Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 40

This is an archive of some severe trolling from May 2007, archived because there was some genuine discussion before the trollery became obvious

from "Proposal - 1650: 6 May 2007"

I went through those. No mention of Demski calculating odds for the universe. I think you were think of the assembly of proteins by chance. ProtoCat 19:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that Kenosis did not mean to raise the question of the "odds on the creation of the universe" when he wrote, "When dealing with the universe, we simply have no way to assess what the odds are." In context, he is comparing real-world probability calculation with the far more simplistic calculations that can occur in Bridge, for example. End of tangent? SheffieldSteel 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why didn't he just say so? I asked: "Did he really give odds on the creation of the universe?" The point I was making is that the odds of many things happening can be estimated fairly accurately without having exact figures. Can you agree that the formation of life was a fortuitous event? An extremely rare event where the chemicals would by chance combine correctly to form a entity that could reproduce itself? Now afterwards natural selection could have been the directing force but before that it was sheer chance. And a very slim chance. ProtoCat 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you assume that a bunch of molecules had to randomly collide in exactly the right way to produce an entity that could reproduce, then obviously the probability of that particular collision occuring at any given moment is very low. But (a) it is quite an assumption to say that the mechanism must have been one of random collisions, given all our observations of patterns forming in nature, and (b) calculations based on interactions between molecules over the age of the universe are only meaningful if you assume that there is only one universe - and for all we know, there are multiple (or infinite) universes out there, and only in those where life appeared is anyone raising the question. SheffieldSteel 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The multiverse theory is sheer pseudoscience. Akin to the infinite regression of designers. ProtoCat 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's really not. I suggest you delve into modern cosmology and physics before making sweeping statements such as this. M-theory would be a good place to start (assuming you're up to speed on quantum theory, relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and String Theory).•Jim62sch• 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think according to talk page guidelines your above post should not be here. Am I correct on that? ProtoCat 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Was it in response to your post? Yep, it sure enough was. Y'see, you can't just start a conversation and then when it doesn't go your way beg off the conversation. If you can't run with the big dogs (or cats) then stay on the porch.

Besides, from what I've seen, your account seems to exist solely for the purpose of disrupting this particular page. That's a bad thing. •Jim62sch• 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being disruptive. I asked a reasonable question. I asked if that post was against guidelines. Seems you are saying I should be standing my ground or some kind of allusion to big dogs. Sounds rather adolescent to me. At least you are not using profanities now which is good. I think I would prefer if you did not converse with me. Thank You. ProtoCat 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And I answered your question. Remember, this isn't a playground where you can decide to whom or with whom you will speak and play. When you post on Wiki, anyone can comment. If you find that reality to be disquieting, you might want to reconsider precisely what it is you expect out of your Wikipedia experience. •Jim62sch• 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying people can you use profanities, insult me, post off subject topics and I should sit 'on the porch' as you say? Anyone can comment? You just told me I was not supposed to comment. I certainly did not expect to be cussed at in my wiki experience. Please, Please show me specifically where I have been violate rules and I will very much try to correct. When I was conversing with Kenosis *I* brought up that we might be getting off subject. Really, I need an apology from you for using vulgarities which are specifically against wiki rules. And why do you keep lecturing me? Why can't you go work on something constructive and keep your mouth clean. Thank You. ProtoCat 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come now. I appreciate you don't like the word, but the word was "bulls***", which is one of the most mild profanities out there, and barely a profanity at all anymore. It's beginning to feel like you're making a concerted effort to be able to climb up on a cross as a poor martyr oppressed by mean Wikipedians. Calm down, get a sense of proportion, stop insisting that a public talk page or a user talk page you invite people to follows your exact rules for who can talk to you, and try and do something constructive. Because I'm beginning to wonder if you're a troll. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> I would appreciate if my statements were not so hastily taken out of their context, as above, so as to create an unnecessary new source of confusion. But since we're talking about this tangent, I'll take some time to clarify a bit. Notice that Shrommer made an assertion above, specifically: "It is not one example of irreducible complexity and creative genetic improvements being looked at for natural selection to act upon, but myriads." He appeared to have been making a friendly argument that when you take all the big numbers thrown around by molecular biologists, cosmologists and physicists of late (commonly included in arguments made by advocates of ID), the odds against all these events taken together occurring by random chance are vastly increased. Not necessarily disagreeing with this basic proposition, I responded with a very quick sketch of why these kinds of allegedly improbable events are not genuinely statistical, and what is the relevance of Paulos' point about the bridge game. I responded, in part: "I also find some of the estimated proportions raised by writers such as Barrow and Tipler, Polkinghorne, and Wald starting in about the mid-Eighties to be quite remarkable. But unfortunately proportions and large numbers are not valid statistics of themselves, and we simply know of only one universe to sample, and therefore cannot develop statistical analyses of what the odds might be against the conditions that exist in our universe." And I said that what ID advocates (especially Dembski) are maintaining is that they can calculate the odds [via asserting calculating a probability beyond which nothing can be asserted to be random]. The tack Dembski takes with his concepts of "specified complexity" and "universal probability bound" is via asserting a range of improbability beyond which it must have been God or an intelligent desinger of some kind that's responsible for what we observe in the universe. Even apart from the assertions of competent mathematicians and other scientists that the math is badly flawed and the assumptions wildly speculative, the more basic problem, I observed, revolves quite simply around our inability to sample any other universes than the one that gave rise to us. So when John Polkinghorne, for instance, estimates that the balance of forces required to give the universe adequate time to develop into what it presently is (a balance to within roughly 1-in-10⁶⁰, it's a remarkable observation even if somewhat speculative from an empirical standpoint. But, we can't observe any other universes so as to develop a genuine statistical analysis of it, such as to be able to say, for instance. "in universe X the balance is 1-in-10⁵⁰, only one "$\sigma$ " (one "sigma", or "standard deviation") from the average or expected value of the sample taken in this study of various universes, and look how it collapsed". Like it or not, we only have a sample of 1 (which is the only universe we presently know of).

