Talk:Stephen C. Meyer/Archive 3

Definition of Pseudoscience

The one who mentioned ID to be pseudoscience fails to put forward evidence for this categorisation. Until evidence is put forward, and clear distinction between science and ID is made, the word pseudoscience should not be used. Else, it is an obvious biased choice of words that doesn't explain the reality of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.158.46 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources describing it as such abound; some of which can easily be found at Intelligent design and science. We also have the WP:PSCI policy. —PaleoNeonate – 18:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The article you mention does not give a good reason to label Intelligent Design as a pseudoscientific claim, only that many sources consider it to be unverifiable by nature, something that proponents of ID argue that evolution is as well. I would protest to keeping it for the very reason of neutrality. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:6A (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The difference between those two unverifiability claims is that the one about evolution is clearly false. See Precambrian rabbit, for example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely right. The author of the article declaring intelligent design as a pseudoscience is apparently the ultimate authority. How can anyone declare life's unknowables on one side as science vs the unknowables on another side? Stephen Meyer has only ever used the tools of science to come to his conclusions, if they're different to some other scientists (and many, many concur with Meyer) that's not grounds to declare someone as a follower of pseudoscience ….. Wikipedia need to maintain as non-bias a view as possible but they have a long way to go if they're ever to anything at all credible beyond street conversation level 203.57.212.17 (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Empty rhetorics, meaningless blather. You can write exactly the same in the Talk page of every other article about a pseudoscience or pseudoscience proponent. (Many, many people actually do that. See the footnotes in WP:YWAB for examples.) Bring reliable sources that trump the ones we already use, that is the only way to change the stance of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" is an obvious epithet that leads off a poorly written hit piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4680:403F:AC7F:EB39:7955:E786 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Darkraid1: ID is considered psudoscience, see WP:PSCI, which is part of the neutrality policy and which says "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." Tornado chaser (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, if ID is considered pseudoscience, then it must be pseudoscience. Ah, the blessed anonymity of the passive voice. Wikipedia has spoken. Bollardlpd8 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The text at the link is not in the passive voice: "The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education." Jibal (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding my agreement that the categorization of his work as “pseudoscience” is one drawn from a bias and not a logical standpoint. Clbhrtn (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I discussed this at length in a separate section, but I put my agreement in the hat, as well. If our definition of "pseudoscience" encompasses something as scientifically rigorous as Intelligent Design then evolution falls into that category as well. Not to mention evolution presupposes the origin of life to have any effect, and the origin of life question has not been answered. In other words, until the question on "The Origin of Biological Form" is answered, evolution is a very "unscientific" explanation of how life manifests and changes over time, and what our lovely Wikipedia article would define as "pseudoscience" (not saying its pseudoscience, simply stating that we aren't utilizing our, albeit bad, definition in a neutral manner). Kjbrawner (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Go thou, and study WP:V and WP:NOR as well as WP:PSCI. Your ideas of "neutral" clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. You may find Conservapedia more congenial, if it's still on the go. . . dave souza, talk 23:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't mean to suggest what I've said is conservative, correct? Because if so, you'd obviously be neglecting your "neutral" standard by making a large assumption based on stereotype. I've worked definitions and scientific exploration as described by Darwin himself into my response. The fact that one can come to a separate but logical conclusion through the same observations is acknowledged by every scientist worth their salt, and the current peer-reviewed literature is telling a completely different story than what this page would lead you to believe from the get-go. All we ask is to remove this one word that is an obvious abuse of bias that has no place in science or an encyclopedia. Let the work speak for itself instead of trying to derail it as fake science. Because otherwise you end up getting hits like this, and I'm sure Wikipedia wouldn't stand for it if it was actually neutral. Furthermore, under the neutral standard, it specifically states, with regard to pseudoscience, the following: "Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." This is where Intelligent Design falls, and it should be treated as such. Kjbrawner (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I was kind of suprised to read of "the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design". I say this as one who studied and teached "philosophy (or theory) of science". The qualification "pseudoscientific" stems from a naturalistic world view and/or a narrow view of science. Neither 'intelligence' nor 'design' nor 'intelligent design' are unscientific concepts. They refer to properties, characteristics or phenomena that can be studied and are studied in science. The issue is here whether they can be applied to phenomena that are studied by natural sciences. Isaac Newton e.g. thought they can. in the body of the article one can describe the controversy about the principle. Coradriaan (talk, 9:10, 2 aug. 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting an unnaturalistic "world view". Whether or not the phenomena of "intelligence" or "design" are studied in science, ID is relabelled "creation science" based on theology. WP:PSCI nails it: Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Don't know what you've taught, but there's ample evidence of IDists trying to redefine science while declining to adhere to scientific standards and methods. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Isacc Newton is irrelevant. Your studies of philosophy are irrelevant. Your ascription of a "naturalistic worldview" to other users is irrelevant. Only what the reliable sources say counts, and they say ID is pseudoscience. End of discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You may refer to ID as pseudoscience at your will, but you will not be able to hinder its growth. Another scientist challenged Darwin's theories: David Gelernter. Among the evidence that convinced him are the books: Darwin's Doubt as well as The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

ID is growing? Don't think so.

David Gelernter is not a scientist. Computer science is engineering, not science. Even if it were science, he is still a biological layman who does not understand evolution any better than the other laymen who invented ID do. See here for a professional's refutation of his silly misunderstandings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the term "pseudoscientific" is an emotionally-charged term. Should be rephrased to "advocate of the theory of intelligent design which is a minority view within the scientific community" or something similar...you could just cut out the minority view part in favor if conciseness and clarity. But I understand why you'd want to include it Vinyldisciple (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that is that intelligent design is not a view "within the scientific community", minority or otherwise. It is a religious subculture opposed to the scientific community, and one the scientific community ignores except for making fun of it now and then.

