. 3) The prose includes words which push a POV not presented in reliable sources, namely that there is a controversy about supernatural explanations in science. This weasel wording, and editorializing in the prose must be removed to present an encyclopedic view of the topic. 4) Your proposal draws a link to New Atheism and atheists generally which is not presented prominently in the sourcing, and not relevant to this article. If it is relevant to a different article, that is not our concern here. 5) You appear to be synthesizing sources in order to include this content. Do the sources say anything about ID? If so, do they draw the connections you are? There have been other concerns as well, but these are the most prominent to my view. Please address them, without simply demanding that every editor explain their position in more and more detail.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Attitude of science towards supernatural claims mentioned in the lead section

I made a new section as the article became difficult to edit and also because user [[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk] misunderstood the reason for edit:

• The central part of lead section brings up a topic of relation between science and supernatural explanations, not topic of New Atheism. It specifically mentions attitude of (perhaps mainstream) science towards such supernatural claims GENERALLY (i.e. regardless of ID: "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations" {as such, irrespective of ID}). Thus, article is trying to push a POV that supernatural claims are per se scientific oddity (what might be well the truth, personally I do not know), but at the same time hiding the fact that members of scientific community often regarded as so called (we can removed "so called" if someone does not like it) mainstream, namely New Atheists, commonly declare supernatural claims (AS SUCH, irrespective of ID) for unequivocally a scientific questions, what is then highly controversial as it was also correctly mentioned in the text. This is evidence for a bias in article, IMHO, and make it legitimate subject of NPOV balancing: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."
• 1. This content is not in the body of the article, and so is not appropriate for the lead, which aims to summarize the body. It simply cannot be included where you have proposed.

Problem can be easily solved by extending article body with this content if this is the only problem. Agree? If not than I suggest that this is not your real objection worth of spending time with.

• 2. The text includes claims which are unsourced, including "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes." We can't include controversial unsourced statements such as this.

This is 1:1 copy from New Atheism. Pls. advise if you could include such controversial statement there in. If the missing source would be found there, I suggest to move it here to satisfy your concerns in this respect.

• 3. The prose includes words which push a POV not presented in reliable sources, namely that there is a controversy about supernatural explanations in science. This weasel wording, and editorializing in the prose must be removed to present an encyclopedic view of the topic.

Again, after your multiple visits at New Atheism page you seem not attack any reliable sources there in. As for controversy, there is eye-striking discrepancy between two claims (question on presence of super-intelligence is unequivocally scientific question, but the very same intelligent agent is suddenly a non-scientific question) that is impossible to hide unless someone would claim that atheist have right to declare anything they like out of supernatural claims for scientific question or not how it suits them and there are no objective criteria for supernatural claims. WP readers are not stupid to notice that, and thus encyclopedic view should be to help them notice this controversy and try to help to explain why it is there and how they should come to grips with it. Moreover, controversially, the same community that seems so strongly and endlessly harping on (term used by JamesBWatson) reliable sources when it comes to obvious claims not in favour of atheism, seem to be utterly tolerable to claims that are completely invented and that attack Christianity in unfair way like one that "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory." Let it be so if they like it that way, I just register this bias, not attack anybody (this is meant to be just footnote in between lines). I just noticed that many people started to regard WP for having liberal atheist bias and it is impossible to disagree with them.

• 4. Your proposal draws a link to New Atheism and atheists generally which is not presented prominently in the sourcing, and not relevant to this article. If it is relevant to a different article, that is not our concern here.

I agree that New Atheist are not relevant to the article which is dedicated to ID, however fact that they are New Atheists is not important whatsoever in my effort to point out that in relation between science and supernatural claims there are groups of scientists (I believe you will have no problem to agree they are mainstream) who commonly regard supernatural questions for being unequivocally scientific questions. Please do not cast red harrings on New Atheism but focus on relation between article claim on relation between science and supernatural claims which only matters in here in my effort to balance it out and explain for common WP reader.

• 5. You appear to be synthesizing sources in order to include this content. Do the sources say anything about ID? If so, do they draw the connections you are? There have been other concerns as well, but these are the most prominent to my view.

ID is irrelevant as in relation between science and supernatural claims it does not play any other role than it belongs to that group of supernatural claims, in the same way like any other supernatural claim regarded by group of scientist such as New Atheists for scientific, what is by all means controversial. If you deem there is objective criterion (with proper sourcing) which makes distinction between ID as supernatural claim and other supernatural claims wrt. their perception by New Atheists who regard supernatural claims for being scientific questions, I advise to include it into article.

• 6. Pls. note the claim "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science" does not have any citation whatsoever and you seem not to mind it.