This, as I said, is closely related to Paulos' point about the bridge hand, a scenario wherein one realizes that the odds of getting their particular bridge hand are less than one-in-600-billion, and on this basis accuses the dealer of not having dealt the hand randomly. That's all. Hope this helps to clarify. ... Kenosis 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think anyone said that if one calculates the probality of a bridge hand as less than one in 600 billion that one implies non randomness. I really feel this logic is flawed and probably cannot be explained here. I really do not think I can explain my point in this interface ProtoCat 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A statistical expectation can only be developed one way, and that is by sampling a large enough "sample" or a large enough population to develop an expectation. To assert that there is a probability associated with things that to date we only know one of, such as "the universe" or "life", is not statistics or valid probability. It's pure speculation-- at best. ... Kenosis 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We can calculate probabilites of imaginary objects or machines. We do not need samples. For instance we can calculate the probability of rolling 4569 on a pair of dice with 97 sides without sampling or even having the pair of dice exist in reality. There is an article on the actual distribution pattern of the types of multiverses that would be randomly generated. And which one could support life etc. A suprizingly large number of them would support life according to this study. Most would not of course. Most would not even get past the singularity because of the gravity problems. And of course the origins of life is speculation. Until we can build a time machine and go back and see what happened we can only speculate. ProtoCat 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

RE We can calculate probabilites of imaginary objects or machines.: True, because we know all the parameters involved in the population and possible outcomes you've specified here, and on this basis of a die with 97 possible outcomes per-die-per-roll. I say "by all means calculate" (I pesume you meant 4,5,6,9 on successive rolls). Now, you tell me, what are the odds against a balance of expansive and contractive forces in the expanding universe to within 1-in-10⁶⁰? Even a reasonable approximation will do, as far as I'm concerned here. Can this probability be calculated? ... Kenosis 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been studies that have calculated it. Similar to the Drake equation. This is an interested discussion but should we be doing it here? ProtoCat 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're close to the limits of tangent before someone steps in and says what you just said. I gotta go anyway, for now. Thanks for the exhcange. ... Kenosis 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a strawman in the argument by ProtoCat relating to the fortuitousness of life. We define life based on our limited understanding (and it's only "fortuiutous" because we define it as such). The odds of life, assuming carbon-based oxygen-breathing, water-consuming criteria, probably are small (but hardly outside a nonsensical probability bound -- our simple existence blows that theory to hell), but the odds of life are likely not so small. Life can, and very likely does, exist outside the criterion we have set for life. Even on earth, we have found thermophytes and anaerobes that exist outside the bounds we would consider conducive to life. The possibilities in other environments are virtually limitless.

Also, Kenosis' point regarding having only one sample of a universe is a very valid one. We have no idea what could happen in a universe with differing physical laws, with different chemisry and hence different criteria for biomes. Arguments such as Dembski's are simplistic and valueless: they make far to many assumptions based on a sample size of one. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So you feel that there could be life forms outside of carbon based? And in forms we have no concept of right now?