And Wikipedia does not care about the ways you charge your emotions: it just tells it how it is, or rather, how the reliable sources say it is. The say it is pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There's arguments for and against the use of the word pseudoscience here. Being a relatively infrequent editor, how does this discussion come to a concensus? Surely, the Default should be to not have it. What counts as consensus here, because it clearly hasn't been reached. Geo1Man (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The arguments for the use are good, and the arguments against are not. What matters is the communication of pertinent facts, not whether or not some choice is "the default". XOR'easter (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

And there is a consensus about that, because consensus does not mean a vote with a 100% result. For consensus, only good resoning counts. People dropping in every few months complaining that the article disagrees with their baseless opinion do not matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

As Mr. Meyer's own explain in depth, intelligent design is not a pseudoscience as defined here on Wikipedia. It has basis in fact. He mentions the Cambrian explosion, DNA as code for instance. I suggest we replace "pseudoscience" with "theory" to be more accurate. Jackcholt (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Meyer is obviously not a usable source on that. Asking pseudoscientists whether they are pseudoscientists is stupid, and the idea that as soon as a pseudoscientist "mentions the Cambrian explosion" or any other science word, they stop being a pseudoscientist is supremely naive. Mimicking a scientist by using scientific words is what pseudoscientists do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit of the lead

A potential problem with this edit is that it includes a promotional link as reference. There also is no need to describe ID here since we already link to its article. Perhaps other than WP:PSCI which is already observed (the mention of pseudoscience). If we keep a more lengthy description, then "idea that certain features of nature are best explained in terms of intelligent agency" can simply be described as creationism. —PaleoNeonate – 18:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you link the WP page that defines what a "promotional link" is? BunsOfWrath (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In this context, WP:SELFPUB applies; Disco and CSC material is unduly self-serving, and requires reliable secondary source context. . . dave souza, talk 07:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Creationism and ID are two entirely different schools of thought as evidenced by the fact that they often clash with one another conceptually. For example, ID accepts the Big Bang Theory while Creationism does not. ID accepts an earth and universe billions of years old while Creationism argues for a young earth and universe, only thousands of years old. There may be subsets within these schools of thought, but they are distinctly different and should not be conflated. To do so reveals a lack of scientific understanding. RolftheRuf (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand creationism, which has many varieties, including intelligent design which is a form of creationism, not science, and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". . . dave souza, talk 15:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is not whether ID is pseudoscience or not. This article is about Stephen C. Meyer, who holds the view of the ID. It is sufficient to describe the mainstream opinion about the ID. We trust that an intelligent reader can click into ID and find out that it is known as a pseudoscience, for example. Here we need to present mainstream resources properly describing Stephen C. Meyer. Lightest (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "pseudoscience of" is factually applied to "intelligent design". That Stephen Meyer is an advocate of that pseudoscience is a fact about him. No coherent argument has been offered for changing this ... that some people seem to want to deny or bury these facts is not a reason to do so. Jibal (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me give an example here: the fact that Dinesh Joseph D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist is an established fact in reliable sources. This I have no problem with. My point is that Wikipedia relies on scientific consensus when the article is a topic of science, but when the article is biographical, we need biographical sources like history, news reports, etc. Lightest (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a particular WP:RS, then take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise, your will is not law for the Wikipedia Community.

If you claim that it were a WP:BLP violation, then take it to WP:BLPN. But there is little chance you succeed, since we already have 3 (three) WP:RS which state that Meyer does pseudoscience. I.e. all the sources are specifically about him, not just about somebody else from the ID movement. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I have not much experience with Wikipedia editing, and may therefore be violating protocol, e.g. in posting this in the incorrect place. I address the author of the article Stephen C. Meyer. You must have heard the following a thousand times, but it falls to me to say it again. The word "pseudoscience" in the first sentence of the article is of course biased, subjective , argumentative and completely inappropriate (except in a quote) to an encyclopedia article. The characterization applied to Intelligent Design can be defended , of course, and also rebutted. The word "pseudoscience" does indeed belong in the section "Darwins's Doubt," where it is properly placed in quotes and attributed to Gareth Cook; further, this appropriate quote makes the impolite and intrusive appearance of the word "pseudoscientific" earlier in the article redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obugov (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have moved here the above comment which was inadvertently placed elsewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 04:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the author of the article--Wikipedia articles are a community effort.

The word "pseudoscience" in the first sentence of the article is of course biased, subjective , argumentative and completely inappropriate (except in a quote) to an encyclopedia article.

This is merely your opinion, and saying "of course" does not change that. Characterizing intelligent design as a pseudoscience is consistent with Wikipedia policy; it's not biased, subjective or argumentative, it is the scientific consensus, and therefore it is not inappropriate.

the impolite and intrusive appearance of the word

More opinion, but Wikipedia is concerned with fact, not with avoiding being impolite or intrusive in your opinion.

redundant

It appears in the lede, which is inherently redundant. And surely merely being redundant does not warrant all this push back, which is clearly ideological. Jibal (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Further, a helpful contrast to this biased article can be found in the article on Robert Spencer: there the author has exercised restraint in not calling Spencer an Islamophobe in the lead, but rather noting in the fourth paragraph that he has been called Islamophobic. This mature approach might be advantageously adopted in the Meyer article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.131.125 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(If i fail to sign things , e.g., "Further , a helpful contrast ...", that is due to ignorance or oversight, not to hiding 173.75.131.125 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)) 173.75.131.125 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that the phrase “psuedoscience” is biased and dismissive, and serves no purpose to understanding Dr. Steven Myer’s scientific and cosmological arguments. Perhaps proving an intelligent Designer is beyond the scope of science and falls within the realm of cosmology. But refuting elements of Darwin’s evolutionary theory based on empirical evidence is certainly within the rights of science.

As a compromise, I propose replacing “psuedoscience” with “cosmological” Ammonib (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As a better compromise, follow WP:PSCI and the sources that clearly show ID is pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It is original research to say that someone is pseudoscientist without mainstream, reliable sources saying so. Lightest (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lightest: If no WP:RS ever has called Stephen C. Meyer a peddler of pseudoscience, that would be indeed a textbook case of WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation. Now, seriously, do you still think that your statement is true? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to join an editing war, so I won't revert the recent edit too quickly (I just saw you reverted the same thing 3 times). What I need is a reasonable presentation. In the lead of an article, it represents Wikipedia's voice, and Wikipedia's voice reflects the vast majority view of reliable sources. I do not think it is warranted unless it is clearly shown as such. If it cannot be shown, then it ought to be removed. (For example, if only the New York Times has described it, then even though it is reliable source, it is not enough to be put in the lead. It can be put under the section of Controversy.) Lightest (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lightest: Take your pick from https://www.google.com/search?q=Stephen+C.+Meyer+pseudoscience&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It is your private research. If you need to make a case, then you need to present it well. When I read the Wikipedia article about Stephen C. Meyer, I do not see enough reference to directly describe him as a 'pseudoscientist'. The books listed in your link seem interesting, but it is not my job to read all of them. Lightest (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

And, by the way, the link that you posted here gave me this list; none of them seem to use the pejorative term against Stephen C. Meyer.

• Stephen C. Meyer · 2009, Signature in the Cell is the first book to make a comprehensive case for intelligent design based upon DNA.
• Stephen C. Meyer · 2013, In Darwin's Doubt Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life—a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but also because ...
• David Klinghoffer · 2011 · ‎No preview, This is remarkable and telling. In Signature of Controversy, defenders of intelligent design analyze the hostile response using the critics' own writings.
• Stephen C. Meyer · 2021, Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges ...
• James Stump, ‎Zondervan, · 2017, This book allows each contributor to not only present the case for his or her view, but also to critique and respond to the critiques of the other contributors, allowing you to compare their beliefs in an open forum setting to see where ...
• William A. Dembski · 1998, In this book a team of expert academics trained in mathematics, engineering, philosophy, physical anthropology, physics, astrophysics, biology and more investigate the prospects for intelligent design. Edited by William Dembski.
• Jonathan Wells · 2006, A non-technical analysis of the controversial culture war over Darwin versus intelligent design states that there is no irrefutable evidence supporting Darwinism, argues that Darwin-based theories that are taught in school are not fact ...

