Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

Fossil Record?

One of Phillip Johnson's main objections to evolution (in "Darwin on Trial") is that it is not supported by the fossil record. Should a discussion of the fossil record be in the article? GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnson's record is cracked (he's from the era of 78s, so he'd get that). At most merits a brief reference to CC200 .. dave souza, talk 10:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Intelligent design, not objections to evolution (though there may be lack of clarity at times between the two). Is this an attempt to make a point?--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I just thought it was one of the main arguments used by the ID people. Is this an attempt to make a point? GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not an article about ID people or (all) their arguments. See intelligent design movement, Discovery Institute, and Discovery Institute campaigns.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article. It is not a place to answer the comments of the intelligent design supporters, or engage in debate. You might want to investigate Talk Origins or Talk Reason or Talk Design instead. Also, the entire premise of this comment is a bit silly:

  • Phillip E. Johnson is a lawyer, and therefore is no authority whatsoever on dinosaurs and fossils or evolution, in spite of his pandering vacuous book. We are an encylopedia, not a place to publish and answer the rants of cranks.
  • The vast majority of paleontologists and anthropologists and geologists have no problem with the fossil record. However, that is not discussed in this article, but the appropriate articles dealing with that subject
  • Well over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields believe that the complaints of ID supporters like Phillip E. Johnson are just pure nonsense, to put it politely. Since it is a minority position, we will treat it as such (see level of support for evolution for example)
  • What you might be looking for is Objections to evolution, which is the closest that we have on Wikipedia, or Misconceptions about evolution, but they do not address that point exactly, I do not think. Wikipedia is written with a different goal in mind than answering this sort of junk by the uninformed and ignorant.--Filll (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a POV issue. You are engaging in debate here. I was not engaging in debate, I was asking if an argument brought up by one of the leading proponents of ID belongs in the ID article, I was not discussing its merits or demanding that anyone agree with it, or agree with me. I didn't ask for anyone to answer anything. Please try to assume good faith. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This article cannot have everything in it. It is too long as it is. This has to be relegated to daughter articles. If you want to write articles on the claims that have come out of intelligent design supporters, and the response to them by the science community, be my guest.--Filll (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So, maybe a separate article about ID objections related to the fossil record? GusChiggins21 (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Put is it an ID objection, an ID proponent objection, a Discovery Institute objection, or a Johnson objection. (or even simply a creationist objection)--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would check around first with others. My personal opinion is that topic might be too narrow for an article. I would suggest you research the subject more carefully, and compile all of the main arguments of ID supporters, and if that is too broad, maybe all the main arguments of Johnson and the response by the mainstream community to them. Perhaps if you added Meyer's material about fossils, and a few others, it might be enough for an article, but I am not an expert. You would have to do some digging. Probably wouldnt hurt to read their books, for example. Probably you could get them in the library if you had to.--Filll (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is covered at Darwin on Trial#Overview, which could probably do with citations and a brief reference to the common creationist claim he is reiterating, as well as Eldredge's response to these claims in pointing out that punk eek is still a gradual process, if intermittent. The claim had already been made in Of Pandas and People, and refutation of the claim formed a significant part of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where Kevin Padian testified on October 14 – that could do with expansion, see the Nova programme for a summary. ... dave souza, talk 08:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a pointless fork. No DI objections towards the fossil record are that unique to the DI to require a specific DI-objections article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Junk Science Link

Including a junk science is not NPOV. It's saying that it is junk science, which according to the article,"The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives." That shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. RJRocket53 (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an accurate reflection of how a significant proportion of the scientific community has received ID, so is required by NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", in my opinion. Of course ID may be theological Truth, but unfortunately they claim it's science. ... dave souza, talk 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Has intelligent design been called "junk science" (those words) by any notable person? If it has, then it's perfectly NPOV to include a link to that - ID is linked to junk science by the sourced person saying that ID is junk science. If it hasn't, then applying the definition ourselves to decide that it applies to this case is probably an original research synthesis. TSP (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
...and yes, it has, because we source it in reference 17; so this is fine to include. TSP (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure it is. As long as it remains a notable viewpoint and verifiable per our policies, it is required by WP:NPOV for a balanced article. BTW, it has been shown that the leading ID proponents meet all four motives ascribed to junk science. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Intelligent Design" or better simply "design of some sort", would be a logical probable theory to know how to make acceptable to the Scientific method. I have the semantics and definitions for this ! But I do not defend religion as such. And there is a lot of junk science, published as a fact or science, and also there are a lot of junk religious books ! User: GeorgeFThomson ( (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Identity of the designer

Who says the designer's identity is relevant? And who says it's not?

Are all sides in the intelligent design controversy agreed that the designer's identity is essential?

If not, then is there a dispute between (1) a side that says the designer's identity is essential to ID's critique of evolution and (2) a side that says ID's critique of evolution should be considered without reference to the designer's identity?

Consider (again) the example of Edgar Allen Poe's Murder in the Rue Morgue. A person showed signs of having been murdered. Everyone assumed a human being did it. But it turned out to be a different kind of being - what some biologists (or theologians?) would call a "lower form of life".

Anyway, what I'm asking is whether anyone "out there" in the world of academia (like science or theology) has requested that ID's critique of evolution be broken down into two parts:

  1. the assertion that "life shows signs of having been designed" - and arguments over whether this means that natural causes alone are sufficient; and,
  2. speculation about the identity of the intelligent designer, such as "Is it God?" or "If God exists, who created Him?" (opening salvo in an atheistic argument)

If this is only my own idea, then I'll take it elsewhere. But I'm asking all you knowledgeable contributors here whether any published authors have floated it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is more complex than that. The two main issues are:

  1. The militant disinterest that ID's intellectual elite exhibits towards the identity of the designer, in stark contrast with scientific pursuits (and academia generally), where we'd normally expect intense speculation, and efforts to propose and shoot down hypotheses.
  2. The fact that this carefully unnamed designer leaves an equally carefully crafted God-shaped hole, leaving no doubt that this is an exercise in Christian apologetics, not bleeding-edge science.

It is not the identity of the designer, per se, but what the failure to make any attempt to identify him lets slip, that is the crucial issue. HrafnTalkStalk 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It has to be realized why the Discovery Institute tries not to identify the designer. It is for at least two reasons, I think. It is for legal reasons, to dodge the court rulings. And it is to make a big tent, to focus on "mere creation" so that the internicine warfare between various interests groups is quelled, at least for the moment.
Also, this is of interest by other creationists, who do not understand or seem to understand this strategy. Many other creationists or apologetics have attacked the intelligent design movement for this reason. This is part of the reason there is some trouble associated with the upcoming movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in its content and promotion. Other creationists are also jealous of the money and attention the intelligent design movement gets. We have many examples of brutal attacks on intelligent design for this reason. For example, see Beyond Intelligent Design.
Therefore, one reason to focus on the identity of the designer on WP is to unmask this legal strategy. It is also to document the basis of conflict with other creationists, and the impression that the rest of the apologetics community has of intelligent design. --Filll (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Brutal"? I would consider Beyond Intelligent Design to be about as brutal as being gummed by a toothless chihuahua. But maybe it's the thought that counts. HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point.--Filll (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I also note that part of the disgust expressed by Harun Yahya for intelligent design is this very issue; refusal to identify the intelligent designer.--Filll (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Filll and Hrafn, for taking my queries seriously and giving me plenty of food for thought. Happy New Year to you both! --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the section entitled "theological problems"

The views expressed in this deleted section were well written, concise, legitimate views published by two authors in two separate books by two separate publishing houses. I would hardly call these views "under-represented." To remove them is to fail to provide a comprehensive encyclopedic explanation of ID, its facets and the consequences of its assertions. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I read your edits and enjoyed them (and would enjoy reading more if you find a place where they belong). But I'm not sure they belong in this article. There was once a movement here to include the catholic take on IDC, the jewish take on it, the protestant view, the fundie view, etc. That ended up looking like a theological train wreck that seemed to lack focus and took away from the article. Adding every viewpoint was spinning out of control. Again, I enjoyed reading your work (and the authors cited), I just don't know if this article warrants that entry. Maybe in a related IDC article it would work? But who am I to say, I don't even have an account!
One more point, when you have one religionist saying the other religionist is wrong, you have two people with an unreliable viewpoint that cannot be proven. From a religious standpoint who can say with any authority that IDC is bunk? You can make this claim and back it up from a science viewpoint, but not a religious one. What gives religionist A more credibility than religionist B? When someone says "your god is too small" what the hell did they use to measure him with? furthermore, saying "your god is ______" is silly until you can demonstrate the god in question exists in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I as well think that there might be a place for this material, but not in this article. I would advocate a subsiduary daughter article. Some people on creationism pages have advocated something similar and I have also said there that we need a daughter article for this kind of material. We just cannot shove all of it in this one article, which is already too long.--Filll (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


in the see more section (or whatever) someone has linked to deism note there is no mention of intelligent design in the deism article. why is it being linked? linking to it smacks of POV, especially since I don't recall EVER hearing anyone from the IDC camp memntioning the word deism. You might wish IDC was related to deism, that might make IDC more credible, but as of yet there is no relationship between deism and IDC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that people were trying to shove inappropriate links into see also lately. I deleted some, but of course they are persistant.--Filll (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well if the link to deism is restored can I link to Bob Marley? He, like deism, has nothing to do with IDC but he wrote some cool songs.
I figured it would make sense to link to Deism since Deism is similar to Intelligent Design (both state that the universe was created by a God). Obviously, there are also differences (Deists reject Christianity and other religions that claim to have revelations from God, while Intelligent Design tends to assume that the Creator is the Christian God; Deism doesn't claim to be science, while Intelligent Design does), but there are also similarities. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, the IDists are very much anti-deism, they want theistic realism with empirical evidence of God lying about, not a Darwinian idea of God as a creator of unchanging laws. As for Marley, not from anything I can recall, but Genomic Dub Collective Origin in Dub: the Video Mix Bonus Track: Dub fi Dover should be ok ;) . . . dave souza, talk 01:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware that the people promoting the "science" known as Intelligent Design are opposed to Deism. One deist website refers to Intelligent Design as "Creation Science" masquerading as Deism (see [1]). It appears that there is a consensus that Deism shouldn't be in the See Also section, so I will defer to that consensus. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ID and God

Have we clarified yet whether ID asserts the existence of God?