And we do have a very good idea what could happen in other universes. There is a lot of writing on this. In fact there is an article that gives a random distribution of other universes. I personally think that life forming was extremely improbable. However just as getting a perfect bridge hand is extremely improbable if one keeps dealing it will happen eventually. There was an interesting star trek where Picard stopped the first life from forming by accident. I think it is possible that life formed one time by the luckiest of coincidences. And there was a window that when passed after which it would have been impossible. There really is no way of determining these things. I think these are interesting concepts. Is there a wiki article on them somewhere? It would be a good one I think. ProtoCat 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Before humans identified the Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria, it was thought that it was caused by bad Air (hence the name): there was no postuation of "little buggies" causing the disease. Before we discovered thermophytes and anaerobes no one had speculated that they could exist. Our imaginations are limited by our experiences. Just because we cannot posit a lithium-based lifeform that breathes sulfur dioxide and drinks hydrogen peroxide does not mean such life forms wcannot exist. Hell, we assume that respiration is a necessity, yet, there is nothing definitive, not even our own limited experience, that can declare such a necessity. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: As to the bridge hand, it's not just a "perfect bridge hand", but any particular bridge hand the odds of which are one-in-over-600-billion. That part is not speculative, but straightforward statistical probability. ... Kenosis 13:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course any particular bridge hand has the same probablity as a perfect bridge hand but the point is that in the recombination of chemicals to form a living entity you need a 'perfect bridge hand' or something very close. Just any bridge hand will not do. Do you see what I am saying?

And do you see the flaw in Dawkins 'methinks weasal' probablity demonstration? Or do you think is is valid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ProtoCat (talk • contribs) 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The bridge-game illustration is John Allen Paulos, in Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences. Richard Dawkins is an example of a critic of both ID and the various teleological arguments, fine-tuned universe, and anthropic principle that ID has drawn upon, irrespective of the topic "intelligent design". While worthy of mention in the article on ID, that debate goes well beyond ID in scope. ... Kenosis 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is all speculative (though often interesting to me too). "Intelligent design" does not hold itself out as speculative or a philosophy or as theology, but as science, specifically as science that should be taught in biology classes as an alternative to evolution. The article explains this, citing to reliable sources about the matter, as well as explains the response of the scientific organizations and other critics, and also explains how the federal court system has dealt with the issues to date. It explains, citing also to reliable sources and referring to other articles as needed, the intelligent design movement, the role of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, the wedge strategy, the push to change the definition of science to allow this type of theology/religion into the realm of biology, some of the complexities of the demarcation problem and how the scientific community and the courts have dealt with it, as well as philosophical issues that are central to an understanding of ID, such as the God of the gaps issue, as well as, inter alia, widespread misapplication of the basic concept of probability as it relates to some of the assertions made by ID advocates, such as specified complexity and the universal probability bound. Pardon my run-on sentence. ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenosis (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

But ID is " the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" as opposed to unguided processes such as natural selection " correct? It is just a claim. Some people would want voodoo taught in science class that does not make voodoo science and does not change the definition of 'voodoo' Can a person believe that Intelligent design is the claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause as opposed to unguided processes such as natural selection without having it necessarily classifed as 'science' according to certain definitions? For instance the term 'communism' was used in the fifties to persecute certain americans. Communists were evil people etc. But I personally do not think 'communism' per se is evil. Just because evil people like Stalin used the concept 'communism' to get his goals and enslave people unethically did not change the definition of 'communism'? Do you see my point? ProtoCat 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I do. For a discussion of these issues without the push to teach it as biology or to hold it out as science, see, e.g., teleological argument, cosmological argument, creationism, Bible, Torah and Quar'an. If you prefer a more existential argument for the existence of God, try ontological argument. Intelligent design, on the other hand, came into being, according to the reliable sources about the matter, for one reason only, which was to attempt to teach an alternative theory to biology students (intertwined with a bit of a socio-political agenda of course, but that is beyond the necessary scope of this discussion). As I said at the very beginning of the exchange with Shrommer, this is the overwhelmingly predominant context of the words "intelligent design" in the modern world. To date, there is not one notable published use of the term "intelligent design" that is even remotely comparable in its level of notability, in any other context than the one presently dealt with by the WP article. ... Kenosis 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since wiki is publicly edited there will always be inaccuracies. As in the 'paranoia' definition and so many others. However a good scholar will go to another source and compare it to the wiki version. And they will see the difference between a populist definition and a more scholastic academic definition. There is value in that and wiki provides that. This is all very difficult to explain here. I think that enough has been said about this issue. ProtoCat 13:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here's a toast to purity of academic inquiry, a world where biblical apologetics and politics never gets confused with biology or cosmology. Maybe in the next life ;-) ... Kenosis 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, do you think this article and wiki in general is overly influence by bible believers and conservatives or more influenced by non-theists and liberals? Your toast was little hard to decipher. ProtoCat 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a loaded question, isn't it? Conflate all non-bible believers as non-theists, ignoring all other religious beliefs, ask about political leanings, ignore the issue of science completely. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think you are misreading. I do not recall saying all non-bible believers are non-theists. And I did not ignore all other beliefs. However wiki is predominatley US and christian or atheist. Ignore science? I think you are drastically misunderstanding by question. And it was addressed to Kenosis. I really do not understand what you are trying to convey. But I am not comfortable with it. ProtoCat 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... "bible believers and conservatives or... non-theists and liberals?" You seem to be presenting a straightforward choice, with the implication that it is intended (or believed) to be between mutually exclusive options. This looks less like a case of mis-reading than one of mis-writing. SheffieldSteel 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your point, please? I think you are ready some of your own biases into the question. And I did not ask you. Seems like you are trying to instigate a contentious interchange. I am not biting. Good bye. ProtoCat 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[Unindent] I'm quite happy to believe you meant something else, but, as phrased, that question is very loaded, asking a choice between two possibilities as if they were the only ones, one of the possibilities, political affiliation, being irrelevant and not actually related to the views on Christianity tied to it. As well, the question about religion classifies all people who don't classify under the questionable term "bible believers" (What does that mean? Biblical literalists? Simply Christians in general? And if the latter, why not say that?) as "non-theists", which seems to be a synonym for "atheists and agnostics". And, by combination with the political standpoint, implies all conservatives are fundamentalists, and all liberals atheists.