Thanx in advance for your understanding --Stephfo (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article correctly cites and summarises a number of sources, including that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science", and "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." If supernatural claims can be observed or measured then they're open to scientific investigation, which is all that the "new atheists" are claiming. Source: Whether ID is science as cited. . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you claimed above that when you were reverted, it was "not supported by any explanation". I responded with a list of just a few of the explanations editors had given. That does not make what I said a "red herring"; these are legitimate objections to your proposal, so saying there was "no explanation" isn't helpful. You said above "ID is irrelevant as in relation between science and supernatural claims it does not play any other role than it belongs to that group of supernatural claims" (emphasis mine). This article is about ID. If ID is irrelevant to your proposal, then your proposal doesn't belong in this article. You are trying to make a point about New Atheists and science which simply isn't in the sources, and doesn't belong in this topic. If you want this content included, please find a source which explicitly says what you want to say.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This however I do do not fully understand, please advise why you hold a view that "a creative super-intelligence" has nothing to do with ID, to me the article seems full of references exactly to such subject, referred to there in as "intelligent cause/ intelligent agent/creator" etc..--Stephfo (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly useful in sub-article

• Stephfo rather misrepresented the sources with the proposed edit, these may be useful for a detailed discussion in the proposed article on ID and science, but should not be given undue weight in this main article. The little known Yonatan I. Fishman (not "new atheists") examines Dawkins' arguments against Non-overlapping magisteria which are already well covered in that article. Fishman concludes "Thus, contrary to the positions expressed by Judge Jones, the AAAS, and the NAS, the reason why supernatural or religious claims, such as those of ID/Creationism, do not belong in science classes is not because they have supernatural or religious content, but rather because there is either no convincing evidence to support them or science has debunked them." and subsequently "there is ample justification for the conclusion of philosopher Bradley Monton" that “ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific; ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn’t there.” That's an interesting argument about religion and science, but a clear misunderstanding of the US Constitutional objection to establishment of religion. As for "many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes", that's sourced to Stenger who is pointing to the efforts made by nstitutions such as the Mayo Clinic and Duke University to test whether prayer has any effect. Not "new atheists". Stenger is however notes that
  "Philosophers of science refer to the self-imposed convention of science that limits inquiry to objective observations of the world as methodological naturalism. It has worked well and it would still apply to prayer studies since any positive healing effects would be measurable events. The dispute is not over the experimental procedures but rather the theoretical interpretation of the data."
  The issue is not whether supernatural claims can be examined by science, which they always have been, but whether supernatural explanations have any merit as science. Both these authors are arguing against NOMA, and in doing that seem to be misunderstanding that aspect of the Kitz. judgement. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrt. "Stephfo rather misrepresented the sources with the proposed edit" I did nothing else just copy &paste of the edit from New Atheism page thus, if the sources are misrepresented, it is weird that many editors visiting that page (incl. for example frequent visitor ♥) have not discovered it yet.--Stephfo (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation is that any of this has anything to do with Intelligent Design, the subject of the present article. The paragraph in the New Atheism article does not mention Intelligent Design. That association was synthesis on your part. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny you're pointing me out. Anyway... the content in the New Atheism article also includes a good amount of context before and after the prose you've picked out. Without that context, and in a completely separate topic area, you're implying things which are both unsourced and inaccurate. You also didn't just "copy and paste from New Atheism". You added your own words and content, which has been widely objected to above. For instance: "Controversially... so called new atheists". We can't use that sort of wording without proper sources backing it up.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not add anything else, apart from 1:1 citation from Dawkins, than what was absolutely necessary to point out that there is a direct contradiction between two claims, one in article on ID and other in article on New Atheism. Apart from that, I was only stripping the actual instances of supernatural claims used as examples. If you look at the "Scientific testing of religion" in New Atheism, there is demonstrably no good amount of context before or after the text I took. "The New Atheists assert" is the first sentence both there and in my text, IMHO. --Stephfo (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I had never even heard of the term "new atheist" until Stephfo introduced it into this article. So please don't assume that other editors have visited that page. If that page has problems, those problems should be fixed rather than spread to other articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So now when you know that that page has problems that you were able to explain so well, are you going to fix them or you do not bother if there will remain there in? --Stephfo (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The problems, Stephfo, is that you're misusing "new atheist" arguments. They correctly state that supernatural claims can be tested by science. The lead of this article correctly states that supernatural explanations cannot be accepted in science. Spot the difference? The "new atheist" argument at most amounts to stating that empirical tests do not support supernatural explanations, so ID is pseudoscience as it fails to provide any empirical evidence. Both articles appear to be correct in their context. . dave souza, talk 22:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that ID is not supernatural claim, because if it were, it could be tested by science ("new atheist" correctly state that supernatural claims can be tested by science)? What it is then, scientific claim? --Stephfo (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

ID is a supernatural explanation presented with some claims that there are empirical features which they say science can't explain. Science can explain these features, so to that extent ID has been tested and falsified. However, no-one can ever disprove the non-empirical explanation that Goddidit, or that malaria has been created for the unknowable aims of The Designer. These are religious beliefs that lack any empirical justification and hence are not science. . . dave souza, talk 23:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jess and Dave. Removed of their context and inserted into this article they represent synthesis not supported by the sources. In the New Atheist article, they are placed in proper context, and do not need to be changed. There is no inconsistency here between the two articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be then the correct conclusion that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature, except one, namely ID, and there has been unknown objective criteria applied when making such conclusion? Pls. advise.--Stephfo (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, you said: "I [added] what was absolutely necessary to point out that there is a direct contradiction between two claims". That is the definition of WP:SYNTH. We don't "point things out" on wikipedia. We report what the sources say. Our sources don't say that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, if you look at the Level of support for evolution, the sources absolutely do not say anything about "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" and the very same people that are willing to lay their lives on battlefield while using far-fetched WP:Wikilawyering as weapons, to put it in humorous terms, are perfectly able to live up with that notion not bothering whatsoever. WP by far does not contain only 1:1 claims from sources but also a great deal of common sense should be applied, if possible, at least sometimes. --Stephfo (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not doing synthesis, but rather bringing attention of WP reader on the two claims that are in mutual contradiction, a fact that can be denied only by denying the rules of logic. I leave up to WP reader to make comclusion for himself/herself w/o proposing any POV that he/she should take. --Stephfo (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While we use common sense for little things (like that "Intelligent Design" and "Inteligent Design" probably mean the same thing and don't warrant separate articles), we absolutely do not use common sense to violate core principals such as WP:V, particularly when in an effort to make a point. The argument that "another article did it" is not a good one, as has been suggested a number of times now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can remove the section on controversy if this is the only your problem and cite Dawkins 1:1.--Stephfo (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing. I (and others) have listed a host of problems above, which all need to be addressed. I'm not sure some of them can be. What "section on controversy"?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have noticed that you counted "a host of problems above" 1-5. To declare "need to be addressed" sounds to me as mockery as this is exactly what I did in the section above. The same cannot be stated about the opposition to my edit, I'm sure you have managed to read my call for answer:

• "Please explain how in your opinion the original context affects the validity of claim by New Atheist Dawkins that in his opinion "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" that this article IMHO referrers to as "the hypothesized intelligent designer", believed "to be the Christian God", is "unequivocally a scientific question", if you believe so. Are you trying to suggest that he was not honest in this proposition? Do you suggest that there is a difference between "creative super--intelligence" and "Intelligent Designer"? In what sense? The article claim and claims by mainstream scientific New Atheists are in direct contradiction and I believe WP should correctly advise WP reader about this controversy. IMHO, to state "The edit appears to ... imply that Dawkins somehow supports the idea behind ID" after reading "Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature" is clearly impossible, unless a strong bias would be applied against the given edit. We can use stronger wording like "although completely rejecting the idea of ID" if you wish, pls. advise." Pls. advise where is the answer, my fellow collaborating editor.
• As for "What "section on controversy"?" - this one can go out:

Controversially, although generally rejecting the concepts of ID, so called new atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature.[14] They argue, for instance, that the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice – or not yet – a decided one.[15] The New Atheists believe science is now capable of investigating at least some, if not all, supernatural claims[16] and many scientists are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes.

• There is no problem with text sources any more as far as I've understood the latest development wrt. objections to this text.--Stephfo (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Likewise, I hope nobody would regard the very same text for poorly written from now on if it is part of New Atheism page.--Stephfo (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is poorly written. I just had a chance to look at that article. I have just removed a weasel-worded unsourced claim ("many scientists are investigating...") and a peacock term from that text. Furthermore, you are still engaging in synthesis to connect any of this to intelligent design. Find a source that does this, then perhaps this proposal can be taken more seriously. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From where have you removed weasel-worded unsourced claim? "many scientists are investigating..." is still demonstrably present in New Atheism OK it is changed now. --Stephfo (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And you are still showing a blind attitude towards my claim that I do not attribute this text to ID but to the GENERAL claim about attitude of science towards supernatural claims AS SUCH (which is in direct contradiction to claim of other scientists, coincidently being New Atheists), which is demonstrably present in the article header, irrespective of ID being the main topic in that article. --Stephfo (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Using two sources to write about a novel contradiction not contained in either source is the definition of synthesis. Did you read the WP:SYNTH article, Stephfo?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not using two sources to write about novel contradiction because contradiction cannot be novel, it is either there or not, and by showing that it is there is a blatant demonstration of article bias. It would be very odd if someone would declare that, for example, a hypothetical backed claim on Columbus confirming alleged theory of Galileo on spheric-ity of Earth should be kept just because it is not specifically rebutted anywhere, even if the verifiable knowledge is that Columbus was living before Galileo.

• By the way, you failed to address my Q on "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science." is there any source for that claim at all? You see what you like and overlook what you do not like, and keep the very same points that I already have addressed. --Stephfo (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, "need to be addressed" as in, "corrected", not "replied to". Many of those issues were not fixed in this proposal. One (of many) is sourcing. Another is the fact that this still has no direct relation to ID. Based on the conversation so far, it appears that consensus is against this proposal. There has been a proposal to use the sources (but not prose) in a newly forming article, but until then, it seems we should probably move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, have you read this article at all? Are you aware that not every statement in the lead section needs to be sourced if it is fully described with sources later in the article? Such is the case with your argument about theistic science in the lead. Look further, you'll find sources. The lead section provides an overview of the rest of the article. The article contains much background information about Intelligent Design, including how the scientific community views supernatural claims, and these things are described in the lead. Your proposed change does not provide a background or foundation for anything else described later in this article. It's a non-sequitur, a side issue. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's very natural and logical that article does not contain anything wrt. my proposed change because my change contains evidence that article is biased, if it would be in the article I would not have chance to declare such bias as it would mean that article is NPOV-balanced. The absence can be easily solved by including "my change" into article, if that is your only concern.