I have read contradictory information on this point.

  • The consensus of Wikipedia writers hostile to ID is that ID entails belief in God
  • Other anti-ID writers, outside of Wikipedia and hence capable of being referenced as sources, generally agree that ID is identical to the argument from design for God's existence

However, I have recently read some pro-ID information that:

  • claims ID is just a critique of naturalistic evolution (e.g., "the flagellum couldn't have just evolved because the parts are useless until the whole thing is assembled)
  • claims ID's critque of naturalistic evolution is "scientific" and can be evaluated separately from any religious implications

Am I just making this up (WP:OR is not permitted, I know!) or have notable published writers made these points? If they have, would it be allowable under any Wikipedia rules or guidelines to include these ideas in the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sourced material of course is appropriate. However, "ID's critque of naturalistic evolution is "scientific"" seems to contradict what already is known: ID is inherently unscientific. Second, merely observing "science cannot answer all questions" (paraphrasing) seems to me insufficient to warrant the term "an alternative explanation." Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a "big tent" that Johnson has constructed to try to deal with only mere creation". This covers many flavors of ideas. However, one common idea is the existence of an intelligent designer, and from the quotes of almost all the main proponents and promoters of intelligent design we have collected, this intelligent designer is the Christian God and even a particular version of the Christian God in most cases. They of course do not always call the intelligent designer God since this is bad for them on legal grounds in the United States. This is noted in the article. The other common feature of all those in the big tent is a rejection of "methodological naturalism" and its more stringent cousin, "metaphysical naturalism". That is, the desire to find room for the supernatural in science, although they do not always call it the supernatural since that word has bad connotations, and probably has negative legal consequences as well. So there is what they advocate and claim, and then there is how they disguise it, and then there is how outsiders view it. And these are all covered in the article at present.--Filll (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's legitimate to describe (but not define, especially in the lead) ID as a "critique of naturalistic evolution", as long as we realise that the vital word is not "evolution", but "naturalistic". ID implies - and ID proponents, including Behe on the witness stand, have stated explicitly - that the designer is supernatural. Is it legitimate not to describe a supernatural designer as "God"? I don't think so. Tevildo (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's legitimate to describe it as a "critique" only if you're careful to differentiate the core ("mini-ID" per Sober above) assertion that "design is a better explanation" from the more amorphous 'maxi-ID' that contains critiques (IC, CSI, FTU) that are not inherent in mini-ID. HrafnTalkStalk 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All ID advocates believe the designer to be the god of the Jews; this has been made abundantly clear. They attempt to pretend to random people that it is otherwise, but to groups of supporters (Christians, really) they do state that the designer is their god. We MUST point this out, as omitting it would be to omit reality and would not be neutral. Just because it makes the IDers look bad and exposes them as liars doesn't mean we shouldn't include it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

is there no advocates of intelligent design within moderate Islam? According to the page on Islamic creationism "the ideas of Islamic creationists are closer to Intelligent design than to Young Earth Creationism." ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Um the main supporters of Islamic creationism (those associated with Harun Yahya) have come down soundly against intelligent design, seeing it as an evil western plot against Islam to impose Christianity on the Muslim world. They also hate the Jews, being strongly antisemitic and Holocaust deniers and anything that would boost the God of the Jews over Allah would not go down too well.--Filll (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"[DI] claims ID is just a critique". (was this Expelled by any chance) -- anyway. ID proponent material is often non-consistent even to the point of contradiction. (Is it merely a critique, or a rival explanation with superior science, or a shining of light of god-given revelation in a world-gone-mad?). I think it would help best if you linked or said your source. Then we could evaluate it and how best to put it in. DI's and other significant pro-ID views do belong in here, but they need to be expressed as such, they will likely not outweigh major consensus from multiple, repeated, independent secular sources that equate ID with teleology.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not endorse a consensus but merely indicate its existence. Hence, my attribution of the view that ID is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God to "the academic and legal community".
Baloney! Should we likewise insert wording to indicate that it is only "a consensus" that the Earth is round? Unless you can demonstrate a substantive opposing view, there is no reason for these WP:WEASEL-words. HrafnTalkStalk 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We should note that some advocates claim that ID is not making the teleological argument.
Substantiate this, don't just assert it. HrafnTalkStalk 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably the most important part of the ID controversy is whether ID should be taken mainly as a critique of evolution ("natural forces aren't enough") or as a campaign to promote creationism ("only God could have done it").
While the motivation for making the argument this way is religious in nearly every case, we ought to tell our readers that the political or philosophical arguments for Creationism consist of distinct steps:
  1. "Pure ID": Evolution isn't enough
  2. "Creationism": Because evolution isn't enough, we must look (philosophically or religiously) for a Creator. Come to our church and find out more! :-)
This structure is purely fallacious. The core (i.e. "pure") "mini-ID" assertion contains a designer/Creator. The "Evolution isn't enough" arguments are on the penumbra of ID, not at its centre. HrafnTalkStalk 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The ID article will be much improved when it distinguishes between (1) the critique of evolution and (2) the use this critique has in the wedge strategy, etc. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you present any substantiation that the critiques are any more fundamental to ID than the Wedge Strategy is? HrafnTalkStalk 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I came here not to argue but to describe. I do not have a position on ID. My religious faith is unrelated to it.
If your religion is that of the Unification Church (as your editing patterns seem to indicate), then I would dispute that your "religious faith" is unrelated to anti-Evolution beliefs and thus to ID. HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you have information that ID is primarily (or only) an element of the Wedge Strategy. Perhaps you agree with the scientific and legal mainstream and disagree with the points made by ID advocates.
The Wedge Strategy and the origins of ID are inextricably intertwined. In fact the ID movement referred to itself as the "Wedge movement" during those formative days. HrafnTalkStalk 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If so, I hope we can work together to create an article which fulfills Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If I recall correctly, the non-negotiable requirements are (1) to describe each view fairly and (2) to refrain from endorsing any view as "true" or "correct" or "real".
Do you and I have the same interpretation of NPOV policy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Evidently not, Ed. You're ignoring WP:NPOV/FAQ and the undue weight sections, and adding original research without a reliable source. Two reliable secondary sources are shown, you want to upstage them by your vague memory of some primary source. And if you study ID, you'll note that its proponents present it as validating the existence of God, and at least Behe refers specifically to Paley's argument as a forerunner. ... dave souza, talk 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It appears that Ed, once again and despite being on arbcom probation for just this, is edit warring to to enforce his own, slanted notion of what WP:NPOV is and demands and lack of awareness on the topic and expects us all to accept his notions and state of understanding at face value. The content he questions is supported not only by the sources provided in the aritcle, but by the own statements of the ID proponents provided later in the article; ID is an argument for the existence of God. Try reading the sources already in the article about what Johnson and Dembski say about the identity of the designer and the purpose of the ID argument next time Ed. Later today I'll be adding sources to the passge he's editing from the leading ID proponents wherein they state that design is proof of God or leads people back to God and similar statements. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you disagree with my interpretation of NPOV policy, please tell me where. Here is my interpretation. Please tell me which of these ideas you disagree with, and why:

  1. We should describe each view fairly
  2. We should refrain from endorsing any view as "true" or "correct" or "real"

Where do you agree or disagree?

Secondly, the edit we are discussing is my labelling the mainstream scientific and legal view of ID as "mainstream".

Are you saying it's not the consensus?

Or do you simply disagree with labeling the mainstream view like this?

You speak of the content he questions but I'm not questioning any content: I was trying to put in ten words, "The consensus of the academic and legal community is that ..."

Please stop intentionally missing my point: I have never said that ID proponents all deny that ID is an argument for the existence of God. What I am saying is that some ID proponents have indicated that ID's critique of evolution can be treated separately from their motivation to use that critique.

The article should distinguish between (A) those ID proponents who incorporate design theory's anti-evolution critique in pro-God arguments, and those who simply assert that natural causes are insufficient on the grounds of "life shows signs of being designed".

And stop saying things like "his own, slanted notion" unless you are planning to put into words exactly what you think that slanted notion is. Harassment and personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia. You must address the writing, not the person. Otherwise you (who harp so much about policies) are yourself violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a widely held notion that ID advocates' claims that their arguments are independent of religion, are not representative of those advocates' actual intentions and beliefs. This was part of the Kitzmiller ruling, for instance, and is also discussed in regards to the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy.
When one party to a discourse is shown repeatedly (and even in court!) to not be acting in good faith, reiterating those arguments is not generally such a useful way to contribute to a discussion. Even if you are acting in good faith here, please understand that you are reiterating arguments that are widely held to have been fashioned in bad faith by creationists for the purpose of garnering illegal government support for creationist religion. --FOo (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the concept of Intelligent Design by definition goes beyond a simple critique of Evolution by Natural Selection. To say that EBNS is not enough does not by itself imply a jump to Intelligent Design. One could fall back on Lamarckism or hold out for some as yet unknown mechanism. Indeed a neutral commentator critiquing evolution would put forward all three options as possible lines of inquiry. By promoting only ID as an alternative, advocates are clearly supporting a designer, for which two options have been put forward - God, and little green men from outer space. And I don't see much promotion of little green men. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What is obvious except the incredibly naive and those who are engaged in the calumnious behavior, is that intelligent design is a strategy developed by liars and schemers to circumvent US law. This is an attempt to pull a fast one by the dishonest. And so far, the legal system has seen through this fairly transparent subterfuge and noticed that this is really creationism attempting to fraudulently pass itself off as some sort of secular science. It is nonsense, the courts so far have declared it as clear creationism, nonsense and "breathtaking inanity". Trying frantically to get Wikipedia to buy into this thoroughly discredited bit of deception is just unreasonable and does not serve the needs of our readership.--Filll (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Science of ID

(written before edit conflict with Filll)

Thanks, Fubar Obfusco, for pointing out the relevance of the advocates' motivation. Perhaps that also sheds light on the critics' motivation.

I'm wondering how much of the article should focus on the scientific (i.e., natural forces only) dispute between "evolution" and ID. I've read a lot of legal arguments which simply assert that scientists have refuted ID's arguments about "insufficient causation". Is there room in the article for discussion of the merits and flaws of the complexity argument?