William A. Dembski · 2002, In this book William A. Dembski brilliantly argues that intelligent design provides a crucial link between science and theology.

• J. P. Moreland, ‎Stephen C. Meyer, ‎Christopher Shaw · 2017

Featuring two dozen highly credentialed scientists, philosophers, and theologians from Europe and North America, this volume contests this proposal, documenting evidential, logical, and theological problems with theistic evolution—making ...

• William A. Dembski · 2006, Scientists and theologians alike will find this book of interest as it brings the question of creation firmly into the realm of scientific debate. The paperback is updated with a new Preface by the author.

Lightest (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You're just wasting your time. Meyer is a pseudoscientist pur sang and Wikipedia will keep telling it till its very end. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The use of the word pseudoscience is contentious as evidenced by this discussion (and the comments in the article). And contentious wording is disallowed by the Wikipedia code of conduct. It must be replaced immediately with something like "theory". Jackcholt (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jackcholt: contentious wording is disallowed by the Wikipedia code of conduct Not really. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

the consensus criterion

the edit ready page for the article says, “!--Do not change or remove the word "pseudoscientific" without reaching consensus on the talk page first-->” We do not have consensus here. So now what? Should keeping this annoying word “pseudoscientific” in the lead be the default position? Why ? Suppose the article on Obama began, “Barack Hussein Obama II is an evil American attorney and politician ...” and suppose someone on the talk page were so silly as to defend it. Would we then decide to keep it in because we had no consensus to change it? No, we’d take it out, because it would be dumb to leave it in. Similarly, even if the presently debated word has its defenders, given the articulated voices here that find it unacceptable ( see also my other post on this page) , the word “pseudoscientific” should be removed from the lead of Stephen c Meyer and should stay out. Obugov (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Obugov

That's an easy one. There is not one single reliable source that says "Obama is evil". There are heaps of reliable sources hat say "ID is pseudoscience". And since WP is based on reliable sources, the Obama thing stay out and the pseudoscience thing stays in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried making it more concise by changing "the pseusoscientific principle of intelligent design" to read simply "intelligent design pseudoscience" but this was reverted by Tornado chaser. Not only was my version more concise, but it also converted the adjective "pseudoscientific" into the noun "pseudoscience". Removing adjectives always seems to me less liable to be interpreted as subjective. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the previous version was better, "the pseusoscientific principle of intelligent design" states exactly what was pseusoscientific, "intelligent design pseudoscience" is not quite as clear, is all ID pseusoscientific? if not what did he promote that was pseudoscience? I just think the previous version was a little clearer and more obviously factual, and harder to accuse of bias. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Anachronist:. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: OK, actually I disagree that we need any qualifiers at all (just say "intelligent design" because the qualifiers are all there in that article). However, I know that removing it wouldn't be accepted. My thinking was that my version was more concise and clean, but I do now see your point that "intelligent design pseudoscience" wrongly implies that there's another kind of intelligent design that isn't pseudoscience. That hadn't occurred to me, so I have no problem with your revert. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

PLEASE CHANGE 'PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC' TO 'CONTROVERSIAL'.

This article is LIBELOUS because it all but states at the outset that Meyer's arguments are pseudoscientific. This is an OPINION. And this OPINION pops up as an apparent Wikipedia "fact" on Google Search any time anyone researches the name Stephen C. Meyer. This is defamation of character. Even Francis Crick suggests that DNA is so mind-numbingly advanced and language-like that it must have come from aliens in outer space! (See the illustration on the book cover for "Life Itself.") Yet Wikipedia does not imply that Crick is pseudoscientific. Richard Sternberg lost his job as Smithsonian editor merely for publishing Meyer's work. How's that for intolerance? Your article on Meyer is just another example of modern science's intolerance for ideas that do not fit with its current paradigm. Religious arguments have never been able to interest me in ID, but science's visceral reaction to the subject makes me want to know more, if only on principle. If ID is so palpably wrong, why does science feel the need to protect readers like myself from even hearing any arguments in favor of it? If the arguments are nonsense, why can't I be trusted to discover that on my own? But science does not want a debate on these subjects, they simply want to silence the supposed opposition. quass@quass.com 204.111.28.75 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC) 204.111.28.75 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

✗ Not done. I assume the request is to remove the adjective pseudoscientific when referring to intelligent design. This is simply not possible under English Wikipedia's content policies. Arguments of scientific intolerance and perhaps overeagerness of scientists to classify unsupported assertations masquerading as science should be raised with scientists. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is purely descriptive in this regard. We do not prescribe the use of words elsewhere, and nor are we supposed to start movements about how words ought to be used. Wikipedia uses terms strictly as they are used in reliable sources. If you wish to hear arguments in favour of your beliefs, you can navigate to pages that cover arguments in favor. If those aren't favorable enough, there are sites with different content policies. Unfortunately, we at Wikipedia are unable to alter reality to force scientists to consider alternate facts, nor would it be appropriate to do so under policy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