Please advise: Do you regard claim "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations":

• A. to be specifically valid solely for ID, i.e. there is a substitution "supernatural explanations" = ID (and nothing else)
• B. to have a general meaning; "supernatural explanations" = any supernatural explanation

I believe if you want to move on, the answer to this Q would help us a LOT in this dispute, pls. be collaborative. Thakx--Stephfo (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

B. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.[1] Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.[2] . . dave souza, talk 09:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, that's my point, this claim seems to have general sense irrelevant of ID and thus all arguments calling for connection to ID make no sense.--Stephfo (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To put Dave souza's explanation into the context of how "new atheism" (personally I think it's a funny term) fits in here: The approaches of these new atheist scientists and ID supporters with respect to supernatural explanations are totally at odds, in spite of Stephfo's apparent impression that they are equivalent based on a poorly-worded passage from the New Atheism article. According to that article, those scientists view a supernatural explanation as something that can be investigated and falsified. In contrast, ID supporters begin with an assumption that a supernatural explanation has validity, and formulate theories such as "irreducible complexity" to provide credibility to their a priori assumption. Totally different approach.

To include a passage implying that scientists view supernatural explanations as valid and scientific (particularly with the ridiculous assertion that scientists "are investigating the possibility of supernatural causes") not only misrepresents the topic of "new athiesm" but inserts a POV that isn't backed up by the cited sources or any other reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, I think we've given you plenty of valid reasons for rejecting the specific change you've made, but there have been no suggested improvements to the proposed text. In the spirit of achieving a resolution quickly, I think your changes could be better composed as follows:

“ New Atheists assert that many supernatural claims are scientific claims in nature. They argue, for instance, that the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice--or not yet--a decided one. ”

I've removed the POV adjectives and unsourced claims, and I think it reads a lot better. This really has nothing to do with ID, so it shouldn't be placed in the lead, but perhaps into the "Defining science" section, which I will be moving to its own article today. If there are no further problems with this proposal and the information isn't deemed redundant, I have no problem with adding it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To me sounds reasonable. --Stephfo (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@MisterDub: There is a little problem with over-generalization in your version. Try "Some New Atheists...." and "Richard Dawkins argues, for instance...". Agree that the statement has nothing to do with ID, and belongs in the new article, not this one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, except for the the following problems:

• It still has nothing to do with ID.
• Taken out of the context of the New Atheism article, the passage by itself contains a false implication that new atheist scientists view supernatural explanations as valid explanations. That is exactly the opposite. As I explained in my addendum to Dave souza's comment above, they view such explanations as being subject to scientific scrutiny for the purpose of falsifying them.
• It's uncomfortably close to a copyvio from the Dawkins source.

Fix those problems and perhaps it could be mentioned. What is needed most of all is a reliable source that connects it with ID. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This position however I do do not fully understand, please advise why you hold a view that "a creative super-intelligence" has nothing to do with ID, to me the article seems full of references exactly to such subject, referred to there in as "intelligent cause/ intelligent agent/creator" etc..--Stephfo (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. also ack your mistake "Taken out of the context of the New Atheism" is actually mistaken declaration, the sentence proposed is actually the only one that was added directly from Dawkins book and that is not present in that article.--Stephfo (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. also note it sound irrational to repeat the same argument on context over and over while at the same time refraining from collaboration and ignoring the requirement for deeper explanation of such argument: "Please explain how in your opinion the original context affects the validity of claim by New Atheist Dawkins that in his opinion "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" that this article IMHO referrers to as "the hypothesized intelligent designer", believed "to be the Christian God", is "unequivocally a scientific question", if you believe so. Are you trying to suggest that he was not honest in this proposition? Do you suggest that there is a difference between "creative super--intelligence" and "Intelligent Designer"? In what sense?" More collaborative approach is required, IMHO. --Stephfo (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been arguing for a general statement not specific to ID, and now you are arguing the opposite?

"Taken out of context" is a correct declaration, regardless of whether I was mistaken about whether it came from the Dawkins book or the New Atheism article.

It is irrational to ignore the explanations of others over and over while at the same time demanding deeper explanations for arguments that have apparently been ignored. Context matters, and your arguments so far have ignored the context of the sources and what they say.

I'm not going to argue semantics, especially if you are going to go about quote mining sources and articles for terms, because many terms in this area have overlapping meanings. The burden is on you to show that Dawkins was referring to the topic of this article, the socio-political movement consisting of repackaged creationism, known as Intelligent Design. I see no source that links new atheism to that movement. Rather, comments by Dawkins et al about a super-intelligence or whatnot appear to be in the context of the philosophy around the teleological argument that has been around for centuries. Until a source can be found that establishes a link somehow to ID, there is no logical reason to include a mention of new atheists in this article. Doing so without proper context would imply a POV that new atheism is a response to ID rather than what it is: a reaction to what they perceive as age-old problems with religion in general. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the proposal isn't really an accurate summary of the sources as they relate to ID. In broad terms, Fishman, Dawkins, Monton, and Stenger argue that it was unnecessary and possibly counterproductive for the Kitzmiller judgment to define science as excluding supernatural claims, as ID is not supported by any empirical evidence and where supernatural claims have been tested, they have been debunked as pseudoscience. Check out the sources and review, but from my reading that's much closer to the overall statement made by the cited sources. We should not be selecting parts of these sources to convey the opposite of what they say overall. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you would read my points above, we agreed with Dave souza that the claim which is THE ONLY ONE I'm concerned bout in my edit, namely "The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations" has a general meaning; "supernatural explanations" = any supernatural explanation and thus the link to ID has only a secondary meaning, irrelevant to the topic I'm moving forward, i.e. that this sentence makes false impression as if supernatural claims would not be regarded at least by some scientists for being valid scientific questions, and I call for balancing it out in that direction in general terms, in the same sense as the claim itself has general meaning, i.e. w/o necessarily involving the link to ID. --Stephfo (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural claims can be debunked by science, supernatural explanations are not part of science. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That might/might not be well true, however it is not the topic here. Topic here is whether at least some scientists regard supernatural questions for scientific or not. Anyway thanks for your contribution. --Stephfo (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever the reference is made to "supernatural" claims/explanations, I regard such argument for general, and when to "a creative super-intelligence/the hypothesized intelligent designer"/Intelligent Agent/Creator/Christian God" etc. for specific that pertains to ID.--Stephfo (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you waffle like that, it's clear that you're promoting original research instead of looking with care for sources that explicitly refer to ID, and you're not showing the sources in proper context. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If I waffle like that, what is your explanation for the difference between a creative super-intelligence and the hypothesized intelligent designer in your opinion?--Stephfo (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Verification from a good quality source: it's the ground rule here. WP:OR isn't permitted. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this red herring does not answer the Q: If I waffle like that, what is your explanation for the difference between a creative super-intelligence and the hypothesized intelligent designer in your opinion?--Stephfo (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephfo (talk • contribs)