  • For the machine to be assembled, all or nearly all the parts must already be there and be performing a function. Why must they already be performing a function? Because if a part does not confer a real, present advantage for the organism's survival or reproduction, Darwinian natural selection will not preserve the gene responsible for that part. In fact, according to Darwinian theory, that gene will actually be selected against. An organism that expends resources on building a part that is useless handicaps itself compared to other organisms that are not wasting resources, and will tend to get outcompeted.

In the six years since I first began this article, I have often seen Wikipedia writers mention the idea that "this has been refuted". Perhaps we could present the refutation to our readers now.

Behe said: "None of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion."

And: "There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems."

One, are these quotes accurate? That is, did Behe really say them?

Two, are his claims undisputed? That is, has any published author proposed a detailed model of the gradual, natural build-up of a complex system? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, his claims were refuted overwhelmingly in court. This is dealt with on the article on Kitzmiller v. Dover and I think also in irreducible complexity. We do not have room in this article for all kinds of ludicrous discredited silliness. We do not have to address all the arguments for and against ID here. We have a few daughter articles that address a little, and that is all we can do, because we do not have room or time or energy to deal with all of it. It was effectively revealed in the trial that Behe is a fraud and does not know anything about the literature and damn little about his own field of science. He is an embarassment to science and academia, and clearly his academic department feels that way in press releases about his presence they have made. --Filll (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So, then, you agree that Wikipedia should side with NCSE et al. (perhaps on the the strength of the Fitzmiller ruling) that ID is wrong? In that in this matter, unlike others covered by NPOV, Wikipedia is amply justified in taking sides?
It would not be sufficient to remark merely that "the consensus of scientists and judges alike is that Behe is a fraud" but we must say only that "Behe is a fraud"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed, no there is not "room in the article for discussion of the merits and flaws of the complexity argument" -- this article is already very long, and that discussion already exists in Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity. HrafnTalkStalk 05:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The little edit war

Please {{editprotected}} as that was not a real edit war. Besides, I want to get back to the other addition I made, which was reverted by pill. TableManners U·T·C 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change the LEAD away from the Discovery Institute's definition of intelligent design, to introduce some of your own WP:OR instead in the first few lines, you will have to get consensus first. I invite you to try to get it here on the talk page. I do not think it will be easy, however. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree with TableManners proposed edit (even if it weren't for the fact that it doesn't contain the required "specific description").
  • Does six edits in 24 hours count as an edit war, and particularly one of sufficient intensity to warrant page protection? That level would seem fairly normal for as high a profile and contentious an article as this one.

HrafnTalkStalk 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Too early to unprotect. Editor who's prompted the protection is on arbcom probation for disruptive editing and ignoring consensus, so unlocking it now is not a good idea. Besides, there's doesn't seem to be much, if any, support for your changes.
Now let's talk about you calling Filll "pill." Are you trying to troll him or us? I know you have a history with him, but intentionally antagonizing him will only reflect poorly on you. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up FM, there'd been somewhat of an information-vacuum previously. Is there anything in the arbcom probation requirements we should know about? HrafnTalkStalk 07:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The ruling is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Final_decision. If he disrupts the article again, including this talk page, a filing should be made here WP:AE with diffs of today's incident and it's resulting protection and the tendentious talk page arguments. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not really an edit war. Neither Dave (2 reversions) nor me (1 reversion) violated the 3RR rule.

I undid one reversion Dave Souza made, because he didn't give a good reason. He repeated his reversion, this time with a good reason, and that was the end of it.

I request that the article be unblocked. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

N Request declined. {{editprotected}} must be accompanied by a specific description of a requested edit. For unprotection, go to WP:RPP and provide a reason, please. Sandstein (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"I undid one reversion Dave Souza made, because he didn't give a good reason." Can you point me to the policy or guideline that says you should in turn revert those who've rejected changes made without consensus because they lack a "good reason." Here's a good reason: Gain consensus talk page before making controversial changes to this article moving forward. Considering your history, you should be doing anyway. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not required to edit a page. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You don't own the article, and you can't just revert edits because they weren't discussed on the talk page. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for ID proponents on ID as an argument for the existence of God

Ed would like to alter the article to claim that only scientific community and the courts see ID as an argument for God, but not ID proponents. Here are 5 sources showing 3 of the leading ID proponents stating they see ID as an argument for the existence of God:

  • "... intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. ... To be sure, creationists who support intelligent design think it does not go far enough in elucidating the Christian understanding of creation. And they are right! ... Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God" Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design William A. Dembski, August 4, 2005.
  • "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris William A. Dembski. February 1, 2005.
  • "The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence William A. Dembski. 1998.
  • "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." Foreword by Phillip E. Johnson, Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science Kerby Anderson, Raymond G. Bohlin. 2000.
  • "By uncovering evidence that natural phenomena are best accounted for by Intelligence, Mind, and Purpose, the theory of Intelligent Design reconnects religion to the realm of public knowledge. It takes Christianity out of the sphere of noncognitive value and restores it to the realm of objective fact, so that it can once more take a place at the table of public discourse. Only when we are willing to restore Christianity to the status of genuine knowledge will we be able to effectively engage the 'cognitive war' that is at the root of today's culture war." Uncommon dissent: intellectuals who find Darwinism unconvincing Nancy Pearcey, ed. William A. Dembski. 2004, p. 73

I'll add these to the article tomorrow. I have approximately a dozen more from Dembski (who is a particularly prolific writer on this topic), Meyer, and Johnson, and another dozen from lesser ID proponents. Ed, you could have found these with Google easily enough had you bothered to look rather than edit warring and continuing hammering away on the talk page: 20 minutes of research is worth 2 days of time wasted arguing on the talk page and rv'ing others. I think you need to rethink your method of participating, particularly in light of your edit warring having resulted in this article being protected. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect about what I want. Where on earth would you get the idea that I want "to alter the article to claim that only scientific community and the courts see ID as an argument for God, but not ID proponents"?
If you will quote from a talk page comment (or an article edit I made), I will understand why you think I want this.
If you ignore this question, I must assume that you realize your mistake. In any case, let me go on record as saying that I do not want the article to say that.
What I would like, instead, is for the article to distinguish between two ideas that ID proponents have put forth:
  1. That natural forces don't explain life's biochemical complexity as well as design; and,
  2. If something this complex was designed, there must be a supernatural designer, i.e., God
If I have failed to make myself clear about this, I apologize. But now it's clear, right?
To sum up, what I'm asking is that if not all ID proponents say ID is an argument for God, we should report this fact - but if (as FeloniousMonk has implied) all ID proponents have always said that ID is an argument for God, we should report that fact.
Is this clear now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed, you're simply moving your goal posts now. In your change you've been editing warring over your edit summary [2] clearly says "Except for its proponents, everyone thinks it's an "argument for the existence of God" and your fighting to change "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God" to "The consensus of the academic and legal community is that ID is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God." And now you've created a new policy fork (which I've properly labeled an essay for you), Wikipedia:Scientific consensus, where you're trying to argue that "When writing about scientific consensus which appears to coalesce around a certain view of a scientific matter, Wikipedia should not endorse this consensus." While superficially true, it ommits the fact that when writing about intentially contrived controversies (like ID) which make certain claims, Wikipedia should not repeat these views as fact. Also, your attempt to have this page unprotected [3] used a very misleading summary of the situation here, compounding the issue that you are being disruptive. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of consensus, Samsara seems to think that what you called an "edit war" has all been cleared up. I wish you would not keep threatening me but would simply respond to my questions and suggestions with good faith.
By the way, an "essay" is not a "policy fork". I'm simply commenting on policy, which you know is allowed. You do it, too. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe this is not as clear as I thought. I need to ask everyone here a question first.

Do all Wikipedia writers working on this article agree that, if (1) natural forces didn't explain life's biochemical complexity as well as design, then (2) this necessarily implies that only a Supernatural Designer, i.e., God, could have created life, which means (3) that Creationism is true?

Or is there even one Wikipedian working on this article who sees #1 and #2 as independent propositions?

I will have more to say about how we can work together on this article based on the answers (or lack of answers) to these questions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

FM, thanks for an excellent resource. One correction, Forward by Phillip E. Johnson sounds like it's published by the Salvation Army, so I've changed that. Ed, read the Kitzmiller conclusion memo. You've just posed the classic false duality, see McLean v. Arkansas, 1982. On a happier note the religious programme on Radio 4 this morning had a sermon basically setting out the basis of theistic evolution, that science explains the facts, and religion explains purpose and meaning beyond the facts. He went on to describe the 3 Wise Men as using science to follow the star, and religious revelation of the religious light to find their destination. Which immediately reminded me of The Life of Brian. .. dave souza, talk 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the Life of Brian. Now there's a religious story I can appreciate.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually Dave, he's flubbed his wording of it, so that it isn't even a false dichotomy (it just looks like one). It is in fact logically trivial because it assumes its conclusion (supernatural design) as part of its premise. This premise is fallacious, as explicitly supernatural design is never a good scientific explanation -- as it is unfalsifiable ("God just decided to do it and make it look this way"). HrafnTalkStalk 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This is almost irrelevant to this particular debate, for which I'm sorry; but you seem to have made an unjustified leap there from "unscientific" to "fallacious". Consider, for example, the statements "my favourite colour is blue"; or, alternatively "most wars are really caused by personal hatred". Neither of those is falsifiable, and therefore neither is a scientific statement. On the other hand, neither is necessarily fallacious or logically invalid. The scientific method and methodological naturalism are not innate to logic; and if we assume they are, I don't think that we can treat the subject of this article neutrally. An explanation which posits a supernatural cause can never satisfy methodological naturalism and generally cannot satisfy the scientific method; but that doesn't mean that it is fallacious or that logic cannot be applied to it. The adherents of this theory are questioning methodological naturalism; I don't think that we can treat their arguments neutrally if we take methodological naturalism as an axiom. TSP (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be adding them to the article then. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
A comment on Ed's specific point. "Natural forces do not explain biological complexity as well as design" (emphasis added) does indeed imply a supernatural designer, and "A supernatural designer is a better explanation than natural forces" is indeed creationism. Tevildo (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think as most of these sources overwhelmingly come from Dembski (and a few from Phil E. Johnson)- it should be made clear who specifically is *outing* ID as un-subtle teleology. Dembski is a very prominent proponent, but he should not be taken as speaking for the entirety of the movement. --ZayZayEM (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that every major supporter and promoter of ID has made almost identical statements, including Behe and Wells and Meyer and Nelson and so on and so forth.--Filll (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If every major supporter has made identical statements. Then it will be on record, and citable (preferably in a handy collated format). But if by "almost", you mean "sorta-in-that-really-annoying-crafty-lawyer-not-quite-actually-explicitly-using-the-the-exact-phrase-naming-a-Judeo-Christo-deity-damn-christo-fascists" then its not good enough. That's called quote-mining or putting-words-in-people's-mouths. Something we don't like round these parts, at least, that's the impression I had. Failure to uncouple the ID/DI machinations from conservative christo-creationist roots, is not the same as explictly identifying their designer as Jesus³ to the exclusion of any other explanation. As a group they have repeatedly, on record, implied, heavily suggested, and non-explictly implicated Jesus³, but that's not the same as unanimously explicitly identifying him, when they have made repeated unanimous announcements to the contrary. I'll go with what cites are provided, if they say differently. Dembski definitely overwhelms the others at goofing(?) at naming the designer and deserves special singling out as a repeat offender at naming the elusive designer as Jesus³.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
POSTAD - I don't want "every" DI fellow on record. I just think that if 70-90% of our quotes are from Dembski, that shouldn't read as "all leading intelligent design proponents"--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Dembski is not "all leading proponents": he can't be more than 25% of them (!) if you consider the top 4 to be Dembski, Behe, Wells and Johnson. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would put Wells on the next tier down along with Gonzales, Weikart, Richards, and probably one or two others. HrafnTalkStalk 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds about right. He might be in the top 5 "pro-ID authors who attract criticism" - because of his incredibly annoying Icons book. But he's more of an attacker and explainer. ID is not his baby: he's just taking it out for a walk. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not one, but two reasons to reject ID on the basis of science