When you state that ID is an "unsupported [assertation]" you're showing exactly why this is an invalid line of reasoning. As Meyer explains, there is so much evidence of discontinuity in the fossil record and genomics that Darwin's "Tree of Life" would, by your definition, be an "unsupported [assertation]" and therefore "pseudoscientific" though it is not pseudoscientific at all. It simply just isn't correct. And if you want to fight me on that, he is not alone in this belief, and many evolutionary biologists are increasingly skeptical of this. Furthermore, this is not the most concerning controversy in the study of evolution. The most contentious point of debate over evolution is the idea that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce all the new forms of life and the appearance of design that living forms manifest. Intelligent Design is challenging the idea that an unguided process can produce the appearance, but not the reality, of design. Many top evolutionary biologists are united in their claims that they have strong evidence to disprove this notion of evolution. And while they don't all jump on board the ID wagon, per say, there is no doubt that ID is scientifically rigorous and does in part explain some of the discrepancies of evolution. And before I conclude this point, ID doesn't seek to discredit evolution entirely. It seeks to reconcile the presuppositions and claims that Darwin and the following scientists have made in support of evolution that turn out to not hold enough water. And here lies the argument that everybody is making on this discussion board. The "reality" that you describe isn't reality at all. Just because a scientist tells you that something is reality does not make it so. If you lived at the time of Galileo you would have been inclined to listen to the authority of the Church, but that didn't mean our solar system was suddenly not heliocentric anymore. Your definition of "reality" is basically, "a group of people who are in a place of authority say this, and another newer group say this, but that other theory has been about longer and they consider the other newer theory to be pseudoscientific, so that's going to reflect the reality at Wikipedia until public discourse changes." It's an intellectually dishonest, and frankly just plain wrong, way of describing the reality of the current scientific debate on evolution. This is the definition of bias. If this is Wikipedia's standard of "reality", then until it changes, this editing process will continue to be biased, and Wikipedia will be part of the problem. If your explanation of this phenomenon is that Wikipedia will always be biased in this way to reflect current discourse, and that your definition of "reliable sources" is not judged on the merit of the statement in question as well, then you might as well post this as a disclaimer on every page front-and-center, to make sure that everybody knows Wikipedia is inherently biased and not, by definition, an "encyclopedia", which is what it says on every page. That would be, by your definition, an "unsupported [assertation]" and therefore it should not be on this website. Kjbrawner (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PSCI and WP:V. . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What a cop out, Dave souza! You refer to a policy that is based on the presumption of a vague, uncritical, and certainly subjective belief of what the current consensus is. But beyond that, you (and Wikipedia) negate any intellectual discourse on the subject by taking this word "pseudoscientific" and not requiring the same standard or burden of proof as those who say it is not. Someone labels ID as "pseudoscience" on one page and this forms your justification? This is absurd and simplistic at best! All of these posters are completely correct in identifying the bias of such a word, even if we don't all agree on the nature of that bias. What I find most amusing is that, by posting an response, you consider this post "answered". Yours is not an answer. It is the reaction of someone without an argument.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

Delete "the pseudoscientific principle of" from the 1st paragraph, as it unnecessarily adds a demeaning tone to the merits of the gentleman's advocacy and reeks of editorial. Secundus17 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This article factually mirrors the lead of intelligent design, which says "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God". – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Your response is not constructive to the debate. Please reconsider and move to update the page to more accurately represent Meyer's theories. As other's have stated the current language is not representative of Wikipedia's goal of a impartial database. Even changing it to "controversial" would be closer to this standard, and indicate to a random reader that his theories are not in the main stream of the scientific community. DBWolf0 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

See the previous sections on this talk page. Articles should be written in a way that avoids misleading readers. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no "the debate". ID is pseudoscience per Wikipedia policy, and will remain so until/unless the scientific consensus about it changes. Jibal (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019

Please replace the term "pseudoscientific" from the first sentence of the article with the word "controversial".

The application of the term "pseudoscientific" in the summary constitutes a positive statement about the content of ID, so it requires justification in the form of reliable neutral references (i.e. the absence of such references that requires the term be removed; the term's presence is not required in the absence of counter-references). The bias present in the existing footnotes is blatant: #1 is from Center for Inquiry, which declares in its very mission statement that it desires to "foster a secular society"; #2 is broken; #3 is from The American Prospect which clearly declares its mission as "liberal intelligence", with no mention of neutrality. In the absence of these 3 footnotes, the application of the term "pseudoscientific" in the summary constitutes original research, which is not permitted (WP:NOR).

The hidden text after the word "pseudoscientific" indicates a need for consensus but the Talk page clearly presents that neither side of the argument has anything even approaching consensus (WP:CON). Thus, the argument of having consensus can be used by neither those in favor of keeping the word "pseudoscientific" nor those in favor of removing it. Fortunately, the consensus criterion is irrelevant per the previous paragraph. The hidden text should be both disregarded and removed as this edit is with regard to a question of source integrity, not an issue of consensus. BunsOfWrath (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see "Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated." in the body: the WP:LEAD should be a summary of the body. But also see the various reliable sources at intelligent design, intelligent design movement, irreducible complexity, Talk:Intelligent_design/FAQ and the policy about pseudoscience WP:PSCI. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, the existing footnotes should be removed, and any more reliable references should replace them. The significance of Cook's quote isn't that it represents a neutral stance but rather that it represents Cook's stance. If it were correct to retain a reference to the term "pseudoscience" in the lead (and I would argue that it's not), then a more appropriate wording of the first part of the lead might be "Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the principle of intelligent design. Meyer's work has been termed by his opponents as pseudoscience.". The lead as it is now is misleading and opinionated in that it states that the principle of intelligent design is itself pseudoscience, while Cook's use of the term "pseudoscience" is in direct reference to the text of Darwin's Doubt. BunsOfWrath (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a consensus within the scientific community that ID is pseudoscience. This is because the scientific community has excellent reasons for that judgment. It would be a lie if the article said "has been called" instead of "is". In the article Earth we do not say it "has been called round".

You are starting at the wrong end. If you want the article to say something else, you first have to convince the scientific community that ID is not pseudoscience. When that has been successful, come back here.

Your current strategy is exactly what ID is about - circumventing the scientific community and implanting their ideas at places where it seems easier. But it only seems easier because WP does not allow any such circumventing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "There is a consensus within the scientific community that ID is pseudoscience." is not sufficiently documented within the lead to warrant the term's use. Per my original edit request, the references currently provided on the article are lacking, so there need to be several neutral reliable sources added to demonstrate consensus among the scientific community, or the term should be removed. BunsOfWrath (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to give a short summary of the rest of the article and does not need to contain the reliable sources because they are already in the body of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Any sources that are cited in the lead do need to be neutral and reliable (so the existing footnotes should be removed or replaced). If no sources are given, then deferring to the body of the article is probably fine, but, as stated earlier, the body of the article provides only enough information to establish Gareth Cook's viewpoint on Darwin's Doubt. There is clearly not sufficient reference support in the body of the article (nor in the lead itself) for the use of the phrase "the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design". BunsOfWrath (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking, sorry. Since this happens every day - people wanting to remove the word "pseudoscientific" from articles about pseudosciences and pseudoscientists - I was sort of on autopilot.

The Intelligent Design article contains the sources for that. It is linked right there. Anybody who wants to know about ID more can click it. I think that demanding that the same sources should be in this article too is WP:Wikilawyering. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Think WP:MNA will apply here. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the WP:MNA guideline should apply. I think the same rule should apply to both the term "pseudoscientific" (possibly even the term "controversial" in its place) and any references supporting its use or non-use. I.e. either the references should be improved and the term left (or changed to "controversial" in the presence of counter-references), or both the term and the references should be removed. Per WP:MNA and Hob's comment, anyone who wants to know more about ID (including its status as a pseudoscience or otherwise) can click the link and find that out right in the lead for the ID article. As a comparison, note that the lead for Integral says this: "Integration is one of the two main operations of calculus...". There is no need for Integral to call calculus "the mathematical study of continuous change" since that's very clearly represented in the lead for Calculus. BunsOfWrath (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Marking this answered as  Not done per the apparent lack of consensus. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2019