"Topic here is whether at least some scientists regard supernatural questions for scientific or not." That isn't even a coherent sentence. And as it has been explained to you, it is irrelevant, and a misrepresentation of sources to imply that scientists regard supernatural explanations as scientific. The investigation of the validity of supernatural claims may be scientific, even if the claims themselves aren't.

"What is your explanation for the difference between a creative super-intelligence and the hypothesized intelligent designer in your opinion?" Our opinions aren't relevant to the content of this article. Nevertheless, it should be obvious that the former is a general term that encompasses the latter term, which specifically refers to the Christian God in the context of this article.

"The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations" ... this sentence makes false impression as if supernatural claims would not be regarded at least by some scientists for being valid scientific questions." You are confusing "the scientific community" with "100% of scientists". They are not the same thing. Scientists hold a wide variety of religious and philosophical views. While the overwhelming majority reject the idea that supernatural explanations have scientific validity, some scientists are ardent creationists (Duane Gish comes to mind), and some who hold scientific credentials support ID (they are described in detail in this article) and so would regard supernatural explanations as valid. However, when stating the view of the scientific community, the article has no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, arguing in this manner isn't helpful. If you feel this information should be in the article, please rewrite the passage and account for the valid criticisms your fellow editors have raised (over-generalization re: New Atheists, ambiguity/misdirection re: the "scientificness" of supernatural claims, possible plagiarism re: Dawkins's opinion, etc.). I did this for you once... -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but "the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence" is by all means the very CENTRAL TOPIC of this article on ID, and to come to any other conclusion requires to commit a very rough violence on the rules of elementary logic. (I suggest to approach wp:logic task force for 3rd party opinion) This creative super-intelligence, referred to as the hypothesized intelligent designer, is demonstrably present in every corner of the article. The fact that new atheist Dawkins regards the VERY CENTRAL QUESTION of this article for "unequivocally a scientific question" is not my fault, I can do nothing more that register his opinion. The fact that he opposes ID is well known, and can be demonstrated: ("Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as Dutchman's Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman's Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance." (God's delusion, pg. 146)) but it does not disprove the fact that he regards the Q on presence of creative intelligence alias intelligent agent for scientifically valid. The article here however, IMHO intentionally, avoids acknowledging the Q on presence of creative super-intelligence as being "unequivocally a scientific question", and that's my main point. It should correctly explain that there are non-ID-related scientists that regard such Q for scientific, and that the two communities who accept scientific nature of such Q differ in answering such Q. One community- supporters of ID, declare that they follow Socratic principle to go wherever the evidence lead, other believe science already answered such question even though that at the same time they declare that the Q is not in practice – or not yet – a decided one.--Stephfo (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced error in text in several places

At several points, the text in the article essentially says or implies that belief in intelligent design precludes any belief in evolution, all unsourced regarding this. Yet, even this article itself establishes that the former does not necessarily mean the latter. North8000 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This claim is very vague. Please (i) give specific examples of the material you consider to be problematical & (ii) contrast what this material states with what their cited sources state. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

An example of the former is "The intelligent design movement states that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved." It is unsourced and incorrect that this is true for the entire intelligent design movement. And one example of many where such a statement is refuted even by this very article is "Another 42% believed that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings." North8000 (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Um... it's sourced? It's from a news article cited after the several sentences it verifies.

"Teach the Controversy" is an official campaign slogan of the Discovery Institute in their efforts to include Creationism in school curricula. As is obvious from a name, it claims that there is controversy among biologists concerning evolution when there isn't. And claiming that there is a debate or not is not really the same as a statement that all of them do not believe in evolution at all. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Obsidian Soul is making/ reinforcing the same point as I am. To put it more briefly, it is unsourced and false that ALL intelligent design folks say that there is such a debate. BTW to save a lot of time / unwarrented discounting, I'm a 100% evolution & natural selection person and don't believe in I.D. But our job here is to make sure that the article does not have such erroneous unsourced statements. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

On another point the overall spin / emphasis of this whole article is to present intelligent design as some sort of an clever political plot/tactic instead of a belief. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The DI is more-or-less synonymous with the leadership of the IDM (you'd have to go well down the list before you reached one that was unaffiliated). Further many (most?) of the unaffiliated prominent IDers also promote such language. Further, further, I have never heard a prominent IDer oppose this strategy. The DI speaks for the IDM, it always has. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." -- WP:NPOV Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