And none of this is actually relevant to Intelligent design, which is a battle between blind faith literalism and rationality. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page. ProtoCat 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not there is a spectrum of overlap to some degree of relgious beliefs and political stance. Bible literalists and conservative are to the right and atheists and liberals are to the left in general. Now of course this is a multidimensional representation. Now of course there are conservative atheists and liberal bible literalists but that is unusual and I think you know that. And of course we can overlap economics with socialists and capitalist etc. etc. Do you really not understand how multidimensional all this all can be?

If you believe none of this is relevant why do you keep posting? Please stop. Thank You. ProtoCat 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to have a private conversation with one particular editor, I suggest you post on their User Talk page, or use email. If, on the other hand, you want to discuss improvements to this article, in a civil manner, with any editor who reads this page and wishes to contribute, then please feel free to post here. SheffieldSteel 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I was being and am being civil. In the last few posts to me how were the contents of those posts intented to make the article better? I do not see it. Can you please stop. Thank you. Kenosis and I both realized we went too far on a tangeant here. But why do you keep responding? Please stop. Thank you. ProtoCat 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) So... is RBJ still blocked? SheffieldSteel 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

From "Right."

"Intelligent design's advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science", Where do they say that? ProtoCat 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See the five sources that's summarising – it's not verbatim, and it's not in quotation marks. ... dave souza, talk 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the sources but did not see that. I think they might want to expand the definition of science or enhance it but not a fundamental redefinition. I think that is OR. And I do not think it is in 'opposition to conventional biological science' They accept 99% of what mainstream science claims. ProtoCat 13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, you seem to have failed to notice such statements as "This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention... ID is predicated on supernatural causation... the mission [of the IDM] is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world". ... dave souza, talk 08:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

These sentences seem to be erroneous

"Intelligent design (ID) is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection."

ID does not want to be an alternative but an enhancement or addtion to present theories. ID is not in opposition to Biology. It accepts 99% of what biology states now. This sentence gives the impression that ID does not accept natural selection which it does. And it accepts mutation also. It also accepts the scientific method. Or at least most of the present interpretation of it.