"quite comfortable accepting the standard evolutionary story, although I put a bit of atheistic spin on it - that (evolution) is how God operated" doesn't make sense and is also poor grammar. What was intended is very likely "put a bit of a theistic spin on it". 88.68.253.251 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done, and good catch. The source that was used included this typo, but the original source (see here) has it correct; it happened to be right at a page break, which is probably related to how it happened. If someone wants to update the source to the original and/or recast it not to use a quote at all, I certainly wouldn't object. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please change pseudoscience to abductive reasoning

Stephen C. Meyer is an advocate for the abductive reasoning that infers intelligent design as the most parsimonious explanation within scientific limitation. Intelligent design can neither be proven nor disproven, yet can be supported through exegesis in the discussion section of literature review. Selectionism, with modern technological advancements, and peer review is also not currently proven, but scientifically supported. Likewise, the premise of both- neither provable or disprovable- are to be suspended as a prospective worldview in their own respect. Though both are under consideration they together warrant further investigation. Mdipr2 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. See Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution and a stack of university text books that a human could not jump over. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Mdipr2, "Meyer ... abductive reasoning ... infers .... within scientific limitation. Intelligent design can neither be proven nor disproven, yet can be supported through exegesis" is longwinded jargon for: ID claims scientific credence, but is a religious view not subject to scientific methodology (unless you redefine science) – per WP:PSCI, it's classic pseudoscience as shown by reliable sources. WP:NOTAFORUM so if you want to continue this discussion you need to present good reliable secondary sources for verifiability. . . dave souza, talk 06:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing makes sense but evolution? Since when is any scientific theory above questioning? I suggest you go look up the definition of theory.

In fact, if you are confident in a theory you would welcome all attempts to disprove it, as that is the only means by which a theory can be made stronger. Ammonib (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

See scientific method. . dave souza, talk 21:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing makes sense but evolution?

That wasn't the claim.

Since when is any scientific theory above questioning?

Strawman.

I suggest you go look up the definition of theory. In fact, if you are confident in a theory you would welcome all attempts to disprove it

Um, I suggest that you look at Scientific_theory ... theories are explanatory frameworks. And again, this is a strawman ... attempts to falsify aspects of the theory of evolution are welcome (and are active research areas for evolutionary biologists), but this has nothing to do with the fact that ID is pseudoscience. Jibal (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest the word “cosmological” Ammonib (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified whitewash. . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

I'm a Theoretical Physicist. This article is essentially an "ad hominem" attack against someone to make a case for a their own religious/ideological agenda. Many agnostic mathematicians, molecular biologists, computer scientists and physicists understand his ideas as being mathematical and passing the rigors of logic and reason. His writing on this subject is mathematically sound, however the interpretation of the data lies in the area of metaphysics. I cannot overstate that any interpretations concerning these particular sets of data, either theistic, deistic, atheistic or agnostic are metaphysical. I would give equal time to the metaphysical interpretations without bias for one over another. This article only cites his detractors and fails to acknowledge what the data actually suggests. The evidence and mathematics Meyer presents is in essence non-religious, despite whether or not they agree with his conclusions concerning the data. The joke among my colleagues is Wikipedia is almost as reliable as the National Enquirer. Instead of complaining, I'm willing to do something about it and attempt to improve the quality of information on this forum. Instead of defining this person with what can be considered to be egregiously one-sided and most definitely politically motivated views, simply state his works and the implications of his mathematics. Only then discuss how groups of people draw different conclusions from his data. My sources for those saying his arguments are sound would be colleagues in the Physics Departments of various Universities, in addition to Dr. David Berlinski and David Galanter from Yale University, both of whom are not completely enthusiastic about his interpretation of scientific evidence, but agree on his observations. Obviously the original article has unearthed every attack against his person, so it's clear that we can incorporate the opinions of those already found in this article as the "side" against his conclusions. Even in this, I would seek substantive arguments against his conclusions and contrast and compare these to the religious atheistic statements that fail to address his salient points. TheoreticalPhyicist (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also please see the note "Please read before starting" at the top of this talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

Change the first line by omitting the pejorative term, "pseudoscientific" and add his earned title as a scientist. Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American scientist who is currently devoted to advocating the philosophical principle of intelligent design. Crelfe (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE pretty much requires calling a spade a spade, although I agree with you that it comes across as pejorative. I would prefer using the noun "pseudoscience" here somehow, instead of the adjective. As for being a scientist, he did work as a geophysicist for 4 years during the 1980s according to the article, then got a PhD in history and philosophy, and his most recent positions were in philosophy and an odd title about "conceptual foundations of science". None of that suggests he worked professionally as a scientist. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would a scientist be devoted to advocating a philosophical principle?

And "intelligent design" is proposed as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution, so it seems that your proposal makes one or more category mistakes Jibal (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I propose changing the term “pseudoscience” to “cosmological”, since the existence of God is beyond the realm of science.

Ammonib (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

In which case, Meyer shouldn't have presented ID as science, should he. . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed biased term "pseudo science"

Considering David Gelernter a professor of computer science at Yale University, recently stated that his views are indeed plausable and should be considered a serious answer for the paradox of the Cambrian Explosion, there is no longer a need to call it pseudo science.

"Meyer doesn’t reject Darwinian evolution. He only rejects it as a sufficient theory of life as we know it. He’s made a painstaking investigation of Darwin’s theory and has rejected it for many good reasons that he has carefully explained. He didn’t rush to embrace intelligent design. Just the opposite. But the explosion of detailed, precise information that was necessary to build the brand-new Cambrian organisms, and the fact that the information was encoded, represented symbolically, in DNA nucleotides, suggests to Meyer that an intelligent designer must have been responsible. “Our uniform experience of cause and effect shows that intelligent design is the only known cause of the origin of large amounts of functionally specified digital information,” he writes. (“Digital” is confusing here; it only means information represented by a sequence of symbols.)"