From Intelligent design#Overview

"However, mainstream science rejects ID on the grounds that an Intelligent Designer must be supernatural."

This is not the sole exclusive conclusion of ID, nor is it the sole reason for its rejection.

There are two outcomes from ID reasoning that make it equally and totally rejectable by science.

  1. an Intelligent Designer must be supernatural.
  2. an Intelligent Designer requires a designer, or naturalistic means to explain its existence. (Ultimate Boeing 747).

(Ultimate Boeing 747): Neither of these outcomes are neccessary First and most important an intellignet designer- given that today we talk about thngs like cloning and AI etc- only needs to be light years ahead of us in technology; I don't see how said designer needs to be supernatural- unless of course you "believe" the designer is some God. Second, This is not a first cause argument. One does not need to establish a chain of being( We do not need to know Einstein's father and mother to understand relativity) to develop a theory that there is design in nature; however, proponents of ID are stuck with the burden of proof here, whether the appearance of design in nature is real or only apparent. ~Spiker_22

I agree, ID cannot be classified as true science, because the proponents of mainstream science are so bigoted and godless, they can't possibly accept the notion that God exists. Anyway, ID is definable as science because it puts forth a hypothesis like any other science, it just involves God, so therefore it is rejected by the scientific community. In my opinion, the proposition that God doesn't exist by so called scientific meothods, should also be rejected by mainstream science because it commits the same supposed crime as ID. JIMBOB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbob10045 (talkcontribs) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Very rational. Not. Just ranting and nonsense. Science has nothing to do with science. It is pure poison for science and it is bad theology. But we are here to improve the article, not to try to talk to people like you. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ID itself, as presented by DI and other cdesign proponentists, reject 2).

While science rejects 1) on the basis of simple scientific naturalism and refusal to bow to mystic nonsense. And also rejects 2) on the basis of Occam's razor - we have a perfectly fine and validated naturalistic explanation for life and the universe without throwing some intelligent designer in there too.

This paragraph should be rephrased to show that there are two, equally valid and oft-espoused, reasons why ID fails to meet the simplest of criteria to be even a basic scientific proposition.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the infinite regress argument steps outside of natural science and touches on theology. It is, in fact, an atheistic argument.
Bear in mind that ID is rattling the cage here - not that Wikipedia should help it do so.
ID is demanding a change in the philosophy of science. Our response should not be to endorse or condemn this demand but to describe those elements of the demand that would be of interest to our readers.
For example, ID objects to the methodological naturalism of science, whereby it restricts the scope of the physical sciences to natural causes alone. Dembski wrote: "Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable." Thus ID mixes vanilla scientific claims with chocolate philosophical demands.
Stop me if this "insight" is simply WP:OR. All I know is what I read online and in books. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you're correct. It's part of the "wedge strategy". ID proponents want science redefined as simple empiricism, rather than methodological naturalism (assuming that everything has a natural explanation). GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No Gus, what they have explicitly demanded is Theistic realism. HrafnTalkStalk 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how an atheistic argument becomes theology? Or how dealing with non-god (an unidentified designer) in a non-religious context (science) becomes theology? This is how ID fails in reality because they are demanding the supernatural, everyone knows they are talking about He-who -shall-not-be-named. But on the philosophy of it all, ID fails before this, without the premise that a designer itself is unsatisfactory scientifically, proponents would not have to bring out their "Oh, but it's a mystical designer" card.
This failure of a designer as a scientific premise is discussed by multiple sources, and Dawkin's Ultimate Boeing is just one argument. One could see these two points as opposite sides of the same coins, but I definitely assert that #2 has far less theology in it than #1. #1 is calling ID religious (because it is not-science). #2 is calling it not-science (because it is religious).--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course evolution is a secular science, as all science is, and can be used as evidence in a philosophical argument for atheism, or as evidence in that branch of philosophy defined as theology as an argument for a religious position. That the ID argument failed both as theology and science was recognised by Baden Powell and many theologians after him. .. dave souza, talk 12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
All I am trying to get across that "an Intelligent Designer must be supernatural" is a false straw man here. ID fails because it must either 1) have a supernatural designer OR 2) allow a naturalistic explanation for the designer be investigated (not necessarily provide itself). ID proponents shun 2 in favour of 1 - but 1 is not the default premise from scientific reasoning 2 is.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's at the heart of the matter. ID is based on there being empirical evidence, actual material artefacts which can't be explained by natural processes so must be explained by a process beyond the reach of science, and in the realm of philosophy or theology. As they say. Science is based on explaining material empirical evidence by material processes, and is secular in not ruling out processes beyond nature, but in taking no account of them when constructing a scientific explanation. If it's not material it's immaterial. If ID produced a testable hypothesis about how a physical intelligent designer works, then it would be science, and then it would have failed in its stated purpose of redefining science to accept theistic realism. Gotta drink the kool-aid. .. dave souza, talk 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The heart of the matter is a dispute over the philosophy of science. Referring to what Dave said, ID's claim is (1) that empirical evidence and material artifacts cannot be explained by natural processes; therefore, (2) science needs to expand its scope to include the possibility of supernatural intervention.

Biologists are (with extremely rare exceptions) opposed to this proposed extension of the scope of science. They insist that biology is a physical science, and they refuse to do any sort of "scientific work" which considers non-material forces.

Note that there are other fields of science than physical science. For example, psychology is not dominated by the empiricism and 'methodological naturalism' of physical science. The field of psychology is, in the academic world, generally seen as separated from the "hard sciences" like physics and chemistry. I daresay one reason for this is that You cannot directly observe the thoughts, emotions, and desires of Him. The scientific study of the human mind necessarily relies on each person voluntarily describing "what's on his mind" - which is a dodgy business.

Dave, I don't think any ID proponent seriously proposes a physical designer. They are just saying that "signs of being designed" should be studied as part of science - even if this means science must expand its scope.

I understand that two objections to this expansion are (1) if it's supernatural, it can be anything, any whim of a perverse or flighty god like Zeus (jovial one day, nasty the next); and (2) if there's a god who creates, then who created that god (the "infinite regress" objection").

The problem with the current article is that it agrees with physical science proponents that science is philosophically correct to retain its empirical scope. I submit that the endorsement of this philosophical POV is a violation of the policy of this project. Wikipedia is not supposed to endorse a POV, but merely report which scholars and experts espouse it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I read the article, it seems to deal primarily with what science is, rather than what it should be. As science is currently defined, it doesn't accept supernatural explanations. Since ID requires supernatural explanations, it's not scientific under the current definition of "science". Nowhere do I see this article making a stand that this definition of science must be the way science should be. If you see this somewhere in the article, then I agree that it probably shouldn't be there. Would you mind pointing out a specific line where you see this? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There may be differences on what science 'is'. Here's Behe in his response to the Kitzmiller case, Whether Intelligent Design is Science:
"The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: “science” is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word “science” belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.
On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science. Thus there is a disconnect between the two views of what “science” is. Although the two views rarely conflict at all, the dissonance grows acute when the topic turns to the most fundamental matters, such as the origins of the universe, life, and mind."
Interestingly, Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, mentioned earlier, doesn't work on the principle that intelligent design is outside science. It works on the principle that it CAN be considered within science, and therefore be found to fail by scientific reasoning (due to its lack of parsimony). TSP (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Precisely my initial point.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
To use that, we'd have to establish Behe as being a reliable source on what constitutes science. Given that in that trial, he admitted that under his definition, Astrology would be considered science, it would be quite a difficult task to establish this. As the article is, it mentions that ID proponents believe ID is science, while mainstream scientists and the courts don't, which is perfectly fine. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit comes from Richard Dawkins, not Behe.

Dawkins concludes that the argument from design is the most convincing [argument for God]. The extreme improbability of life and a universe capable of hosting it requires explanation, but Dawkins considers the God Hypothesis inferior to evolution by natural selection as explanations for the complexity of life.