North8000 and Obsidian Soul, please note the first sentence, in which ID is defined by its leading proponents, The Discovery Institute: "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." (emphasis added, source) ID does preclude belief in evolution, not only by definition but as plainly evidenced by the actions of ID proponents. This is why Judge John E. Jones III found that "despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, [the IDM] describes ID as a religious argument," and that "[t]he goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (emphasis added, source) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't agreeing with North8000.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I misinterpreted. My bad. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ID doesn't preclude evolution completely. But the ambiguity about when and where evolution is accepted is a key component of ID; one could say it's intentional, because ID was crafted by DI to be this "big tent" and mean all things to embrace all kinds of special creationism so the issue is played every which way. In Dover ID retained lots of features from young earth creation science, while it was vigorously defended by Behe, who rejects YEC and accepts evolution except to challenge particular evolutionary steps occurring at the biomolecular level. But then few creationists are unwilling to believe in any evolution all-most young earth creationists, for example, accept what they term "microevolution". Yet both ID and YEC creationists attack evolution by name-that's a term they typically use to label what they're opposing. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't see anybody here disputing my main point. Which is (briefly) that statements that say or imply that ALL ID. believers reject evolution are wrong and unsourced. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

North8000, to what are you specifically referring? After a quick scan, I don't see anything stating, implicitly or not, that all ID proponents reject evolution. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also confused because the two examples you cited don't say or imply to me all ID proponents "reject evolution". Could you clarify or provide other examples? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@North8000, I can't see anything like what you are talking about, either. Vague complaints are not helpful. You must be specific. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I already gave one of them. I'll do some minor tweaks on it (which is all that it needs) to see what folks think. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the SPECIFIC changes you'd like to make here on the talk page first. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks. Feel free to revert (i.e. do BRD) if you do not agree.But that sentences as it was previously would certainly need a tag and is implausible and probably unsourcable....that the entire movement made/makes that statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason for this edit. I haven't reverted because the edit is quite benign and I don't want to seem unreasonable, but this is the article about ID as promulgated by the DI (see the hatnotes) and the DI runs a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" whose sole purpose is to shed a more favorable light upon ID by claiming a controversy between it and evolution. Yes, its advocates say there is a controversy, but so too does the movement, spearheaded by the DI. I just don't understand why this edit is beneficial. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the change is better grammatically (I'm not sure how a movement can "state" anything), and I'm fine with it. But I am also confused about the objection regarding "not everybody". Who else are considered members of the "movement" accept "advocates"? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Long stringing inline superscripts

This is a pet peeve of mine but any objection to combining footnotes under a single ref tag? These strings with upwards of 4,5, and 6 ref tags are cluttered and disruptive and interrupt the reading flow too much. Where this^[12] says "cite", the tone implied by this^{[12][13][14][180][181][182]} is a little too much like this^{!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!} and that ^{[8][9][10][11][12][13]} right there in the intro is the worst. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's fine to combine a string of citations provided each one is used only once in the article, and that you are certain each will not be needed more than once in the article. Several sources are cited multiple times, and some are not citations but rather end-notes, so it would make no practical sense to combine them.

I see this has already been done in the case of citation #5, which includes several other citations. I also see some end-notes that are cited together and used only once, therefore they can be grouped together.

[8] and [9] are used twice but they are used together each time, so they could be combined. Same is true for [11] and [13]. Then [8][9][10][11][12][13] in the lead could be compressed by no more than two items.

Personally, though, a string of superscripts doesn't bother me. Combining them would make the article difficult to maintain. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that too many citations is distracting and support their combination where possible. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree combining sometimes makes editing trickier but I think the article's already crossed that threshold with refs grouped elsewhere and all the other daunting markup stuffed throughout the article. Too often doing what works best for readers mitigates against what works best for editors. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just compressed all that can be compressed in the lead. Someone else take the rest as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit better. Thanks! Professor marginalia (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this about the term or the beliefs covered by the term?

Is this about the term or the beliefs covered by the term? It's probably really about both topics, but the article fails to make the distinction. For example the article says both that it is a modern invention and that it is essentially creationism, which is obviously not a modern invention. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DICTDEF, Wikipedia articles are always primarily about the topic behind the term, rather than the term itself. Like many new ideas, it is a reworking/expansion of older ideas. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about statements like "Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings.....". IMHO this article does and inevitably will talk about both and that it should just clarify which it is in each instance. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? They largely developed the meaning of the term as part of the same process as developing the topic. Unless a term comes into existence long after the topic that its describes (e.g. as was the case with "Social Darwinism"), there's really no need to distinguish the two. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, for example, there are numerous places in the article which essentially say that ID is a new name given to creationism. So you have a relatively modern term applied to a belief set that is thousands of years old. In that case the above-quoted statement is in error and should read something like ""The term intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings.....". instead. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But there's only one ID as promulgated by the DI, so there's no reason to present it here as if there is some confusion. If you want to talk about the teleological argument, it has its own article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No. What in fact it states is that ID is a new name given to a new formulation of creationism -- a new formulation that outside observers often refer to as Neocreationism. To state that "the article which essentially say that ID is a new name given to [all] creationism" is a misrepresentation of what the article states. Creationism evolves! Pretending that it's all just the same thing is silly -- and the complete opposite of what the article, in explaining ID's roots in Natural Theology and its evolution from the Creation Science movement, actually says. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest that, before North8000 attempts to lecture us on what the article is doing wrong, that they read The Creationists, and Creationism's Trojan Horse, and so attempt to gain some basic understanding of the Intelligent design movement, and its position within the wider creationist movement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll read the article again to see if I can find cases where the ideas maybe conflated incorrectly. But intelligent design is not a belief in an intelligent designer. Its premise is that science can be used to show there is one; that there is natural evidence to back a scientific conclusion or finding that some natural feature was purposefully designed in its present (or once present) form. It's not a "belief" - but a supposedly scientifically, empirically derived "conclusion". Professor marginalia (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, please lose the "before North8000 attempts to lecture us" crap. I did no such thing. I asked a question and engaged in a low key discussion. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Professor marginalia, I would ask the following three questions, including temporarily positing answers positing answers (do you disagree?) on the first two to lead to the third:

1. Does the the concept that you described ("Its premise is that science can be used to show there is one; that there is natural evidence to back a scientific conclusion or finding that some natural feature was purposefully designed in its present (or once present) form." pre-date the use of the term "intelligent design"? I submit: YES, would you agee?
2. So, what was recently invented as described in the article, the term or the concept described by the term? I submit that it was the term, would you agree?
3. Would that not mean that the sentence "Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings....." should be corrected to say that "The term intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings.....".

And this is just one example.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Answer first question: the premise is akin to the teleological argument, and the teleological argument pre-dates intelligent design. Second question, intelligent design is a new version teleological argument. Third question, the logic doesn't follow. Intelligent design is more than a "term". Its adopting a particular type of teleological argument, most obvious being the teleological argument in its original, the classic sense explicitly concluded "God created" rather than an "Intelligent being designed". Professor marginalia (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples

I have just one so far: "Some have called this approach 'methodological supernaturalism', which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity." I don't think this is even an accurate definition of methodological supernaturalism. I don't think the source is very strong there either. Was this paper ever published? And it seems like an open and shut case of WP:SYNTH - it doesn't mention or draw connections to intelligent design. Cursory googling suggests it's a fringy term anyway. Without a strong source I'd zap it completely. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is relevant to the question of whether science can defer to, or even acknowledge, supernatural phenomena. But I agree that it is either a synthesis or something got lost during paraphrase. I don't know anything about that paper, nor have I heard the term before, so unless someone can fix these issues, I say trash it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

UK program rebutting ID

There was a recent change I reverted due to its lack of really any concrete detail at all. It seems to be a recollection by someone of a video he/she saw on YouTube once. The documentary is not named and, due to the lack of details regarding the content, I could not locate any information about this program from Google. Because of these issues, I simply removed the information instead of fixing the grammar. If anyone has information on this documentary, we can re-add it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Good call, my suspicion is that rather than a Channel 4 film, it was A War on Science which was on BBC2 but was probably repeated on BBC4. Still seems to be online here. A good programme, worth watching the start for brief appearances of Attenborough and Dawkins, followed by "The Monkey Song". Already covered in List of works on intelligent design#Critical non-fiction films. However, The Root of All Evil? was on C4. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Scientific criticisms campaign