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qurtuva (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, a professor of computer science has read a bunch of ID books, fallen for the hype, and written an article for the Claremont Review of Books expressing his credulity and showing his ignorance about geological time (and hasn't he heard of the Ediacaran biota?). This opinion piece in no way offsets the multiple well-informed sources in the article. It merely reaffirms that ID is claimed to be science, but isn't. . dave souza, talk 10:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

He actually criticizes ID did you not read his review? At the very least his review of Meyer's book should be in the article. After all we would not call transsexual surgery "pseudoscience" just a different point of view Qurtuva (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Those who seek to label anything that makes any appeal to the supernatural pseudoscience always have to appeal to a viciously circular definition of science. Their very definition is bound up with their materialism. But materialism is a philosophical stance and is in no way necessary for a cogent definition of science. It was certainly not part of the definition for centuries before it was hijacked by the Modernists. Djensen1379 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your definition and argument may be those of the Fundamentalists, but historically are false. . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether one agrees with Dr. Meyer’s arguments or not, is not relevant to the determination of whether or not he follows the scientific method to advance his arguments. I think any genuine reader of his works would have to admit his arguments critiquing Darwin are data driven. To state otherwise simply proves a bias and intentional bullying of an idea you disagree with. It is nothing but a thinly veiled ad hominem attack. Ammonib (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Aw, the shame. Follow WP:PSCI. . . dave souza, talk 21:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove the term "pseudoscience"

Intelligent design is a scientific theory. It predicts that intelligence (not even a specific type of intelligence) is the best explanation of some things we observe in nature. Furthermore, ID has made successful predictions, such as "junk dna" not being junk afterall. There is no reason to do ID such a disservice. Thank you. Danielc692 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, ID is merely an attempt to promote creationism with a layer of jargon. That's the opinion of reliable sources and is how articles are written. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Recently, whenever I find that someone has removed the word "pseudoscientific" from ID proponent articles (and got reverted), I add "pseudoscientific" to two other articles about intelligent design proponents... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Invalid Wiki-page

The beginning should be

"advocate of intelligent design, a scientific argument for the existence of God."

The current inaccurate page undermines Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsoncaleb (talk • contribs) 11:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, and no it doesn't.

See Hitchens's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Hitchens! You just argued for the dismissal of atheism, as there is no evidence for it.

Btw. why is "Hob Gadling" the judge in a Free Encyclopedia?

Also, making a scientific argument is not the same as asserting something.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsoncaleb (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

For God's sake, sign your own blooming posts! Go thou, and read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:FIVE. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I had hoped you would understand the Hitchens quote in context, but I guess that was too much to expect from someone who defends ID.

Of course, I meant that you had given no justification for your claims that ID is scientific. The article gives reliable sources for calling ID pseudoscience, because that is consensus among scientists, and we will not replace that important information by disinformation on your say-so. You asserted without evidence, so I dismissed without evidence.

To avoid rookie mistakes such as demands of "Change this article so it reflects my uninformed opinion instead of reality!", please read and follow the rules pages Dave has just linked here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Suggest changing the following section thusly:

From:

!--Do not change or remove the word "pseudoscientific" without reaching consensus on the talk page first-->a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God

To:

!--Do not change or remove the word "pseudoscientific" without reaching consensus on the talk page first-->a position which atheists claim is apseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God Uncle noname (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources clearly refer to the attachment as pseudoscientific. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

While science is non-confessional and does not need to care about "disproving God", religious apologetics disguised as science is not science, hence pseudoscientific and considered as such by most non-affiliated (independent) sources. —PaleoNeonate – 07:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Argument isn't Pseudoscience

Intelligent Design Argument is simply a philosophical argument formulated in the light of scientific method. This ignorant labeling both damaging personality and misrepresenting an argument. Alexius Calvin (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexius Calvin absolutely agree. Using the excuse of "not having a consensus" edits to the use of the word "pseudoscience" are being constantly reverted from non-contentious alternatives back to the perjorative term. This violates Wikipedia policy. This smacks of blatant prejudice against one school of thought. Jackcholt (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Pseudosciences exist, and ID is one of them. WP:PSCI is stronger than your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Leno405 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal doesn't match sources or meet WP:PSCI policy, and consensus is needed if the label is to be modified. For any changes, please provide good quality sources as required by talk page guidelines. . . dave souza, talk 04:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Suitability of describing and evaluating ID in lede

I'm a bit puzzled by the discussions taking place here. The question to me is not whether reliable sources call intelligent design a pseudoscience, rather, it is whether this evaluation of ID belongs in the lede of any of it's proponents.

For example, the article about John Partridge (astrologer) does not say "John Partridge was an English proponent of astrology, a pseudoscience". It doesn't need to, because anyone not familiar with astrology can click on the wikilink and read more about the subject. Wikipedia does not have an obligation to point out that X is not a scientific theory every time X is mentioned.

As it is now, most of the second sentence and the first two sources of the article are not actually about its subject, Stephen C. Meyer. The lede mentions the existence of God. Is Mr. Meyer prominently concerned about the question of the existence of God? It is not at all clear, from the way this is written. St.nerol (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The entire notability of Stephen C. Meyer is his involvement in the ID movement and efforts to to rewrite the basic rules of science to claim that the design argument is a "scientific theory" that challenges "strictly materialistic views of evolution." Can you suggest ways of improving this, either referring to sources in the article or proposing additional sources? . .dave souza, talk 10:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand the argument and WP:COATRACK although an essay could agree. As Souza said above, since the subject's work is mainly promoting pseudoscientific arguments, it's a fact that's difficult to detach; with "intelligent design" alone and the WP:PSCI, it's difficult to properly represent without the mention of pseudoscience. The rest of my comment might be a bit WP:NOTFORUM but considering the perennial requests on this page including by people claiming that ID is not pseudoscience:

In science there are methods, and hypotheses (what many creationists confuse "scientific theory" to be, the latter being more an explanatory model that can also make predictions, based on many working hypotheses). In this sense ID cannot be a scientific theory. Assuming it was a hypothesis, there are multiple issues: the many conflicting approaches it uses and the lack of testability (what is falsifiable has been, what is not will always remain speculative tenets). Let's assume that one of its hypotheses is "the existence of God". How do you work practically with this? What experiments can be used to replicate its results? Its metaphysics are idealist and simply outside of workable science... Compare this to science, where we can infer where the next transitional fossil between two previously found ones is likely to be found and that despite their scarcity we find more where we expected. The fact that when we discovered molecular genetics (DNA), although it corrected some errors it mostly confirmed what was already understood while providing much more material to work with. The number of elements in physics that were long expected to exist before we actually observed them, etc. This is practical, working science. Finally, there are languages that allow to express philosophical and other ideas, like writing, math, etc. It's not difficult to express whatever simple model the mind wants using those and to communicate it. It has nothing to do with if parts of it are testable and can be confirmed. A lot of pseudoscience works using such models that may appear elegant to the mind but have little to do with actual reality.