Dawkin's concede's that design has merits, but is inferior c.f. leading mainstream theory. --ZayZayEM (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that there's much relevance now, but I was referring to the first part of TLP's comment (the problem with pronouns, sometimes what "that" is isn't clear). In any case, even if Dawkins believes ID is or can be treated as science, that view is in the minority among scientists and contrary to the decisions of the court. There's a lot more I could theoretically say on this, but with the disruption gone, there's not much point (unless someone has a good faith disagreement here, in which case I'll gladly discuss further). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do disagree. Wikipedia is not here to judge the sides of an argument and establish which is truth. When there are disagreements, Wikipedia should not be seeking to say, "Well, that source seems more reliable, so let's say that one's fact and the other is wrong". The paper by Behe is a reliable source for what Behe considers science to be; and that is all it needs to be. We do not need to say, "Do we think Behe is a reliable person to say this?" If Behe says it, then that stated view exists, even if only as his view. The question still remains as to whether that view is is significant, but given that this article is about the view of which Behe is one of the most prominent spokemen, it seems to me that it is significant to this article. So, we are should not be talking about one side that says what science is, and another side which is saying what it would like to change science into. We are talking about two sides with different published views on what science is - one much better supported, but that doesn't mean that we present that one as fact and the other as an attempt to alter fact. TSP (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The demarcation problem (deciding what is science and what is nonscience) is essentially unsolved. Different things like falsifiability and Daubert standard etc have been proposed, but all pretty much are unsatisfactory for various reasons.

People do not state what the basic problem of the supernatural in science is however; it would destroy science, since there would be no reason to ever do science again and find an answer to anything, since "god dun it" is an answer to anything. And how could you get funded to find an answer when you already have one?

I am reading an article by Meyer from about 1994 where he argues that you can come up with fancy artificial rules for when "god dun it" and when naturalism is the more proper assumption, but these rules are ludicrous and complicated. They are completely unconvincing and you would never be able to apply them in practice.

The Muslims had the most advanced science, medicine, mathematics, navigation and engineering on planet earth for about 400 or 500 years, until they made it official policy to always say "god dun it" (see The Incoherence of the Philosophers). Within a few years, Muslim science went back essentially to the dark Ages, and it has not emerged in the last 1000 years from this Dark Age. All because "god dun it" is the answer to everything, and it is the official answer that you are not allowed to question (or else get beheaded or something).

What people do not quite understand is that once "god dun it" is the answer to every mystery, then in criminal investigations and criminal defense, "god dun it" will be the answer to everything. P:"How did the bloody knife with your fingerprints get under the coach Mr. Jones?" J: "God dun it" P:"Oh so sorry, case closed, you are free to go Mr. Jones". All jails will have to be emptied. No more criminal prosecutions. No one will be able to be held responsible for anything. P:"Why do we have 10 witnesses to your robbery if you did not do it Mr. Smith?" S: "God dun it" etc. --Filll (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You can sort out most of this by simply stating that science does not search to answer WHY nature works, but HOW does it do it. Science is not concerned at all about any finalism, while questions of this nature are the central pillars of any religious doctrine (and you managed to give two examples, one question starting with how and the other with why. While there only one possible true answer to the first question, the second is obviously totally unscientific, as for example there are a multitude of possible reasons why the person asking the question could have exactly 10 witnesses!) Sophos II (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well who woulda thunk? "Why not how". Why didn't someone else think of that? 2500 years of philosophy and tens of thousands of tenured faculty studying this and thousands of courts and hundreds of thousands of lawyers and the US Supreme Court, and you solved it all! "Why not How". Amazing.--Filll (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Really amazing, isnt'it? It is deplorable to see that so many people waste so much time and energy by not realizing the fundamental differences between all the questions such as "Why was the solar system formed?" and "How was it formed?". Only one of the two kinds of questions is relevant to Science, the rest being whatever you want to call it, but not Science. Sophos II (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Filll, was that your own opinion, or are you voicing a commonly held or scholarly idea? Maybe the problem with Muslim science was that "you are not allowed to question the official answer" - which is kind of the complaint some ID proponents are making about the theory of evolution.

ID proponents have been complaining that physical science is too restrictive: "If it's not a physical cause, we don't want to hear about it."

Anyway, which philosophers of science have asserted that supernatural (intelligent) causes are too erratic to be detected? This is not a challenge. I want their names so we can reference that viewpoint. As in:

Professor X rejects ID because, "Spirits are erratic and unpredictable." [ref needed] --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed you are free to go back to the Dark Ages if you want, pre-Enlightenment. However, you are not allowed to force others to go with you. Live in a cave if you want, but do not use force to make others live in caves too.--Filll (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That would just be so funny if it wasn't scary - the definition of a word does not fit our purposes, so let's change the definition. Talk about 1984. Ed, if you don't fit into the science tent, just accept it, you can't demand the tent be moved to accommodate you. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
At some point is it reasonable to ask Ed Poor to take the time to actually understand IDC before wasting everyone's time here? He's been trying to make IDC out as something it is not in this article for several years now. He continues to ask the most ignorant questions, as if he'd never heard of IDC before, and he continues to be nothing more than a distraction. At what point do you tell an editor he needs to actually know something about the article? His comments and question suggest he knows nothing about science, IDC or evolution. At some point you've got to be able to hold him to some reasonable standard of conduct. And now he's asking for names of "science philosophers who said ..." Ed this is not a place to do your research nor are the editors here your personal tutors. And EVERYONE knows IDC is a creationist scam to outwit Edward vs... so they can get creationism back in the class room. And EVERYONE knows IDC is not science....But you...Good god man are you as dense as you appear to be on these talk pages? Seriously. Do you honestly expect us to buy you're dense as a fence post act? I'm stunned the other editors here give Ed more than 2 seconds consideration as he has a history that goes back several years of disrupting this and other IDC related articles. He always wants to portray IDC as something it is not. Again, at some point Ed needs to be held to some sort of reasonable standard of conduct. - Guy who's getting tired of the IDC nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on Ed's talk page Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Heartily supported - thank you, Raul. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - Guy who's getting tired of the IDC nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Orangemarlin removed the phrase and its related paragraph from the section on the basis of unsalvagable POV [4]. Perhaps this section should be archived. It's getting OT. --ZayZayEM (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Central claims of ID

In Dembski says:

  • Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

Am I the only one who feels that this description of ID should be in the article somewhere?

I suspect you are. It is merely a less equivocal ("necessary" instead of "better") articulation of the assertion currently in the lead. Given the IDM's penchant for restating the same thing hundreds of different ways, with varying equivocation, I would demand strong evidence of the notability of any particular articulation of this assertion, before it got a mention in the article in addition to the existing one. HrafnTalkStalk 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting quote from the vice president of USF

From [5]

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See Flying Spaghetti Monster#Polk County, Florida which includes that quote, as well as quoting Margaret Lofton, one of the school board members supporting intelligent design, who said "They've made us the laughingstock of the world". It's not clear whether "they" is the Pastafarians, or the cdesign proponentsists. Of course, this could lead to quote-mining – "see, it's not pseudoscience!!!" . . dave souza, talk 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


In reference to a {{fact}}-tag raised in the article, I seem to remember a law-review article stating that Jones' decision (and resultant rejection of ID evidence) hewed fairly close to the Daubert standard in evaluating the credibility of ID evidence (I'll see if I can track it down). However, as KvD has been the only ID court case, and as the plaintiffs in that did not mount a Daubert challenge of the defence expert witnesses (a stroke of strategic genius, considering how extensively their testimony was used against them), there has been no explicit consideration of whether ID meets Daubert by a court. The paragraph in question will probably therefore require some rewriting. HrafnTalkStalk 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Google does reveal some blogs which mention it. Daubert doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant to Kitzmiller, as no-one was at any point attempting to use Intelligent Design as a standard for evidence in court (e.g. "this is the murder weapon - intelligent design proves it"). The court case was entirely about whether ID was admissable in schools, not in courts. It may be true that ID doesn't meet Daubert, but it's of dubious relevance - I'm sure there are lots of other standards it doesn't meet too, but as no-one has at any point tried to use it as a standard of evidence in a US court, whether it would be admissable as one doesn't seem that relevant. TSP (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Google turned out to only be useful for tracking it down when applied with considerable lateral thinking. It was Lawful Design: A New Standard for Evaluating Establishment Clause Challenges to School Science Curricula. It states:

Yet despite this impermissible purpose, Judge Jones’s analysis of the content of ID and Of Pandas and People also concluded that “ID is not science.” More specifically, he wrote: “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.” Though the opinion makes no mention of Daubert, observe that the three factors Judge Jones focused on – testability, peer review, and general acceptance – are precisely the applicable three factors from the Daubert analysis.

HrafnTalkStalk 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Verifiably stated, then, but a bit tangential. The article is more about whether the Kitzmiller verdict's similarity to the Daubert standard suggests that the Daubert standard might be a good tool to use in evaluating content for science curricula. It's not really a judgement on ID itself (which it notes was rejected in court primarily for reasons unrelated to the standard - that it was advanced with an impermissible purpose, not that it was not science, though the judge did also rule that ID was not science). It might justify a sentence with a link to the relevant article, but I think that the current text in which the Daubert standard is described in full in this article is a bit excessive. TSP (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree there. The source quoted above seems to be a step too far from the actual court case and ID - along the lines of an independant observer reviewing it and expressing their opinions on how the judge's ruling invokes shades of Daubert. I can see justifying a quick mention, a sentence or two at most, given that we do have this source making the connection, but we shouldn't be giving it as much weight as the current article does. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just from memory, my recollection is that this section in the article long predates the Kitzmiller trial. The point, that ID violates science as defined for legal purposes, can now be stated more concisely with reference to the Kitzmiller conclusion. .. dave souza, talk 08:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but we still need a WP:RS (preferably a legal expert in an area relevant to Daubert) stating that ID's 'evidence' doesn't meet the Daubert standard. The article above is the closest I can remember having come across (but as others have pointed out, it falls rather short). HrafnTalkStalk 11:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My word. It has been in a long time. I'd just assumed that it must have been added recently, as it should really have been picked up at FA nomination; but it seems to have survived at least two years, including two FA nominations, an FA review, a GA review and a peer review without anyone picking up an entirely unsourced assertion. That surprises me.
I think that the source given might justify a mention of Daubert, along the lines of "In a (date) article in (publication), (author) likened the judge's reasoning to the Daubert standard, which determines what expert testimony is sufficiently scientific to be admissible in US courts." I don't know whether, even with a strong reliable source specifically saying that ID fails the standard, it would justify much more than that (it could be stronger, but probably not much longer). TSP (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bill Greene Show