I think these sentences should be deleted. ProtoCat 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As the sentences in question are heavily cited, and you have offered nothing but your opinion, the sentences stand. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the cites? ProtoCat 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is stuffed with cites already, a large number of which support the statement in question. Nonetheless I added a couple more, tacked onto the end of the second sentence, but covering both. ... Kenosis 22:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Enhancement"? ID is simply incompatible with science in general, and biological science in particular. If you haven't yet reviewed the article Scientific method, you might find it useful in understanding the difference between actual science and what the ID group refers to as "scientific". The current version of the sentence is quite accurate and should remain. Doc Tropics 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have thoroughly reviewed the article. ProtoCat 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a theory of anything by any standard. It isn't science. It isn't Biology. That last 1% is what makes all of the difference. Orangemarlin 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. ID is not in opposition to biology. ProtoCat 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it just seeks to create its own version. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange then that over 99% of all professional biologists feel that it is. I wonder why that is? Are all biologists just stupid then? --Filll 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Show me the cite where 99% of biologist think ID is in oppostion to biology. ProtoCat 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, look at the references. 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The instant you insist on including magic, the supernatural and other assorted unscientific mumbo-jumbo, you are not using the scientific method. Intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology. And that is being generous.--Filll 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is including magic? or the supernatural. The point I am making is that it ID is not in opposition of biology. It accepts natural selection and mutations. Those sentence imply that a person who accepts ID rejects natural selection and mutations and the scientific method which is simply not the case. ProtoCat 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are unaware of the necessity of including the supernatural in science, you are clearly not familiar with intelligent design. You better do more reading.--Filll 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to do more reading and thinking. Do not just accept what your gurus tell you. ProtoCat 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they're accurate. Odd nature 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the cites? ProtoCat 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times a month do we have to get into this conversation? Orangemarlin 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It comes up often enough that I have to take my shoes off to keep count. The consolation is that once I'm barefoot, I can peel two bananas at the same time (ya just gotta love those prehensile toes, right?). Doc Tropics 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Prehensile toes aside, we should create a bot that zaps these repetitive sentences. Think of them as mutations that were not among the fittest. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Creationists will be selected against. Think about it. Evolution is the basis of all biological sciences, including medicine. Well, if they think evolution is false, then may<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">be they'll refuse products, like say a vaccine, that is a result of of evolutionary synthesis. Then they start dying off from smallpox or something. Suddenly, the world will be filled with evil "Evolutionists." Then we can take over their homes and cars. We can reverse the 2000 vote, and just erase George W Bush from the history books. Then I'd install myself as the Atheist Ruler of the Planet. I can see it now. Oh, sorry, I got distracted. Orangemarlin 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is not the basis of all biological science. You are aware that 'creationists' accept mutations and natural selection. Where do you get this info? Do you think creationists believe that allelles do not change over time. Of course they do. ProtoCat 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing ID, not creationism. Oh, my bad, they're one in the same. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Some creationists and intelligent design advocates believe that allelles change with time. Some do not. Some believe in mutations. Some do not. Some believe in natural selection. Some do not. Some believe in a young earth. Some do not. What most if not all creationists and intelligent design advocates push for is the inclusion of the supernatural in science, where it has no place. And as Theodosius Dobzhansky famously wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” So do some reading and learn what you are talking about before you spew more nonsense on these pages. Thanks.--Filll 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very aware of Dobzhansky's statement. I know what I am talking about. And that is uncivil to say I am 'spewing nonsense' Just because TD states something does not mean it is true. Is that how you accept things as truth. TD says it and you just agree without analysis? That sounds like cultism. Creationists believe in natural selection and mutations. Why do you think they don't? You should do some reading on it if you believe that. ProtoCat 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to proclaim the "truth", whatever that is, but to write an encyclopedia article. And all that matters is what is verifiable. And yes, what TD has written is verifiable. Sorry.--Filll 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A man says something and that makes it a verifiable source? I don't think so. Sorry. ProtoCat 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinda depends on the man. See WP:RS. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a great explanation. ProtoCat 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A freindly reminder about WP:Don't bite the newbies! Filll, thanks for pointing out Dobzhansky's article Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, a classic piece of literature written in the face of tremendous resistance from religious quarters. As to the more basic questions that keep popping up on this page, I like the notion of a link to a voice-mail message; can this be done on WP? "Please listen to the following options, as our menu has changed. Para español, marque dos. If your question is "why isn't intelligent design a scientific theory?, press 3", etc. ... Kenosis 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

LMAO! I love the idea, but I'm afraid we're stuck with doing it manually for now : ) Doc Tropics 00:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My point seems to be too subtle to be explained here. ::: My point is that 'creationsits' believe in natural selection and mutations. Show me any source that says otherwise, Please. ProtoCat 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to disabuse you of your notion, but if "creationists" believe in all the same thing that conventional scientists do, then what is the problem? The problem is that they do not believe in all the same things. They believe that there is some limit to what natural selection and mutations and genetic drift can accomplish. The hand of God must magically appear to create species at certain times, since there is some sort of invisble species boundary that evolution cannot cross without exterior help. However, there are some creationists who believe this, and others who believe that God must intervene even more often and profoundly. And all kinds of other variations. There is no single "creationist" belief. Far from it. Some of them are so angry at each other that they engage in viscious attacks and diatribes against each other, since they cannot agree on what biblical literalism implies. It was always thus. That is why we have literally tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity, and several thousand different religious sects of various kinds.--Filll 00:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying creationist = IDer? I thought we were talking about ID here. I think you are mixing terms and issues ProtoCat 00:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That creationists (in general) do believe in natural selection and mutations is plain wrong. Some ID believers do, some do not; as Filll has just pointed out. Please be aware that many ID-believers - and practically all scientists believing in ID - are far from being creationists.