In this case the metaphysics and starting points (premises, tenets) are based on beliefs, faith statements and motivated reasoning, the image there is satire but to the point... ID, IC is rehashed classical watchmaker analogy with a tradition of arguments updated as popscience was reporting about scientific developments, as well as deriving from older creation science, attempting to dissimulate its heritage and to also make it appealing to other religions and schools. Since it's also a God of the gaps, scientific discoveries must be construed into suggesting It wherever questions remain. —PaleoNeonate – 10:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The comparison to John Partridge is not, I think, a particularly helpful one. He was a historical figure (1644 – c. 1714), and so attaching an epithet which indicates the modern status of astrology could be misleading. Astrology and alchemy both were complex mixtures of outright mysticism with what we in retrospect might call protoscience. The situation of Intelligent Design is not nearly so subtle. Here, omitting "the pseudoscience of" reduces clarity and amounts to whitewashing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, the initial question is whether the description of ID as pseudoscience belongs in the lede, as always WP:PSCI policy gives the answer that "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." Separating the headline mention of ID from that description gives it undue weight, astrology is more generally recognised as not being science but the ID movement, Meyer in particular, have gone to great lengths to claim that ID is science and should be presented as such in school science classes, regrettably a significant proportion of the public have been persuaded by them. The other points are more interesting, we can provide a source directly describing Meyer's views as pseudoscience, and think about linking it to the design argument rather than the existence of God. Meyer doesn't doubt the existence of God, but thinks that can be taken as an axiom when doing "science". . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Nice to find that Meyers said "an evidence-based scientific theory" as described by Ron Numbers. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good addition to explain why it's important to mention it's pseudoscience. Linking to the revision we're talking about for archives, —PaleoNeonate – 15:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious to everyone that the intro mentions "pseudoscience" because anti-ID indivuduals want to inject an insult and discredit ID proponents. There is no reason for ID to be described as such in the intro. I will rewrite the intro and also include that Dr. Meyer is a philosopher and historian of science. Why these were left out in the first place is odd. Saxophilist (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong: he is notable neither as a philosopher nor as a historian of science. I could equally say that I am a philosopher and a sociologist, but since I do not work by publish or perish such claim is moot.

And seen that in 2021 AD there is still no cogent hypothesis of ID, ID proponents did a great job at discrediting themselves. Many years have passed since the Dover trial and no journal, scientific or otherwise, has ever published the hypothesis of ID. Phillip E. Johnson died without knowing it. Come on, in so many years after getting creamed in court, ID proponents could have at least articulate a cogent hypothesis of ID. Their failure to do so is abysmal. The operationalization of ID simply did not happen. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

his doctorate is in the history of science...

Regardless, why does ID need to be explained in the opening? The word links to the ID Wikipedia article where people can read about what it is. Explaining it in the opening is obviously done as an insult to proponents. If the biased editors are set on explaining it on the opening without reason, we may as well explain everything else in the opening. Saxophilist (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

So? I am a graduate in philosophy and a graduate in sociology. It does not follow that I would be notable as either. WP:ARBPS and WP:PSCI require us to state that he is a pseudoscientist in big shinny letters. We are not Conservapedia. We are profoundly biased against pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand what intelligent design is or isn't. May I suggest reading Dr. Meyer's books? And I appreciate you stalking me wherever I edit on Wikipedia. It makes me feel loved. Saxophilist (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you figure? Anybody who understands what intelligent design is will say, in these words or similar ones, that it is a fake, a public relations stunt, invented by a lawyer to get around the fact that teaching religion in public schools is illegal in the US, by clothing religion in a cheap lab coat surrogate and pretending that that turns it into science. Reading books written by one of the pretenders would not help you understand it, since they are all smoke and mirrors. But you need to be able to recognize that first.

Regardless, the page is for improving the article, not for selling books. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Saxophilist: Here is something you can do: WP:CITE the article wherein the hypothesis of ID has been published. I'm afraid you cannot do it.

Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design.

— Paul Nelson (creationist)

Do you have any evidence that that has changed? More about it at http://web.archive.org/web/20140426120547/http://pandasthumb.org:80/archives/2007/01/intelligent-des-43.html tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Overexplaining in the opening

I recommend changing the opening to the following:

"Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American author, which means he writes books and lives in the United States of America, and former educator, which means he used to teach students for a living, but doesn't anymore. He is an advocate of intelligent design, which is a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God,[1][2] presented with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory".[3][4] He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI),[5] which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.[6][7][8] Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College, which is a private Christian university affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and located in Spokane, Washington. Meyer is a Senior Fellow of the DI and Director of the CSC.[9]"

If we're going to explain ID as pseudoscience in the lede, we may as well explain what "American author" is, what "former educator" means, and what Whitworth College is.

This is all in jest, of course. None of these things, including ID, need to be defined in the opening. Save it for elsewhere in the article, or you can click on the blue words and read a whole new article. Saxophilist (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You may fancy yourself a fellow of infinite jest, but your histrionics don't meet WP:TALK, so desist. dave souza, talk 18:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

Remove "pseudoscientific" from the description of Dr. Meyer's area of study.

Please note his recent text, The Return of the God Hypothesis. This text supports removal of the "pseudoscientific" term. 97.64.66.89 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See also multiple previous requests above. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A person can't pull himself out of the pseudoscientific swamp by writing something. It is up to the scientific community to decide that, and the scientific community has been giving ID the raspberry since its invention by a shyster. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

“Pseudoscientific” and the description of his beliefs as trying be scientific seems to be biased language. Shouldn’t the views be presented and if they are pseudoscientific, then easily debunked? 144.174.210.247 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. Cannolis (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Please keep the integrity of Wikipedia by removing your own political view. You might see creationism as "pseudoscience" and fair enough, but isn't it more honest and more persuasive to make an argument convincing people of that position and citing facts and evidence, rather than a simple declaration that its "pseudoscience"? I'm sure it would be an easy task for you to cite the relevant sources and make a brief summary and rebuttal of his points. This is only relevant for how seriously you want Wikipedia to be taken, and how much bias you're comfortable leaving on the site. This author is trying to have an honest debate on the subject at hand, at least have the decency to take him seriously and not be defamatory. 2600:8805:3744:A00:E9C7:423C:C7B:17EE (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not an article about creationism, so, even if Wikipedia were the right place for refutation of those hundreds of stupid and fallacious reasons creationists give, this would be the wrong place for it. Check out the talk.origins website instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Also note; creationism is religious belief, commonly but not always invoking pseudoscience. ID is definitively pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 21:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

Pseudo needs to be removed in front of science. Thats an opinion and has no source. 2600:1006:B145:3743:B1A5:49EA:3F38:811B (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Reveals a Strong Bias

In addition to classifying ID and Meyer's work in general as pseudoscience, which is in no way a neutral opinion (and it IS an opinion), the article goes on to provide refutations of nearly all Meyer's academic activities, and only negative reviews of the books he has authored. Are we to conclude that no supporting opinions or affirmative reviews of Meyer's body of work exist, or do we detect an agenda here?

For a comparative analysis I would refer you to the pages of Gregg Braden and Josef Allen Hynek . In both of these examples we have experts of a kind in fields that fall comfortably within the realm of pseudoscience (virtually by definition), yet we find no use of the word anywhere on either of their pages. In addition, I would hasten to add that both individuals are portrayed in a generally positive, and certainly, respectfully neutral light.

When we take the opportunity to study each of the two pages in question together with this article on Stephen C Meyer, the question of bias becomes glaringly obvious in the case of the latter. But Hynek's page is instructive for an additional reason -- specifically, certain elements of its content. The first is a quote by Hynek which bears directly on the discussion at hand here. Hynek was initially a skeptic with regard to UFOs before becoming a research proponent. With regard to his chosen field he said the following:

"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?"