  • ouch*

I didn't feel a thing, but then again I am not one of the editors of this article. Angry Christian (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Wikipedia mentions start at 6:43. I tell you that because this show moves very, very slowly. That is 6 minutes and 43 seconds of your life you can save. I'm not sure there's actually anything of substance said in those first 6 minutes and 43 seconds. In about 20 minutes I'll say whether anything of interest is said after that.) TSP (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the public service announcement TSP, it is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia/Intelligent Design references (but not referring to this page in any detail) go on until 13:00, then it moves on to another topic; it picks up again about 18:00 with discussion of ID in general, then moves on to Wikipedia a few minutes later - I'll give a time when I have it. TSP (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No more Wikipedia mentions before 30:00... TSP (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's back at about 51:30. Bill urges his listeners to come to this page and see whether they can improve it. TSP (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And some more at 55:00. TSP (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
...and that's it. I wonder if we'll get anyone from it. (Maybe we've already had someone from it.) TSP (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Well what else would you expect after Bill Greene acted in such an outrageous manner here on Wikipedia? And given his own views, which are pretty close to dominionism as near as I can tell. Not much of a Christian, from my knowledge of the faith. --Filll (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a Wikipedian? TSP (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He is still here. He managed to get himself unblocked although we complained about it. I listened to the whole thing and the November 30 show which is similar. A lot of ignorance there. Amazing. So deep you need a shovel.--Filll (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TSP thanks for doing the work for us. I think I'll utilize that hour for more productive things like downloading porn or getting drunk. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about what ID is, not what it isn't

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". This is clearly ID propaganda. It alludes to the common creationist ploy of mischaracterizing evolution, Darwinism, natural selection, etc., as being synomynous (who has EVER claimed that natural selection explains life?), and it raises the diversionary question of whether natural selection is "undirected". It has absolutely no place in the lead. The lead should be a discussion of what ID is, not a forum for repeating ID jabs at evolution.Heqwm (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is undirected, in the sense of not having someone in charge of it. You might be confusing this perfectly sensible claim with the creationist claim that evolution is random. --FOo (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That definition is there because that is the Discovery Institute definition, word for word. The problem is that no matter what you write, someone will claim that it is too favorable to the pro-ID side or the anti-ID side. --Filll (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with other forms of theism

Daniel Dennett compares ID advocates with Young Earth creationists, who assert that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and all life forms were created by God. While he acknowledges that ID advocates are more reasonable, he points out that they will only admit Young Earth Creationism is nonsense in private and will not say so in front of their creationist peers out of loyalty and fear of offending their fellow theists. He suggests that they will have to make such concessions to have any chance of being taken seriously by the scientific community:[1]

Can I have some feedback on this (now) proposed addition? There is little or nothing here on the dynamics of the various creationist/pseudo-creationist franchises, except for theistic evolution/ID. I can't see what section (or daughter article) this would fit into, so I created a new one. Apparently it's POV, despite relaying someone else's opinion, though since I agree with him and prefer to call a spade a spade, I might be overlooking something. Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's hearsay (strike one), with no attribution as to who said it (strike two), from an advocacy source (I'll call that a ball), designed to mock progressive thought and learning (another ball). For those of you unfamiliar with american baseball metaphors, I'll craft another phrase, (pretend Behe said it), which might work for those who know this particular biological topic well. 'Some evolutionists have said: "Sure, we once might have thought that all evolution was gradual and rambling, taking thousands and thousands of years, without any sharp divisions, but please don't ask us to acknowledge the falsehood of the sillier versions of our position!"'...(for those not following, see Punctuated_equilibrium). If Behe had said that, would it belong in the evolution article, or would it be a POV attack? Ronabop (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll list some other POV issues. "He points out..." gives the claim authority yet all we have in support of the statement that "they will only admit Young Earth Creationism is nonsense in private" is his opinion. This is also done here "he acknolwedges that ID advocates are more reasonable". Again it is just his opinion that ID advocates are more reasonable but it is presented as if he is stating a fact. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid as it is very easy to introduce POV when presenting opinions through your choice of wording. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the analogy with evolution is, well, even an analogy... Evolutionists never believed in 'constant speedism' and it's hardly as if the 'punctuated equilibrium' model has unanimous support either. If you want a real analogy, it would be something like a modern camp of evolutionary biologists believing evolution acts for the good of the species, or in a purposeful direction. And if they were the case, you know as well as I do that they would be unsympathetically ridiculed by their peers. But since it is somewhat hearsay-ish (though I doubt Dennett is just making this stuff up to make IDers look bad) I can accept that it isn't appropriate for the article. The fact that IDers would never say this stuff in a form we could cite basically makes them immune on this one. Richard001 (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well - the first problem is the title - it isn't a comparison with other forms of theism, it's a comparison with other forms of creationism. Apart from that, it gives undue weight to Dennett's opinion - after all, it doesn't mesh with the fact that there are prominent YECs within the IDC big tent. While Behe has clearly identified himself as an old-earther, most of the other prominent IDists are silent on their beliefs. Guettarda (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Artificiality Detection

I would like to add this to the bottom of "Intelligence as an observable quality", but I don't have a reference. I'm sure a source that has said something similar that can survive the Wiki Reference Police exists somewhere. I'd appreciate if somembody found a similar passage. --Tablizer (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued, however, that we may be able to test for artifacts from beings that in some ways have intelligence or behaviors that resemble human intelligence. Thus, a sub-set of all possible intelligences may be detectable if it falls within boundaries of our detection or recognition ability. (Of course, the verification of artificiality may be more stringent than mere detection of candidate artifacts.)
I'm guess what you wrote in the article makes sense to you, yes? The reason I ask is because it makes absolutely no sense to me. And before you start commenting on the "wiki ref police" you might want to spend some time actually learning about Wiki policies PRIOR to making youself out to be a victim of the "wiki police". Making yourself out to be a victim because you cannot make up your own rules as you go along is very childish. Can I write what ever I want on your personal creationism/pseudoscience/huckster website, or will the Tablizer Police delete my comments? I am so persecuted. Personal and side note, based on the utter nonsense you write on your creationism web site you're going to have a very difficult time with any articles on IDC or science. If your website is an indication of your personal beliefs you're clueless on matters of science and being clueless will not help you be a good wiki editor, especially when it comes to articles about pseudoscience such as intelligent design. And I assumed good faith on your part until I read your website and now I know exactly where you're coming from. Let the claims of persecution begin! Angry Christian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil. This isn't a fight. TSP (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It boils down to the issue of whether artificiality can be detected without knowing something about the author. I don't think the issue has been definitively answered, and thus would like to find some "official" counter-arguments to those presented. It is true that detection is easier if you know more about the author, but it may not be a prerequisite. Plus, identification of a pattern may be merely the first exploration step. If ID experts found say interesting patterns or photos hidden in DNA, it may not be definitive proof, but could open the door for further exploration. I don't see it much different than SETI looking for Dyson Spheres. (Although I think most current ID proponents are biased, that does not necessarily mean all ID exploration is "not science". Even zealots can make useful discoveries.) As far as the arguments on my ID website (NOT creationism because its not tied to supernatural) are concerned, I believe them to be rational and sound. Perhaps we can take that debate somewhere else. The SETI comparison is an interesting one. --Tablizer (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the issue of detecting artificiality "without knowing something about the author" only comes up when the "author" is supernatural. Therefore it has generally not been considered a fruitful avenue for scientific enquiry. Dyson spheres are something that humanity might build if it had the technology, so looking for them is looking for "people like us with more advanced technology", so we are making assumptions about the potential authors. And zealots only make "useful discoveries" if they actually try, by doing actual research -- not by going on the Religious Right lecture circuit as ID advocates tend to do. HrafnTalkStalk 06:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fallacy In This Article:

This article deliberately deceives readers into thinking the overwhelming majority of scientists reject Intelligent Design. "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience" Notice the fervent use of the adjective "unequivocal". First of all what is the scientific community? Is it members of the National Academy of Science? This article has two options: it can be honest and truthful, or it can be deceiving. The "unequivocal" fact (since we like that word) is that the National Academy of Science represents a mere 2% of the total amount of scientists listed in the American Men and Women of Science, hence doesn’t represent the broader scientific community. The Gallop organization has polled scientists since 1917 on their belief in God and to this day, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God. Does that sound like "unequivocal consensus" to you? If this article was truly neutral, it would not cite politically motivated scientific organizations as the authoritative representative voice of the "scientific community". In the United States, the scientific community are those people listed in the American Men and Women of Science....period! This article is peer-reviewed? Another lie. Certainly not by objective scientists. The following is a fact: 40% of scientists in the United States believe in a personal God that answers prayer, and over 1/3 believe in Creation (not theistic evolution but ID). Polls on the National Academy of Science show only 7% believe in God...but as we have already stated, the NAS does NOT represent the entire scientific community. This article deliberately misrepresents the fact that a significant amount of scientists indeed do believe in ID. I suggest the "scientists" who wrote this article do a little wiki search on the term "scientific community". Just because the NAS and a few other formal organizations of scientist make statements...that does NOT EQUATE to the "scientific community". If you took a philosophy 101 course, you would know a bit more about logical fallacies, and the fallacy in the introduction of this article is a huge one. But because the authors and protectors of this article are biased, I do not expect the "unequivocal" fact that a statistically significant amount of SCIENTISTS believe in creation to be mentioned. One last note: I find it humorous that there is not even a single article on Wikipedia about the American Men and Women of Science, which lists most of the scientists in North America, far more than exists in NAS. Now that, my friends, is the real scientific community of the US, only a pittance of which, are members of NAS, the AAAS, or the NST. Start asking members of the broader scientific community if they believe in God (rather than the narrower NAS, which is only a fraction) and you will see "unequivocal consensus" evaporate.