One thing I noticed when I looked up Intelligent Design (ID) in a couple of academic journal databases, was the level of animosity directed at ID by the scientific community. In fact, in one academic journal (published in Georgia, I don't remember the exact name), the academic ended her article explaining the ID concept and history by listing anti-ID organizations and encouraging readers to donate money to the anti-ID campaign! What surprised me about this was that I understood academics or scientists usually try to keep an objective distance from the subjects they cover, in order to, among other reasons, show that their conclusions or research methodologies weren't unduly influenced by personal feelings or biases. Is the scientific/academic campaign, if there is one, against ID worth mentioning in this article? Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Verification needed: do you have a reliable published source making this allegation? . . dave souza, talk 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't seen anyone in the media make the same observation that I have, that a number of scientists/academics appear to have serious heartburn over this ID idea and are engaged in open advocacy to combat it? Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Insomuch as ID is a stalking horse for creationism (not to mention being unscientific and logically flawed) yes, academics hold it in very low regard. With good reason. But such discussion is better situated in Teach the Controversy and related articles. Raul654 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. But there's no reason to bring here or there unless it's for suggesting putting something in the article about it, and for that of course the source(s) must be provided. Neither is a suitable forum for our musing about the strange behavior of scientists or ID proponents. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of subject and other editors, not the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sometimes people make assertions that are prima facie so ridiculous that they merit not even the slightest consideration. Flat earth is an example of this as is ID if it's being presented as anything other than religion. This is obvious to people in the relevant fields, i.e. biology. The problem is that some people actually take this shit seriously. This, coupled with the fact that proponents of ID are either liars or idiots (or both) and are still taken seriously is enough to drive even the most dispassionate, objective scientists a bit mad (let's face it, saying "god did it" is a lot easier than teaching biology to people with no background in science). These people are doing real harm to the US and parts of Europe, and so it's not surprising that scientists as well as scientific organizations would speak against it. Most journals open with an article about policy, health, culture, or science in society. If there's decent outside coverage of specific organizations and/or notable scientists that have campaigned in some way against ID it would probably fit into the article, though I don't know if there's any sort of "campaign" as opposed to journals just calling it like it is. Noformation Talk 01:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I appreciate the responses but need to ask, are you all aware of WP's NPOV policy? Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I am. I can understand how my post may seem not neutral because it certainly is biased, but two thing: 1. It was the only way to give you a real answer to your question and 2. The sources may not have said it as...let's say "forwardly" as I have, but there are few if any qualified biologists who would disagree with what I said, and thus it's neutral in that it represents the consensus of the scientific community. Noformation Talk 02:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I think the rule that best applies here is WP:TPNO. "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." Professor marginalia (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Well we are, Cla68 brought up the possible addition of this stuff to the article and had an incidental question; I answered the question and commented upon its use in the article. Noformation Talk 03:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC) We have a *lot* of talking about the "incidental question" and absolutely none yet about the sources or facts involved for any proposed content edits. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Wow Noformation, your hate towards people of faith is astonishing. Just because you do not understand it and believe it, doesn't mean that you can attack and ridicule the people that do. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's see what we have. I found this reference, which I don't know if there is an online version or not: Friedlander, Michael. "Intelligent design and the workings of science." Skeptical Inquirer 30.3 (2006): 16+. In the column, Friedlander calls on his fellow academics to campaign against ID, saying, "That we need to deal with the ID proponents before they reach the school boards and courts. We must not be only reactive. An informed view of science will not become widespread overnight, but if we do not start now, we will be fighting the same battles repeatedly." Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That could be something interesting to start with. Do you have that as a hard copy? I don't have online access either but I will see if I can find it in my school library and maybe help you out if you need it. I do have a subscription to Science (Journal), if there's anything in there you think you can use let me know and I'll pull up a copy for you. N^oformation ^Talk 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that. Then, this article: Gray, Terry. "Intelligent Design Uncensored." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63.4 (2011): 280+, reviews the book, Intelligent Design Uncensored by William A. Dembski and Jonathan Witt. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2010. 175 pages. ISBN: 9780830837427, which has a chapter that describes the current anti-ID sentiment among academics and recommends that college professors who believe in ID keep their belief concealed until they make tenure to avoid professional repercussions. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like you have enough to start a section. I'm low on free time but I'll help where I can if I see anything to do. N^oformation ^Talk 05:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have access to the Friedlander. Admittedly, I've just given it a very quick read, but I didn't see him argue to launch any publicity campaign or some such against ID. It sounded like he was campaigning that scientists wise up about the oncoming ID campaign and making darn sure that they attend in their science classes to explain what science is, what real science entails, so they learn what science is all about from scientists. To kinda close some of the the "ignorant about what means science" gaps, as it were. Nothing shocking about hearing from scientists wanting to educate people about science. I'll look into the second one, but note it is written by Dembski and the allegations coming from DI in the past in this vein have been very much contested, so it can't be addressed as a fact. It's a disputed issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source for Dembski's opinion, of course. For what it's worth, the review in Perspectives gently disagrees with his statement that professors would necessarily face professional censure for openly supporting ID. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this review: "Ecklund, Elaine Howard. Science vs. Religion: What Do Scientists Really Think?" Library Journal July 2010: 86, of the book named in the article title, a survey of 1700 academics and interviews with 275 more found not a single one who had a postive opinion of the ID concept or movement. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This review: Fleury, B.E. "Rieppel, Olivier. Evolutionary theory and the creation controversy." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, May 2011: 1719, of the book named in the article title states that it covers the current debate between creationists, as exemplified by the ID movement, and natural science, and ends by recommending, "the need to separate scientific progress from notions of design or purpose." Actually, this book sounds like it would be a good source for a lot of the content in this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there's a campaign against ID/Creationism! What are the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE all about? Read the first paragraph at this fairly recent PT post, which is a reprint from another activist site. One Lenny Frank claims, "Since then, I have also been a regular commentator at the well-respected Panda's Thumb blog, which serves as a nerve center for anti-creationist and anti-ID activists." Right at the top of their page, the NCSE proclaims, "NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism and climate change denial." (NCSE and most RSs define ID as a form of creationism.) We ourselves assert that "the NCSE also opposes intelligent design and other 'alternatives' to evolution because they are misleading euphemisms for creationism." Their opposition is not merely philosophical, but behind the microphone and in print.

Just wondering if we're all clear there's also an ID campaign against evolution? Yopienso (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Cla68 are you able to read and consider all these before you share them here? I've now read the book review, and sorry but that's way too weak to use either. Dembski warning ID believers to "keep it under wraps" until they earn tenure is not anything we can use to say there's any kind of active campaign against ID in science. And that's all it said in the book review. The fact is that DI does complain of discrimination in academia, and if it's not mentioned here I'm a little surprised because I've encountered it elsewhere in wikipedia. But these are weak sources to address it and are not affirmative that there is this alleged anti-ID campaign going on. The last (Ecklund) is no reference for the claim either. Sure, none had a positive opinion of ID, probably because they think it is pseudoscience. But scientists do disparage what they deem to be suck science - judging good science from bad, that's their job! Please, let's take it up a notch or two on the quality of the sources offered against the claims we're being asked to use them for here. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Professor, we're currently in the "brainstorming" phase in this discussion, are we not? Once we get some ideas and sources out here, and Yopienso has just added some helpful input, we decide what to do from there. And, I'll advise you right now, after watching this page for a couple of years, I have low tolerance for personalizing these discussions as some of the editors here have appeared to have become accustomed to doing. It's not acceptable. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)