Then in looking at the available evidence more seriously, he said this: "As a scientist I must be mindful of the lessons of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."

Hynek goes on to say that he became resentful of the Air Force's Project Blue Book because their approach was unscientific. They came to the subject with the presupposition that it was all nonsense. Even thought he agreed with them from the outset, he disagreed with this approach. It did not allow for the scientific method to run its course.

It seems to me that we are witnessing the exact same error taking place here on Wikipedia by those supposed to be championing the scientific method, while employing the most egregiously unscientific methods in this presentation of the person of Stephen C Meyer. I say, let his work stand or fall on its own merits. There is no need to influence the reader or attempt to tip the scales of opinion against his views with an article significantly loaded with bias and preconception. If his views have merit, they should be welcomed by the scientific community. If they are without merit, they will collapse on their own with no help required from any of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolftheRuf (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The bias is strong in this one. Please comply with WP:TALK to present concise, well sourced proposals showing in detail what article improvements you think are needed. . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Neutral" in Wikipedia terms means that we give attributions where necessary. Since the scientific consensus is that ID is pseudoscience, that is what we say, without attribution. If you want to improve the reputation of ID, you need to convince the scientific community first. Wikipedia will follow.

WP:YWAB will show you that you are just another one in a long list of people who try to defend pseudosciences by saying that the Wikipedia articles about them are biased. Your reasoning can also be, and has been, applied to holocaust denial and flat-eartherism, which may show you that it is too weak to have any impact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This pejorative reply to a reasonable argument speaks for itself. Some people can't help but betray their agenda with ad hominem attacks. It serves my point well, so for that I should thank you. However, in future please comply with WP:TALK policy which states, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When talk pages in other namespaces (including userspace) are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." RolftheRuf (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your post here is a long screed detailing your personal views on the subject. Despite your inexperience you seem surprisingly well versed on talk page guidelines, yet you haven't brought any sources discussing Meyer here or suggested that any used are dubious. Don't expect other editors to take you seriously until you do that. By the way, WP:AgF doesn't require me not to think that maybe you've got a lot more editing experience than your account shows. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well in fact, I did not espouse my personal views at all. What I did was object to the manner in which Mr. Meyer is characterized in this, his namesake article. And as evidence for why I believed this characterization was biased, I provided two other example articles on other persons who can fairly be classed as 'experts' in fields generally conceded as being pseudoscience. My examples demonstrate my objection with cases in point, where others more accurately classed as practitioners in fields of actual pseudoscience are treated more fairly and with more respect and evenhandedness than is Mr. Meyer in this article. It is a straightforward case of data analysis with little to no personal opinion interjected. I then went on to call attention to several quotes from one of the example subjects (Josef Allen Hynek) because his observations bore directly on the basis for this discussion and the proper application of the scientific method -- which is the primary objection leveled against ID (in its alleged failure to adhere). Without debunking that perspective, I merely called attention to the bitter irony evidenced in arguments here within attempting to justify this article's bias.

I'll note in passing that it appears the word 'pseudoscience' has been removed in the introductory paragraph, so it seems in that much our argument has prevailed.

As for providing sources, it was not my goal to correct the information provided, merely to call attention to the way in which it was weighted. I have not set out to find alternate positive data on Mr. Meyer, but if you are looking for such, I'm certain that can be obtained. For those interested in a reasoned debate between Meyer and a chemist and biologist on the topic of ID, this is an excellent source that reveals the key aspects and high level of discourse: [1]https://idthefuture.com/1436/. RolftheRuf (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely those are your views, if they are someone else's whose are they? Doug Weller talk 16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience was removed by an editor who showed up after a months long gap of not editing and who had never edited this article or anything remotely related and removed it. A bit like you in fact although they have a longer history of editing. That was of course reverted. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, the reasoning that went into making the argument was mine. If we all had to cite references for every plausible point of logic no one would ever have an original thought. Nevertheless, I am amenable to where things stand. When time allows, perhaps I will look for alternative sources for informative details on Stephen C. Meyer in order to add balance. Until then... RolftheRuf (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Complaining that people reject an argument which you consider "reasonable" but which convinces nobody else here won't help your case. Misrepresenting the rejection of your reasoning as ad hominem won't either. Those tactics did not help the other fringe proponents who used them before. You need good reasons instead, and you do not have those. Otherwise the scientific community would already consider ID science instead of a sham. Can we stop this now? It's a waste of time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

A survey of this talk page

A quick survey of this talk page shows that there is an inappropriateness to use a pejorative term in the lead without sufficient backing up by reliable sources. Admittedly, it can be said that most scientists would say ID is pseudoscience, but it is another thing to classify a scientist as a pseudoscientist. If there are some sources that hold this view, then it can be put into a subsection, not in the lead. A vote is needed to settle this issue. Otherwise, I will calculate the percentage of people who supports the removal of the pejorative term. After all, Wikipedia is for rational, intelligent people to read. It is not a place to promote ideological agenda. It is not a place to educate people with the view you want. Just present the facts instead of being demeaning and unnecessarily polarized. Lightest (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Decisions inside Wikipedia are not taken through voting, see WP:DEM, i.e. if there are 99 votes for your proposal, but they go against WP:RULES, and one vote against your proposal, but compliant with WP:RULES, that only vote wins the dispute;
2. This isn't a debating championship, it is a mainstream encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse;
3. What you ignore is: Falk writes, "the book is supposed to be a science book and the ID movement is purported to be primarily a scientific movement – not primarily a philosophical, religious, or even popular movement", but concludes "If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public." This is semantically equivalent to saying that Meyer is a peddler of pseudoscience, since it fits the dictionary definition of pseudoscience. Your prejudice is that the word pseudoscience has to appear verbatim. While the P-word isn't mentioned in Falk's article, Meyer is described in great detail as a pseudoscientist. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

In English, text is written from left to right and from top to bottom. So, if you want to add new text, where should you add it? Hint: I moved it where it should be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So, now we have for "pseudoscientific" three WP:RS:

1. New York Times
2. BioLogos Foundation
3. NCSE Reports. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus, not voting or percentages, and "pseudoscience" is an accurate description, not a pejorative. If we Just present the facts instead of being demeaning and unnecessarily polarized, we get the article as it stands now. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not a place to promote ideological agenda.

So stop doing that. (Aside from the fact that the numerous demands to remove the word "pseudoscience" from the lede (and the actual removals, in violation of Wikipedia policy) are so obviously ideologically driven, in your case there is this from your talk page: "Discretionary sanction is a restriction placed on a Wikipedia editor who is found not to subscribe to leftist thought and ideology" -- as is often said of this sort of thing, every accusation is a confession) Jibal (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)