Yes, my atheists friends....a statistically significant amount of scientists believe in creation, this is verifiable since 1917 all the way to the present. But you wont admit that, will you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:04, 13 January 2008

Sorry you are confused. "Unequivocal" just means clear. And if you check Level of support for evolution, the support by scientists varies someplace between 95% (counting probably engineers and mathematicians and goodness knows what as "scientists") and 99.85% (from Newsweek 1987) or 99.9% (from NIH 2006 or so) or 99.995% (from Discovery Institute lists). So no matter which of those you take, it is clear that most scientists accept evolution. Ok? Also, evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and by claiming that you are exposing your ignorance. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed the anon poster is confused. It is not necessary to believe in Intelligent Design to believe in a personal God. And the proponents of Intelligent Design claim it is not necessary to believe in God to accept Intelligent Design. A case of apples and oranges. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fill. None of your cited polls drew from the wide range of scientists. If you knew anything about statistics, sampling is vital to the interpretation. We can accurately claim that 93% of all NAS scientists reject God, but we absolutely cannot extrapolate that as the "scientific community". I am assuming you know what the scientific community means. None of your polls drew their sample from a American Men and WOmen of Science. Only one poll, that I know of, draws its sample from the American Men and Women of Science. That is the Gallop Poll. And it has done so for almost 100 years. 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God that answers prayer. That is indisputable, Fill.
Fill, when you insult every single person that disagrees with your viewpoint, it makes you sound like a fucking 4th grader. What's even more ridiculous, is the number of people in power here that allow you to do it just because they agree with your bias. GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
GusChiggins21, your reminiscences about what 4th graders sound like when having sex are well off topic.. .. dave souza, talk 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls.

Don't feed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

so you resort to ad-hominem because I bring up a legitimate point? The ole' "troll" poisoning the well fallacy?

Gallup. Enough said.--Filll (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The gallup poll refutes your position. 5% of scientists believe in biblical creation, and many more believe in theistic evolution, is not unequivocal belief that ID is pseudoscience. It's actually evidence of significant variety of views. But the protectors of this page wouldn't be able to see that, because they want to defend a position held by less than 10% of the population as "scientific" and "unequivocal" and "peer-reviewed", and other such nonsense. GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Filll has referred you to another article with explicit evidence, you seem to be pulling numbers out of a fundamentalist source. However, if you can produce reliable sources and propose improvements to the article, that will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not. Any reference to the most recent relevant Newsweek poll (which put the figure at 13%) is quickly deleted. Z1perlster (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So Gus, as I recall, you were blocked for a week for making personal attacks? I thought so. Maybe you ought to relax and try to contribute peacefully. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Theistic evolution" is not ID. Why include TE advocates with ID advocates, unless you're trying to inflate the numbers? Also, how is ID anything other than pseudoscience, regardless of the number of people who believe in it? Since when has "degree of popular support" been the deciding factor? --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Robert, that's why I drink heavily. Editors who have a POV just defy logic sometimes. Just drink. It makes it easier to stomach.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Theistic evolution is not evolution by natural selection. It is intelligent design that does not involve special creation, and according to many scientists, including Dawkins, it's not a scientific belief. ID is not, contrary to the ridiculously biased statements in this article, the same as special creation. GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Get a clue. Theistic evolution IS an acceptance of evolution via mutation and natural selection, combined with some sort of belief in a deity, who is presumed to have instigated (and possibly influenced) the process. It is not intended to be a scientific theory. ID does purport to be "scientific", but is not. It is therefore pseudoscience. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not only are you uncivil, you are wrong. Read the poll being cited: the question that correlates to theistic evolution reads: "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation". That's not the deistic watchmaker you're proposing. Read the poll before you tell people to "get a clue", and maybe you won't get busted out like this again. GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What part of my phrase "possibly influenced the process" did you not understand? Some TE advocates believe in a God who merely started the process, whereas others assume various degrees of divine intervention along the way. But the key point is that TE is not intended to be a scientific theory (as ID purports to be), and doesn't try to deny the "creative power" of mutations and natural selection (as ID advocates frequently do). TE advocates generally agree that ID is pseudoscience. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's intended to be a scientific theory! It's a scientific theory of origins! If I say: God used evolution to create us, that's a hypothesis. And it's probably the hypothesis best supported by the available evidence. GusChiggins21 (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, no. See theistic evolution, or read stuff by say Ken Miller. Theistic evolution is generally explicitly not intended to be a scientific hypothesis. Most common versions combines what is a hypothesis (evolution) with certain essentially theological propositions that the proponents agree are non-scientific. Indeed, the proponents of ID have repeatedly attacked theistic evolution and stated that it is in opposition to ID. For example William Dembski has said that "As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism" and "Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution." (these are both from an article written by Demsbki "What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design"). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Look A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism has about 700 signatories, after more than 7 years of effort, drawing from people all over the world, including English professors and philosophers and engineers and surgeons and mathematicians and people who never worked in science and so on. Only about 20% of those are biologists, at most. There are something like 1.1 or 1.2 million biologists in the US, or more. There are probably a similar number worldwide. So 140 out of more than 2.5 million? Does not sound like a lot, frankly. A Scientific Support for Darwinism garnered 7733 signatures (which were checked to be real scientists working in science) in 4 days, at a rate almost 700,000 per cent faster than the Dissent petition has grown.

Efforts to shove theistic evolution and every other belief in to artificially inflate and deceitfully misrepresent the minimal support for intelligent design is common at the Discovery Institute. The petition Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism which was signed by less than 0.02% of those eligible to sign, was launched by the DI with publicity for a poll which was summarized in the press release as "Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design". The Discovery Institute, by shoving theistic evolution in with those who are intelligent design supporters, announced the complete opposite of the poll results, continuing to lie and make themselves look like utter fools. So keep it up. You are following a great tradition.--Filll (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this argument shows up once every two or three months. We should just have the facts placed somewhere we can just point them to it, and end the conversation.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This sounds pretty collaborative: "We're right, and since people keep coming in and challenging our biased article that we protect, we should just have a writeup somewhere that we can point them to, so we don't have to defend the bias anymore". GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hence "Trolling". Stay in School kids[6].--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I hear that Conservapedia is looking for new editors. May I suggest that you venture over there Gus? You may find it more to your liking. Baegis (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I also heard somewhere that wikipedia was supposed to be free from bias, and not allow personal attacks? But, hey, guys, keep on believing that the fact that 10% of the population support a view means that it should completely dominate articles of which it isn't even the subject. GusChiggins21 (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again: this is not a fact (BTW, population of which country? Not mine!). And even if it was a fact: popular opinion isn't what distinguishes pseudoscience from actual science. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that the Newsweek poll found that 13% of the American people have a naturalistic evolutionary view of human origins.Z1perlster (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify things. People who subscribe to theistic evolution believe that evolution and God co-exist and there is no dispute between the two. They believe God acted through evolution. Theistic evolution is the dominant view in the US, among the public and the science community (although not necessarily among the Christians worldwide, where other interpretations might be more common). Many of the editors you are arguing fervently against here on this page probably fall into the theistic evolution camp.

Intelligent design is a sneaky way to skirt US law; otherwise it would not be required. Intelligent design was purposely constructed to help creationists break the law. It is a bankrupt dishonest lying cheating idea to help break the law. Nice idea. From the Wedge Document, the purpose is to produce some sort of theocracy in the US; a Christian Taliban, essentially.

Scientists do not think intelligent design is science. And now a US federal court has ruled that intelligent design is not science. Of course, after that decision, intelligent design supporters threatened to kill the judge. Nice people. However, I would expect nothing less.--Filll (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Theistic evolution is the dominant view in the US" - false, as you use it as opposed to intelligent design, (and even false if the two terms are synonomous) as shown in the Newsweek poll of late March, 2007. The largest group of Americans hold views that are generally called creationist. Z1perlster (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you are (1) confused and (2) wrong. But thanks anyway.--Filll (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not for you, but that this discussion is filled with lies like yours. The link is there. The polls are what they are. The numbers show that the largest group of Americans hold views that are completely incompatible with evolution. Z1perlster (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What possible definition of the word "scientist" is there that includes those that think that ID is science? Phillip Johnson isn't a scientist, he's someone who's made a living arguing whichever position he's paid to argue.

And it's rather hypocritical for Fill to accuse the article of engaging fallacious reasoning. He clearly has no idea how to construct a valid argument; his argument seems to consist of nothing other than: 1. My opponents haven't proven me wrong, so that proves that I'm right 2. I've presented a bunch of statistics, so that proves my position, even though the statistics are regarding issues completely different from my claims (such as discussing how many people believe in God, as if that is the same thing as how many think that ID is science.)Heqwm (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Right - and who is using appeal to authority (based on a self-selected group) ? Z1perlster (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
...Uh, did you mean "Gus" rather than "Fill" there? --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoops. The original comment wasn't signed, and I got confused as to who wrote it.Heqwm (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Stealth image deletion at Stephen C. Meyer

The picture of Stephen C. Meyer at his article appears to have been deleted within the last month, without any notification on that article's talkpage. The only reason I found out was because a bot came around to comment out the image's code. Nor can I find, through various searches, any indication of when/why/how it was deleted (and thus cannot tell if the process was valid or not). Anybody who's interested and who has a better understanding of where/how to look might wish to look into things, I've done all that I can. HrafnTalkStalk 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The image was deleted because of a bad fair use justification:

01:14, 16 January 2008 East718 (talk · contribs) deleted "Image:Stephen Meyer.web.jpg" ‎ (CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago)

Hope this helps. TableMannersC·U·T 05:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I found out the same thing. It probably doesn't help that a great deal of images used for these articles were uploaded by Duncharris who hasn't edited in well over a year. Going through his talk page you can see a veritable treasure trove of images that are being deleted without anyone contesting them. Alot of these images were used, I gather, for these types of articles. Hmmm.... Baegis (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be an idea for a few people to add Duncharris to their watchlist, to alert us to future deletions. I've done so myself. HrafnTalkStalk 10:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the finalism?