You should really check out creationism before saying such things. Filll's objections to your arguments were in fact correct. Malc82 00:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Protocat, you equated the two above. Read your own screed. Sheesh. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationists are equal to ID'ers. There are a number of references that show that. And as for Protocat, I'm beginning to be convinced that we're not dealing with a newbie. Hmmmmmm. Orangemarlin 01:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of ID-believers who aren't creationists, simply because ID in its basic form is a very vague concept and institutions such as the DI deliberatlely count peolpe with very different positions as part of their "movement". That being said, I also doubt that ProtoCat is a newbie. The last edits are bordering on trolling. Malc82 01:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there do seem to be some similarities with previous editors. Odd, that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I dunno, they all start to sound alike after awhile. Maybe we should just copy-and-paste this section back onto the talkpage every few days; it would have the same net effect. Note that this isn't intended as an attack on anyone, but as a wry observation on the nature of certain controversial talkpages...Doc Tropics 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to tell if an editor is just repeating some nonsense picked up off of "Answers in Genesis" or "Creation Research", if they genuinely are confused and are asking a newbie question, or are intentionally stirring up trouble once again. It blends together. But the modus operandii of certain users starts to sound familiar. Orangemarlin 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Modus operandi aside (and acknowledged) and since we're already off-topic again and onto the creation-evolution debate for a brief spell, I think it deserves to be acknowledged that there remain many, many things that biology hasn't yet fully explained. Among these many aspects that require much more research, three things tend to stand out in this debate today: punctuated equilibrium, morphogenesis, and, of course, abiogenesis. With it understood, hopefully, that the words "intelligent design" don't successfully address any of these issues merely by attibuting these and other phenomena to, in essence "something really smart", it ought be conceded that there is a whole lot of work yet to be done in the various biological sciences. If, and I'm speculating here, if the underlying point that ProtoCat is trying to get to in some way is that some kind of consciousness is involved in these three phenomena and maybe others, a potentially useful theory or "sub-theory" in biology ought depend, I should think, on what's meant by the word "consciousness". If by "consciousness" one means a reciprocal feedback system of some kind that might be involved in the process of discrete speciation (closely related to Gould's observation of "punctuated equilibrium", part of the "controversy" that ID advocates have chosen to harp upon), I trust that biologists will in the future develop one or more "sub-theories" that better explain what occurs when species transition from one form to another. And heck, it may turn out to be some manner of change that's not merely a totally random set of gene mutations independent of any other factors. But that, of course, if it turns out to be what's going on, will require empirical evidence and a theory that can be replicated out in the field by the folks that do the hard work of investigating and cataloguing the numerous species. Which brings me back to ID, a proposition that at best has provided nothing useful in advancing the field of biology. ... Kenosis 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Protocat, the statement is accurate because ID is a rejection of science. To begin with, no science can be built upon deception. ID is built on a foundation of deception, and thus stands in opposition to biology. ID rejects methodological naturalism, which is the foundation of the scientific method. Biology is a science, built upon methodological naturalism. Thus, ID stands in opposition to biology. And finally, biology is built upon evolution. Without phylogeny there is no basis for an awful lot of inference in biology. Without inference, there is no science, just stamp collecting. A method of knowing which is built upon the acceptance of supernatural explanations is unable to generate new knowledge (as has been shown by the total lack of science on the part of ID over the last 20 years, despite the millions of dollars that they have had at their disposal). ID is an anti-scientific "way of knowing" about the natural world. Consequently, it stands in opposition to biology, which is a scientific "way of knowing" about the natural world. Guettarda 12:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Again all of the above is your OR. Where is the cite that indicates that a propononent of ID states 'we are opposed to biology'? ProtoCat 12:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all I do not think one can go throught a logical process and then make a conclusion and post that conclusion on wiki. I think that is what was done on those sentences. Where is the cite that indicates that a propononent of ID states 'we are opposed to biology'? And with the TD quote. Why can a man say something and then it is a verifiable source? I am sure I can find lots of quotes to the opposite. Many scientists have said that biology is independent of the study of origins. I can find quotes for that. Can I use those? ProtoCat 12:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because this isn't the Origin of life article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote you took stands in the context of the political movement and the article already references dozens of sources that either implicitely or explicitely state that the political ID movement is in opposition to science. This is not at all OR. The TD quote is not "evidence" but a very well-known argumentation, which the editor maybe didn't want to point out in detail. Malc82 14:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The IDM is not in opposition to 'science' Please show me the source that explicitly states that. And ID accepts 99% of biology so how could it 'oppose' it? And where is the cite for that? I see how this works. Rules are selectively enforced here so erroneous statements can be published. Any good scholar would see right through this and from what I read people advise not to take this encyclopeda too seriously. I have asked for the cites on these things a dozen times and never got an answer. I think I see how this works here. ProtoCat 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You are asking for a cite for the IDM being in opposition to science, is that correct? Which statement in the article do you feel is inadequately sourced? Please paste it here, so I understand exactly which statement you feel is unsourced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to mentor ProtoCat, but it's been difficult. I think that ProtoCat, who makes a statement that ID accepts 99% of biology is unable to source that statement, first of all, but more importantly, since this is not a Biology article, but one on ID, which explicitly and implicitly denies Evolution through the only two scientifically reasonable processes, genetic drift and natural selection. Without those two items, what's there to have in biology? Orangemarlin 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

“Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.” ID accepts 99% of biology? Source, please. ..... dave souza, talk 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not proposing putting my statement in the article. So I do not have to come up with a cite. That is my point. The article says 'ID is in opposition to biology' and I said that statement should be deleted whether or not it is true because it does not have a source. This is the way the rules work here. Sorry. But I am beginning to see that rules are not enforced. ProtoCat 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article does not say "opposition to biology". Rather, it says, as it has for quite some time now: Intelligent design (ID) is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection. Six footnotes are presently provided in support of this statement, which is also supported by a consensus-based choice of language that reasonably expresses the information gleaned from the various other sources in the article. By "reasonably expresses", I mean to say that reasonable, objective persons without a pre-existing agenda relating to how the statement is phrased would generally understand what the sentences are stating about ID, and that it would be regarded by such persons as consistent with what the WP:reliable sources also say about ID. ... Kenosis 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The proponents of ID have stated over and over that the definition of science has to be enlarged to include the supernatural (so things like magic and astrology and alchemy and magic spells and witches and ghosts and so on would have to be defined as science along with intelligent design and God and any number of other gods as well). I do not have a cite readily at hand, but I am sure I can find a few hundred if you doubt this. Just this alone is enough to make ID unscientific, and in fact, antithetical to the scientific method and pure poison for science. THIS is why ID is opposed by the vast majority of scientists and why it has lost in legal battles in court, as is well documented. You doubt this? You want sources? Read the article and its references and then get back to me.--Filll 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for cites over and over again and I do not get them. Those sentence seem to be OR to me. I think your logic in the above is faulty. But again we cannot use OR here. But it seems that what really matters here is how many people support a POV. Wiki is a good source many times but not always. Nothing is perfect. Like I said a good scholar will search many sources and see how a few wiki articles are erroneous. That's just the way it is. I can live with it. I will be waiting for those cites. Thank You . ProtoCat 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these sorts of claims are easily cited(and are in fact cited in the article I think) to both Behe's astrology comments in the Dover testimony and Jones' subsequent findings of fact in the trial among other places. JoshuaZ 17:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Show me. ProtoCat 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes 15 to 19, at time of writing. Really, I wish you'd learn to click on the little numbered boxes next to the information you doubt: It takes you straight to the footnotes in question. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The sarcasm is unnecessary and borderline uncivil. I looked at the cites. No where does it say that 'ID is in oppostion to biology' Show me. Thanks. Of course a person can use OR to conclude that but there is no quote that says that. ID accepts 99% of biology so how could it be in opposition to it. That would like saying Einstein was in opposition to Physics because he did not believe in ether. Really Please. ProtoCat 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I smell a troll--Filll 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

“Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.” ID accepts 99% of biology? Source, please. ..... yes, Filll, something under that bridge? ... dave souza, talk 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been so difficult to mentor young ProtoCat. He has not grasped the rules on civility and personal attacks. Well, maybe some of you can help out on his talk page. The sources, to which young ProtoCat keeps referring, are found throughout so many articles here, it would take days to list them. Orangemarlin 18:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to quote a bit of Behe's testimony at Kitzmiller to try and answer Protocat's question. I don't like doing this: Behe has an awful habit of whittering on for ages and ages. A. = Behe.

A. Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And where does he say he is 'opposed to biology' ? The sentence I want remove is where it say ID is 'opposed to biology' This above is discussion is about the term 'theory' ProtoCat 19:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"It stands in opposition to conventional biological science," where is the cite? ProtoCat 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ProtoCat 19:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't read citations much do you? From the Kitzmiller citation as given: "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena." So if anything, ID stands in opposition not just to biology but to science. JoshuaZ 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?)." - William Dembski

How's that?Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, we ought to consider adding that as a cite, along with the others... Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And where does he say he is 'opposed to biology' ? The sentence I want remove is where it say ID is 'opposed to biology' Saying he wants be biologists to have more understanding of engineering is saying is opposed to biology? He is dead on with that comment. Most biologists I have talked to do not understand how machines work. Most of them are categorizers. ProtoCat 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about firing every professor who he can - that is, without tenure, dismantling all divisions of biology but the one that superficially supports his preferred metaphor, shoving the rest of the tenured faculty off into a ghetto-department! Zoology? Botany? microbiology? Mycology? Goodbye! Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that it was necessary, but I added three more citations to help reassure any wary participants that the editors of this article are playing by the rules of WP:A and other relevant fine print having to do with the substantive and procedural aspects of Wikipedia articles. ... Kenosis 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can put 500 number after 'it stands in opposition to conventional biological science' but if none of the cites actually state what the sentence says it is OR. I see how things work here. You make up something you believe in then find a cite that is in the basic same subject area. Then interpret the cite as backing up what you are saying. Clever but disingenuous. ProtoCat 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Six footnotes are presently provided in support of this statement, which is also supported by a consensus-based choice of language that reasonably expresses the information gleaned from the various other sources in the article. By "reasonably expresses", I mean to say that reasonable, objective persons without a pre-existing agenda relating to how the statement is phrased would generally understand what the sentences are stating about ID, and that it would be regarded by such persons as consistent with what the WP:reliable sources also say about ID. As to the extent of consensus involved in the statement in the article, that can be read: "an extremely strong and stable consensus" or "it's not even reasonably reasonably debatable that the point is settled". ... Kenosis 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"objective persons without a pre-existing agenda" ???? Behe simply did not say you what you are saying he said. you are making your own conclusions because you do not like ID or DI correct? ProtoCat 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

oppostion to biology

"He's talking about firing every professor who he can - that is, without tenure, dismantling all divisions of biology but the one that superficially supports his preferred metaphor, shoving the rest of the tenured faculty off into a ghetto-department! Zoology? Botany? microbiology? Mycology? Goodbye! Adam Cuerden talk 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)"

Yes he is saying that he does not think many biology depts are run correctly. I do not see how that means he 'opposes biology'. You are really stretching. So he does not like the present education system. he did not say 'I oppose biology' the statement is OR. no one has provide a cite. sure you are implying things from what he says. isn't that called 'quote mining'? ProtoCat 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No! He is saying that biology depts should not exist. This most certainly means that he "opposes biology." He is not saying anything whatsoever about whether biology depts are "run correctly." He doesn't want a biology dept at all and would fire all non-tenure biology staff. Hrafn42 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please. He is simply saying that the present crop of biologists are weak in engineering skills. Which is true. And saying you want to rearrange biology depts does not mean you 'oppose biology' quite the opposite. You want it to be studied more correctly. And still you are interpreting what he states in a metaphor about biology depts as his 'opposing biology' Really that is quite a long, long stretch. He is absolutely right on his explanation of theories and in this article he taken completely out of context and quote mined to death. ProtoCat 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"He is simply saying that the present crop of biologists are weak in engineering skills."

He is not saying this. He is saying that the only biologists that have any value are those that have engineering skills and that the only form of biology that has value is that which can be considered to be a sub-field of engineering. This is a profoundly anti-biology statement.

"Which is true."

There is no reason whatsoever to expect Biologists to be trained in engineering, they are only tenuously related fields.

"And saying you want to rearrange biology depts does not mean you 'oppose biology' quite the opposite."

Getting rid of all non-tenure staff and placing all tenure staff who don't know a tenuously-related field (i.e. engineering) into a ghetto-department mockingly called the "Department of Nature Appreciation" isn't "rearrangement." It is the virtual destruction of the biology department -- a highly anti-biology move.

"You want it to be studied more correctly."

William Dembski is neither a Biologist nor even a scientist. He is grossly unqualified to determine how Biology may be "studied more correctly," and in any case seems determined to minimise the extent that it will be studied at all.

"And still you are interpreting what he states in a metaphor about biology depts as his 'opposing biology' Really that is quite a long, long stretch."

No! The "long, long stretch" is your claim that this anti-biology rant is a mere "metaphor."

"He is absolutely right on his explanation of theories and in this article he taken completely out of context and quote mined to death."

William Dembski is a dishonest religious ideologue whose pseudo-mathematical gibberish has been described as "written in jello" by a prominent mathematician. The quote is in context, and fairly typical of the ludicrous anti-scientific rants on his blog. Hrafn42 14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like in context to me, if you think it is out of context please explain in detail how it is out of context. The statement that you are going to dismantle departments and completely remove most area of biology and that there will be no biology departments at all in his ideal world sounds pretty opposed to biology. JoshuaZ 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

is there a source, cite for the following?

"If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?)." - William Dembski How's that?Adam Cuerden talk 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by ProtoCat)

If you looked at the original more than a moment, you'd have seen the entire post is a link to the cited text. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)