I am a bit surprised by the present page completely ignoring the finalist/orthogenetic aspect of the ID concept. As I wrote recently in this discussion page (albeit a bit in trollistic way, I admit it) the fundamental difference between WHY and HOW questions are an easy and additional element that allows anyone to distinguish what is a scientific question from what is not: science is never about finalist questions. The mere evocation of intelligence in the origin of everything implies an automatic acceptation of the orthogenesis principle, otherwise it shouldn't be called intelligent design but rather dumb design (and not random design, because that is precisely what the ID concept is opposed to, dumbness being very far from randomness, which is impossible to achieve perfectly under a finalist objective). I would love to complete in such way the actual page, which I otherwise find quite good if not excellent, but I feel that I am not the person with the best references to do it. What is your opinion about this matter? Thank you -- Sophos II (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, WP:OR. As nice as this is, I am sure if you looked in demarcation problem and some of the references there, you might find that this has been addressed to death in philosophical circles. --Filll (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed systems/entropy

In regard to this paragraph:

Proponent Granville Sewell has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, thereby violating the second law of thermodynamics and supporting intelligent design.[86][87] This, however, is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles.[88] The second law applies to closed systems only. If this argument were true, living things could not be born and grow, as this also would be a decrease in entropy. However, like evolution, the growth of living things does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, because living things are not closed systems-- they have external energy sources (e.g. food, oxygen, sunlight) whose production requires an offsetting net increase in entropy.

It would probably be appropriate to add a further explanation (with citations) of what the offsetting net increase in entropy comes from in order to allow genetic information increase. In other words "Living things can grow because their decrease in entropy is more than offset by by the increase of entropy on their food and environment; groups of living organisms can evolve (gain usable genetic information) because the increase in complexity in genomes (decrease of entropy) is offset by __________." I honestly don't know what scientists have proposed as the offset factor - any ideas? standonbible(Talk)Assume good faith and stay neutral! 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge topic and one we do not have room for necessarily. Why not start a stub in a sandbox and slowly try to grow an article on Evolution and entropy?--Filll (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is a huge topic. As you are aware, I understand the proposed process of evolution and how most of the laws that govern it are supposed to work; the only reason I'm against it is that I just don't think it happens. But I have absolutely no idea where the entropy offset is supposed to come from. I still think it would be good to have an expert on the topic add just one or two sentences here explaining how the entropy offset might work for evolution as opposed to just giving a rather disconnected example. standonbible(Talk)Assume good faith and stay neutral! 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the process for creating a stub in a sandbox? Should it be my sandbox? Should it be set up as a subpage of this Talk page or a subpage of the article itself? Is there a template for a stub-in-progress-sitting-in-a-subpage-sandbox page? standonbible(Talk)Assume good faith and stay neutral! 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This is actually a very easy to understand by analogy. Imagine the universe is a casino. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that with every chemical reaction, you lose some energy; in the casino, this means that you can't win and you can't break even - the house wins every time.
Now, we (the earth) are a small time player - not much money (energy). Standing next to the earth is the Sun, a very, very big player, with lots of money (energy). The Sun is throwing around all sorts of chips (energy), and a few of these happen to land in Earth's pile. So even though the earth is losing money to the casino, it's gaining money from a much bigger loser (the sun). Raul654 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the law of entropy even without analogy. In thermodynamics, matter goes to the lowest energy. If you have the right understanding of thermodynamics, matter, lowest, and energy, then that makes perfect sense. What I do not understand (and what the article is very unclear on) is where the entropy offset for increase of usable information in a genetic pool of a group of organisms comes from. standonbible(Talk)Assume good faith and stay neutral! 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your question has no basis in science. You have misapplied the 2nd law of therodynamics to information theory. See this Raul654 (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Technically, it's not "my" claim, it's the claim of proponents like Granville Sewell. I'm trying to improve the article, not start a discussion about the validity of evolution. If, as the Talk.Origins page states, concepts of thermodynamic entropy are entirely distinct and inapplicable to evolution, then the article should say so. At least instead of:
"This, however, is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles.[88] The second law applies to closed systems only. If this argument were true, living things could not be born and grow, as this also would be a decrease in entropy. However, like evolution, the growth of living things does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, because living things are not closed systems-- they have external energy sources (e.g. food, oxygen, sunlight) whose production requires an offsetting net increase in entropy.''
Again, I'm not certain as to exactly how this area of evolutionary biology is commonly delineated, so I'm asking someone with a bit more expertise to explain it, since the present configuration of the article is obviously inaccurate or at least misleading. standonbible(Talk)Assume good faith and stay neutral! 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous faulty objections to evolution based on misapplication of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The paragraph in this article speaks to the energy implications of the 2nd law, which is what Granville Sewell objects to (in particular: In these simple examples, I assumed nothing but heat conduction or diffusion was going on - [7]). These would be CF001.1 through CF001.5 in the talkorigins list. Your objection, on the other hand, falls into CF005 - objections based on misapplication to information theory. These are two different beasts. Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) What that paragraph DOES do, however, is to state one side of a controversy as fact, which needs to be fixed. I'd normally suggest rephrasing in terms of "Scientist n states that..."; except that our current source for it is to an author, identified only by name and email address, on the archive, which doesn't really seem to fit Wikipedia's requirements for 'reliable third-party published sources'. Can anyone provide a better source such that this view can be better attributed? TSP (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It states it as a fact because it is a fact. Objections based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics have absolutely no basis in reality. And yes, is a reliable source. Raul654 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
By which you meant that "there is no serious dispute" about it? I'm afraid that, at least to me, Granville Sewell's comments seem to represent a dispute. TSP (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying he's a crank. I'm sure if you look hard enough, there are people who dispute gravity too. Our gravity article doesn't give voice to them, and this article will not give voice to such a dispute either. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you square this with WP:NPOV? 'Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."' TSP (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Very easily: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. -- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - or as the summary puts it, "fairly, proportionately and without bias." Is it not expressing a bias to present one of the various viewpoints as Wikipedia's own view, or as fact? Certainly views must be represented proportionately; the article about gravity will as you say probably not mention at any length those who dispute it, nor will the article about evolution mention this criticism in any depth. But this is not those articles; this is specifically the article about intelligent design, a minority position which disputes evolution; as such, it should mention these minority views, and when it does it must do so fairly and without bias. NPOV seems clear that this means that Wikipedia should not, in describing a dispute, assert one opinion (which in this case means "a matter which is subject to dispute"), however well-supported that opinion is. TSP (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Reread what I wrote: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source - Granville Sewell's publications (on the DI's website) are not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. 0 reliable sources = 0 mentions in this article. Raul654 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Only one of the sources cited is to the DI website, for what it's worth; and even personal websites are acceptable sources for verification of the views of the publisher. If the views of the Discovery Institute on this topic are non-notable, then this article might as well be deleted, as that represents the majority of the adherents of the position that this article is about.
I wouldn't particularly have a problem with 0 mentions in the article, but that's not the current situation. The current situation is of a controversy represented, but with one side (represented by two sources, one online and one in print) presented as an opinion, and the other side (represented by one online source) presented as fact or as Wikipedia's opinion. That's not my understanding of how a Neutral Point of View presentation works. I think that most people (especially if we included Dawkins' view, as helpfully suggested by Dave Souza) would agree with the opinion currently expressed when presented with the evidence; but as a matter of controversy we should still present both sides neutrally. TSP (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I've just realised that the two sources listed are in fact the same one, once on the DI website and once on the American Spectator website - I'd assumed they were separate articles on the same topic, but they actually are identical. I wonder why it's listed twice. I'll merge them. TSP (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

TSP, and Standonbible, if you are so sure you are correct, why does Prigogine have a Nobel Prize? --Filll (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Skimming Granville Sewell's article, he's hanging it on the mistaken idea that entropy = disorder which is briefly and correctly dismissed in CF001.1 and which is dealt with in more detail in "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions". . The term "disorder" used in the 1880s to visualise molecular energy is outdated, but continues to confuse thermodynamics students. Molecular "disorder" has nothing to do with the "order" perceived by Sewell in life systems. .. dave souza, talk 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's cool - find a source that makes that criticism, and we should include it. Filll, you seem to be mistaking my personal views for NPOV. As far as I can see I have made no statements about my own beliefs, which should be irrelevant to this discussion. I am not saying that I believe that Sewell is correct; I am saying that NPOV requires us to detail the criticisms of him, and who made them, that readers may find out for themselves how solid the scientific consensus against him is; not just to state as fact that he is incorrect. For me this is the core of WP:NPOV; do you think I've misinterpreted? TSP (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's cool - find a source that makes that criticism, and we should include it - he did. In fact, he found two. Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. What I thought needed sourcing (sorry, I wasn't very clear) was that "he's hanging it on the mistaken idea that entropy = disorder", and is therefore subject to those criticisms; but actually, on a second read of Sewell's own writing that's pretty explicit in his own writing, so he's laid himself wide open to those criticisms. TSP (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
CF001.1 makes that criticism, as does the source given in the article in more complex terms. A slightly simpler and more entertaining dismissal of intelligent design misuse of "information entropy" is given by Dawkins], who describes Shannon entropy, and notes that bacteria have much less information capacity than the human genome, which in turn has significantly less than the crested newt. .. dave souza, talk 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt give a plugged nickel for your personal views. However, I get tired of people who bring up nonsense objections, but never do any real work. So start a sandbox article on this topic as I suggested. And start reading and researching. Your completed article should have a minimum of 150-200 peer-reviewed references in it, and maybe a good 20 or 30 flaky creationist religious tracts. You might want to learn how to typeset mathematics, because it should include a good measure of the mathematics of entropy, and statistical mechanics, and information theory etc.

And if you do this, I can promise you, you will contribute in a useful way to Wikipedia instead of this sort of ridiculous thread, and you will also learn something.--Filll (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As Raul indicates, this is a standard creationist claim and we must present it in the context of the mainstream response, but as a specifically ID claim it's barely notable. Should it be included at all in this article? ... dave souza, talk 22:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this is already covered in Objections to evolution#Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics & Entropy and life. HrafnTalkStalk 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Further on this, could somebody explain to me how Sewell's comments on 2LoT relates to ID's take on Fine-tuned Universe? I was going to put one/both of the above links in the section's 'see also', but then saw that neither of them relate to FTU (as they rather relate to Sewell's comments). HrafnTalkStalk 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Offsetting factors are labelled "food, oxygen, sunlight". Wikipedia should not treat readers like morons. Honestly, if people are unable to comprehend that organisms are not closed systems, an article on intelligent design is not the place to explain it to them. Hrafn correctly points to Objections to evolution#Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics or Entropy and life--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments from Ignorance or God of the Gaps

  1. ^ Dennett, Daniel C. (2006), Breaking the Spell, Viking (Penguin), ISBN 0-670-03472-X